![]()
|
|||||||||
|
The on-line Nugget does not feature all the stories of our print edition. For all the news, subscribe here.
©
2002 Display
Advertising The
contents of the on-line edition of The Nugget represent a selection
among the stories that appear in the weekly print edition. |
Activists
claim fee demo deception Opponents
of Forest Service trail fees are citing a General Accounting Office (GAO)
report that they say proves the agency is padding the numbers in an effort
to make its fee program look like a success.
In a recently released
joint statement, Oregon-based Wild Wilderness and the Colorado-based Western
Slope No-fee Coalition reported: "The U.S. Forest Service has been secretly
subsidizing the management of its Fee Demo program with (in 2001) $10
million of appropriated tax dollars."
According to Scott
Silver, Bend resident and Executive Director of Wild Wilderness, the report
"reveals a deep-seated culture of deception and a total lack of accountability
within the Forest Service's Fee Demo program."
Rex Holloway, spokesman
for the Deschutes-Ochoco National Forests, denied that any deception was
involved but admitted, "That report did find that in some cases we were
using appropriated dollars, but we were consistent with federal accounting
procedures."
Holloway said the
appropriated funds were channeled the way they were to permit the actual
dollars from fee collections to go directly to physical improvements.
"I think we've been
pretty up front with Congress about how much it costs to collect the fees,"
he said.
The problem, Silver
says, is that the Forest Service showed the collected fees going to projects
but failed to report appropriated expenditures as an offset to the funds
collected.
"For example," he
said, "we pay Rex Holloway in appropriated dollars, but the work he and
others do to promote Fee Demo should rightfully be debited to Fee Demo.
That's the kind of subsidy we're talking about."
The charges leveled
by the fee opponents come at a time when Congress must decide whether
to continue the controversial program.
Silver said that
forest fee opposition groups are active in Arizona, California, Colorado,
Oregon, Washington and elsewhere.
Oregon is among several
states with legislatures that have gone on record as opposing the federal
program.
"Across the nation,"
Silver said, "forest fees have outraged the American public, who are well
aware that tax dollars have maintained our National Forests for over a
century for all Americans to enjoy."
Page 30 of the 48-page
GAO report specifically cites "inaccurate reporting" that leaves the Forest
Service with "no assurance" that it complies with a ceiling of 15 percent
on fee collection costs.
According to the
figures in the fee opponents' joint news release, when appropriated fund
expenditures are factored in, the real cost of fee collection is 50 percent
of the amount collected.
Further, fee opponents
suggest that the use of appropriated funds to offset costs is not only
deception but a misuse of public funds.
Robert Funkhouser,
President of the Western Slope No-fee Coalition is presently in Washington,
D.C., lobbying against the forest fees. He said that people in places
like Sisters have a lot at stake.
"There were some
things we were talking about with members of Congress today," Funkhouser
said in an exclusive interview with The Nugget, "and there's a lot of
agreement in both parties that it (the Fee Demo program) unfairly targets
rural Americans and particularly rural Westerners."
Funkhouser went on
to say, "The forests belong to the American people, not the agencies.
If the agencies aren't accountable, how can they ask the American public
to throw in more money? It's like a black hole."
He expressed optimism
and said that he sees a legislative consensus forming and hopes to see
a bill put together to end the Fee Demo program this year.
"It is time for Congress
to terminate this ill-conceived fee program. Americans have already paid
taxes to maintain what is theirs," he said.
"The perverse incentive
created by letting land management agencies appropriate their own funds,
outside of congressional oversight, leads to the abuses we see in this
report," Funkhouser said.
"This GAO report
shows that the Forest Service misled Congress and the American people
about the costs involved with forest fees."
Various news reports
have indicated that Oregon Congressman Greg Walden, who represents Central
Oregon, is opposed to the fee program.
However, it is unclear
at this point what, if any, action he has taken on the issue. An inquiry
to his office on the subject elicited a response related to the military
appropriations budget.
While Walden and
his congressional colleagues have not made the plan permanent, they have
extended the fees multiple times.
The program is due
to expire again on September 30, 2004.
Silver and his allies
continue to vigorously oppose the plan and hope to see the program end
then, if not before.
Silver feels that
the movement is gaining momentum.
"This past weekend
was a great one for us for editorials," he said.
"The Denver Post
and the newspaper in Twin Falls, Idaho, ran editorials calling for an
end to the Fee Demo program."
According to Silver,
some people oppose the fee program because it has the potential to commercialize
and privatize the use of the National Forests; some oppose it because
it represents a form of double-taxation.
Either way, he says,
"It's a bad plan."
Funkhouser agrees
and emphasizes that Republicans and Democrats alike are opposing the program.
"It's not a partisan
issue," he said. "The people who oppose this come from the widest possible
political spectrum." |
|
|||||||