Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Bill to make fee demo permanent
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Allison
Feckless Swooner



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12287 | TRs | Pics
Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes
Allison
Feckless Swooner
PostWed Oct 22, 2003 10:17 pm 
Slugman wrote:
You guys are arguing apples and oranges. ML means NFS harvesting only, but troutman appears to mean all timber cutting. There couldn't be no cutting going on if ML's father is still scaling logs. If private lands are providing timber, then we can afford to give the public lands a rest for a few decades.
Okay first of all, if what Slug says is true, then why, Troutman, do you say that this is providing the FS with enough $$ revenue from logging to offset the perceived need from the Fee Demo? How much revenue does the logging of private lands provide to the FS? None. Not even five bucks. Now, as far as my dad is concerned, scaling by an independant beureau, such as the one my dad works for (Puget Sound Log Scaling and Grading Bureau) is required by federal mandate for all logs cut on Federal land. It just so happens that in W Wa, for a number of reasons, but largely due to the export market here, everyone gets their logs scaled by his bureau or one other. My numbers of 300 down to 75 reflect these 2 bureaus. The other is in Grays Harbor. TM, if you would like to verify my claims re the reduction of workforce in scalers, a call to the PSLS&GB, located in Tacoma, should be enough information. They are a non-profit scaling bureau. Exact numbers may vary, but it should be pretty close to what dad says. Back to point: in any case the revenues being currently generated in W Wa from logging in the NFs do not amount to enough to pay for what you need as a hiker. I would love it if someone could prove me wrong, because I feel as though I am currently arguing on the wrong side.

www.allisonoutside.com follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
polarbear
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 3680 | TRs | Pics
Location: Snow Lake hide-away
polarbear
Member
PostThu Oct 23, 2003 1:11 am 
Quote:
Back to point: in any case the revenues being currently generated in W Wa from logging in the NFs do not amount to enough to pay for what you need as a hiker.
I think this is right. I believe it was in the 70's and early 80's when alot of timber revenue was coming in that there were big plans, like for the loop road to Lake Dorothy. Anyone remember the specifics on this plan?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
frankm3
Member
Member


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 338 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle, WA
frankm3
Member
PostThu Oct 23, 2003 8:57 am 
There's been some really good discussion on this topic, some of you have had a lot of good things to say. I thought hikermike, Timber Cruiser, marylou, Kiliki, Slugman and TroutMan's (sorry if I am forgetting anyone) posts all had some great information and/ or added some good perspective to this discussion. I think as someone else mentioned, there was just too much to respond to!!! I think I initially responded to this post by offering the sentiment "what's wrong with pitching in to pay my fair share". In concept, I have no problem with 'doing my part'. After all, in these times of budget crunches, there's less money to go around for everyone. What really 'burns my bacon' (as one of you mentioned ealier...that's not good- you can't have burnt bacon!) too in this whole thing is not being asked to pay a little bit, but more the idea that this is being legislated upon us from afar. The entire fashion in which this fee is being put upon us seems grossly inequitable/ unfair. If there is a NATIONAL shortfall in the USFS budget, then why are only those who live in the western US picking up the tab? As I think someone else mentioned, we here in the PNW have been viewed as a revenue source to be tapped. So now in effect, you and I are being asked to pay for someone else's trip back east where they STILL won't have to pay to go use their forests. An interesting aside- we talked about the timber harvest. Locally, based on what you all are saying, the timber harvest on USFS land appears to well below the national average apparently. The numbers I were quoting were for the entire US- so if nationally, timber sales are 65% of USFS revenue, we are 'behind the curve' here in WA and the PNW. I would certainly imagine that this is having some effect on our local NFS situation here. Frank

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 1696 | TRs | Pics
Location: Silverdale, WA
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker
PostThu Oct 23, 2003 9:05 am 
frankm3 wrote:
If there is a NATIONAL shortfall in the USFS budget, then why are only those who live in the western US picking up the tab? As I think someone else mentioned, we here in the PNW have been viewed as a revenue source to be tapped. So now in effect, you and I are being asked to pay for someone else's trip back east where they STILL won't have to pay to go use their forests.
The trail pass fees collected in the local area stay in the local area. It is a national program but the fee structure is determined on a local level (national pass proposals not withstanding). It is not the case that western users are picking up the tab for users in other parts of the country.

that elitist from silverdale wanted to tell me that all carnes are bad--Studebaker Hoch
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
frankm3
Member
Member


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 338 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle, WA
frankm3
Member
PostThu Oct 23, 2003 9:18 am 
Brian Curtis wrote:
The trail pass fees collected in the local area stay in the local area. It is a national program but the fee structure is determined on a local level (national pass proposals not withstanding). It is not the case that western users are picking up the tab for users in other parts of the country.
Thanks for posting and correcting me on this Brian.... It seems as though it may make it safe to say that our local budgetary shortfalls are what is generating the need for fee demonstation then? I am asking this again as it relates to what we were talking about to USFS timber harvests nationally vs. locally. If harvest of timber has footed the bill in the past and the money's gone now, whether or not we need fees is kind of a moot point in some regards. Unless congress/ political forces in power feel that giving us all a trip to the woods is suddenly worth more tax money, we need to pay some fees. Our discussions motivated me to call someone I know who works in the Darrington RD and ask about fee demo in our area and timber cutting. There is almost no cutting going on in MBSNF right now (could not provide numbers), but indicated it was 'insignificant'. What is being cut now is only selective harvest, or forest health cutting. His history in the Ranger District goes back to the 'big cut' days of the 80's, big revenue, and lots of money for maintenance, etc. Whether or not this person agrees with fee demonstration or not, he has seen some positive effects, bigger trail crews, new concrete toilets, etc. which all came from the NW pass funds. Again, I don't mind paying my share. The manner in which this is being thrust upon us what I am at issue with. The penalties for non-compliance also appear to be greatly disproportionate to the offense. More than anything else, I am amazed at how exceedingly complex this issue becomes the more you discuss it. I have learned a lot, and continue to learn more! I am actually going to see about getting one of the books Kiliki mentioned at the library as a good forestry primer. Frank

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
JimK
Member



Joined: 07 Feb 2002
Posts: 5606 | TRs | Pics
Location: Ballard
JimK
Member
PostThu Oct 23, 2003 9:59 am 
Brian, Your answer is correct as far as it goes. The money is spent in the area where it is collected. It is a little suspicious though that the national allocation to our area has badly lagged the rest of the country since the fee demo went in here. I posted a chart earlier that shows that the NW region has had a 15% increase in its allocation while the whole FS recreation budget has gone up over 46% (1997-2002). Earlier post with chart These are the General Accounting Office audited numbers. It looks to me that either our region does a lousy lobbying job or the national office uses our fee demo money to allow it to spend more elsewhere. By the way, if the FS is getting so little money for recreation why has their budget gone up at a rate two times the overall budget since 1997. Can someone give me a good answer? These numbers do not include the fee demo money. The 46% increase is without it.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
troutman
Member
Member


Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 89 | TRs | Pics
troutman
Member
PostThu Oct 23, 2003 10:12 am 
If you were to take a look at the distribution of money generated by the fee demo program, you will find that our local Federal Departments are not reporting their annual expenditures as they are required by the Constitution of the United States. This violates the Constitution and therefore violates our rights as taxpayers. Granted, there is a report of revenues and expenditures but it is incomplete. Just do the mathematics. See line 4 listed in the annual report under, "Lessons Learned and Suggestions for Legislative and Management Improvements" http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/feedemo/projects02/fy02_annual_report_to_congress.pdf The other thing you will notice is that the National Park Service is generating most of the revenue from the Fee Demo Program. In 2002 $125,000,000 was obtained from the NPS. There is an unobligated balance of $267,000,000 from previous years of revenue. They only spent $106,000,000 of 2002's earnings. In 2002, the USFS generated 37,000,000 and has an unobligated balance of 19,000,000 from previous years of revenue. They spent $45,000,000 however in 2002. They took a loan out for fire supression which is why the balance is over budget. The expenditures are 2,000,000 under their revenues with the Pacific Northwest USFS. I believe that the program is allowing each Service to spend what they gain from the program which is why the bill is probably going to pass without the taxpayers consent. The Forest Service is our biggest threat.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Bill to make fee demo permanent
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum