[Nmcaver] nmcaver Digest, Vol 21, Issue 9

[Stephen Fleming]

Mike_Bilbo at nm.blm.gov wrote:
> I do agree with you in the concern that (and this is a very real future possibility) if people have to pay annual fees to visit public lands, are those lands actually public?
You bet, but in name only.
> Personally, I don't use those passes and probably never will.
I only get one for parks when I think I will exceed the value of the 
card. I hate being nickeled and dimed at every gate. Buying one in no 
way means I accept the premise they are a legitimate charge to use 
public land. Anymore, I pretty much only go to Big Bend. That is the 
only park that is more like BLM/FS land in that I can go days there 
without having to interface with the agency once, of course, I pay my 
entry fee to access my public land. My enjoyment of any public land is 
not enhanced by an agency constantly checking on me.
> The concern is the National Parks Pass and other annual passes becoming mandatory, especially Forest and BLM managed land.
>   
Hold onto your shorts. It's only a matter of time before this stuff 
infects those agencies. The public needs to get really riled up about 
this stupidity, but as we all know there is a large contingent that 
doesn't see any problem with how this is progressing.
> Back to the subject of convenience of those passes, I remain correct on that, the convenience - people can choose to pay or not pay. 
>   
I never argued that. However, it is not an issue of whether to pay or 
not with the NPS. You WILL pay. It merely is an issue of how you choose 
to pay.
> On NPS-managed land, is that land technically public, given NPS protection mandate (as opposed to multiple use)?  Years ago I got into trouble by
> leaving a trail and traveling cross country in the back country of Guadalupe Mountains NP.  I maintained it was public land and that I could do that as I wanted to visit an area other than where the trails led.  I was informed to go back to the trail and stay on the trail, end of discussion.
The NPS has hidden behind that 'preserve for future generation' line for 
years. They probably can't even explain what it means. The only way they 
seem to be able to apply it is to increasingly restrict public use. If 
you lock everything down so no one can use the resource, who are they 
saving it for? Technically, WE are one of those future generations. I'm 
ready to use the resources but cannot freely do so. While there 
certainly are exceptions in specific, finite areas, I don't believe you 
will find the NPS approach overall results in any better 
preservation/management than the other land agencies accomplish; but 
they try their best to be the Disneyland of public land with a packaged 
facade of how they think it must have been once upon a time. What the 
NPS is especially good at is regulating you to death with far more rules 
than are reasonably necessary. The NPS is in the mode of tracking 
everything you do. That's why there are camping permits, backcountry 
permits, hiking permits, trail registers, river permits, etc. Once you 
are successful in teaching the public they have to get a permit, it 
becomes much easier to attach a fee to that process. Throw up an entry 
booth and you can capture them at the boundary with the first of many fees.

As to making you stay on a trail. Well, they have obviously determined 
that you represent a threat to something if you are allowed to wander at 
will. Remember by providing you with a trail they already have 
determined what it is you will be allowed to see and experience. They 
have picked the best for you. As long as you don't have any exploratory 
urges you will be happy. Much of their clientele is happy. As long as 
they can stamp their park passport and take a picture of the entrance 
sign their trip is a success. It's a lot like standing in line at Six 
Flags to ride the rollercoaster. Follow the queue and be sure to visit 
the gift shop on the way out.

The NPS is a real different animal. Think about contacts you have had 
with employees of the NPS vs. the USFS or BLM. The FS and BLM more often 
than not refer to the land they manage as your lands or public lands. 
How often do you hear NPS employees refer to the parks as 'our' 
land/park (in the possessive, from their perspective)? A lot more than 
the other agencies. They have a very proprietary mindset and have lost 
sight of who they are managing those public lands for. Their institution 
will survive, but your access to the land may not make it. The NPS won't 
ever let it happen, but if they would substantially back off their 
onerous oversight of public use they might find they are just as 
successful in management without running around wagging their fingers at 
everyone and always saying 'pay' and 'no'. If they spent their time 
dealing with the 20% who create 80% of the problems, their overhead 
costs would go down, enforcement of real violations would go up because 
they wouldn't be spending all their time chasing after $3 or $10 fees 
like embarrassed beggars, and the majority of us who cause no problems 
ever on any public land and don't need our hands held could just be left 
the hell alone. It's simple concept and because of that it won't work.