The following editorial appeared in the Twin Falls, Idaho Times-News on September 19, 2002.
For years now, the Forest Service has plugged its forest access fees as an efficient way to improve recreation and trailhead facilities.
But lots of hikers, bikers and other outdoorsmen disagree. Many recreationists view the fee, which charges forest users $5 a day and $15 for a year pass, as a double tax on people who visit public forests.
Now, it appears a lot of Forest Service employees aren't crazy about the program, either.
In a recent survey of Forest Service workers in Oregon and Washington, only 40 percent of 2,240 respondents approved of the fee program. Thirty-eight percent opposed it, and the rest were undecided. The survey was detailed in a story by The Oregonian of Portland earlier this week.
The 2,240 respondents don't represent a national sampling of Forest Service employees, but the survey suggests considerable internal opposition to trailhead fees. When even the federal employees who enforce the fees aren't convinced of the benefits, something is amiss in the campaign to keep them in place.
Fees haven't been felt just in Oregon and Washington, but nationwide. Closer to home, the enforcement of trailhead passes has created a controversy among many public land users. Since 1997, the Sawtooth National Forest has enforced fees at 38 trailheads in the Ketchum Ranger District and Sawtooth National Recreation Area.
Along with the survey results, the Oregon environmental group Wild Wilderness quoted a variety of comments from Forest Service employees. A few examples:
* "This program will continue to be a train wreck and a black eye to the agency."
* "I pay enough in taxes. This is public land for the Public. Get rid of it."
* "Next thing we will have a fee to use the toilet, which is where this program should go."
* "Give the public back their freedom to visit and recreate in their (our) land. The person(s) who thought this up and implemented it should be severely disciplined ... Dumbest thing we have done in years. Absolutely asinine."
* "We are paying a heavy price with the public over this issue. Why?"
* "Bad public relations. Put it to rest. RIP."
Remember, these are federal employees who could be expected to support a revenue-generating program. Yet a large number of them recognize that this program's negatives outweigh the benefits.
The recreational public is starting to fight back. These employees clearly are tired of being blamed for a bad policy.
If Forest Service leaders won't heed the public outcry to stop these fees, perhaps they should start listening to their own colleagues.