Our view: Pay to picnic in woods? That's going too far

| The New Mexican

12/23/2007 - 12/23/07

Otra vez: Federal officials, casting about for ways to afford the upkeep on public-recreation places, want you to pay to picnic, hike, and, in some places, to camp where it once was free.

Oops, did we say free? It never was, of course; your federal income tax is supposed to cover the management of national parks and forests. But because that money is tied up in tax breaks for Big Oil, occupation of Iraq and other priorities of the present administration and a Congress unable to rein it in, too little serves the vast majority of taxpayers.

Last spring, the National Park Service launched a publicity effort to make Americans love the idea of higher fees. And since, for the past decade, individual parks and forests get to keep 80 percent of the gate, ticket-price boosts are a big deal for regional bureaucrats.

Now it's the U.S. Forest Service seeking li'l ways to gouge Northern New Mexicans and those who visit here.

Feel like a short drive up to Aspen Vista for a picnic or a hike? If the florestas get away with their plan, it'll cost you — probably $4 or $5, which could further discourage forays into nature when folks already aren't getting out enough.

And campgrounds would be federal money-grabs — through fees where there didn't used to be any, or higher tabs where 10 bucks once would allow you to bed down.

For many people, a few dollars for a few hours at a picnic table is no deterrent, or so figure forest officials. For others in our high-poverty area, the notion of loading up on groceries for the family, then being nicked at the picnic ground, could mean the end of that Sunday-afternoon activity.

Oh, but now it'll be safer and nicer, say the feds: The fees, in time, will allow us to have rangers around — and to keep the grounds cleaner. And don't forget that federal favorite, the infrastructure: It's been aging, and this money might allow refurbishing.

But so might money from Congress appropriated for just that purpose. Sens. Jeff Bingaman and Pete Domenici, as well as Rep. Tom Udall, to put it ungrammatically, need leaning on — not just for general-fund money to fix up park and forest sites, but to stop giving officials excuses for closing down facilities, as they've been doing up in Colorado.

Given the money-stays-here argument for more and higher fees, we might expect nice camping and picnicking for the money — and be able to hold local rangers accountable if things don't improve. That's a tall order in America's leading litter state, where the Woodsy Owl pleas for picking up after oneself are ignored by far too many people.

The fees might generate enough for at least a little more policing of grounds. But so would general-fund dollars, if our congressional delegation and others from around the West would speak up for parks, monuments and woods.

The local fee increase needs approval from a citizen-volunteer advisory council. Its well-meaning members might see the merit in fresh revenue — and, despairing of action on Capitol Hill, could OK it. But the group's members should see past the pro-fee propaganda to the people for whom fees are a burden too many.