Excerpts from an op-ed in the Minnesota Star Tribune:
In a few weeks, some 200 Minnesota birders will flock to the Salt Lake Wildlife Management Area (WMA) in Lac qui Parle County near the South Dakota border... How much, you ask, will the birders pay to visit Salt Lake and similar important wildlife meccas? Nothing. Nada. Zero.Meanwhile, the wildlife photographer Bill Marchel of Brainerd — who is a birder by any definition — will need a virtual billfold full of licenses this fall to hunt on Salt Lake and nearby WMAs. Required will be a $22 small game license, an $8.25 state duck stamp, a $25 federal duck stamp and an $8.25 pheasant stamp. Salt Lake WMA’s 768 acres were, in fact, purchased by the Department of Natural Resources using money raised by hunting and fishing license sales...“Unfortunately,” Henderson said, “birders in Minnesota are so used to getting a free ride from habitat created by hunters that they’ve become accustomed to it. In every season other than fall, when hunters are on WMAs — which they’ve mostly paid for — birders are the biggest users of these areas."..What does Johnson pay to ride on Minnesota’s more than 4,000 miles of paved bike trails? Nothing. But, like a lot of bikers, he’d be glad to chip in. “In fact, I believe I should help pay for the trails,” he said.Minnesota bikers — like the state’s birders, and in fact hikers and others — can thank hunters and anglers for the nearly $700 million in Clean Water, Land and Legacy funds that have been spent building, improving and expanding the state’s parks and trails since 2010.And birders can thank the same hunters and anglers for the $1.7 billion spent on Minnesota wildlife habitat and related projects in the same years...As hunters and anglers continue to decline as a percentage of the state’s population, more Minnesotans of common interests are needed to join the conservation fight.
This would be just as true here in Michigan.
ReplyDeleteI already pay for my Michigan Parks sticker on my automobile license plates and I have no objection for another fee for use of non Park areas
I buy a Michigan fishing license every year even though I rarely fish, just so I feel I've contributed to access sites and my use of them.
DeleteI see the lack of fairness (for the hunters), but in my simple mind, it seems to me that the upper 10% of the wealth and income strata ought to pay for public services across the board. I pity the poor family trying to afford even a brief vacation in a national park, etc., with fees as they are. Why are we thinking about raising fees for public land access and not for libraries, schools, etc. I don't see the difference, unless our premise is that accessing natural places is some kind of extravagance; seems to me it's a necessity. I've long been opposed to park access fees of all kinds, mainly because those who need access most can afford it the least. Same with museums.
ReplyDeleteIt's absurd that I have a free lifetime "old fart" pass to national parks and other federal lands when I'm in the cohort, by age, with the most wealth.
DeleteWell it wasn't "free" but pretty close.
DeleteI would not mind paying to ride a bike in state parks here in my state. However, there several mountain biking groups that volunteer to help maintain trails that are open to cycling and they accept donations and/or volunteers. They build bridges and walls, clear fallen trees and branches, place blazes, construct signage, etc. The groups educate riders about avoiding riding in wet conditions. They even have trained rescue teams to help get someone out of the woods if they are injured or lost. I imagine other states must have such organizations.
ReplyDeleteThere are birders who buy duck stamps (never heard of pheasant stamps) for just this reason.
ReplyDeleteSandra
What does Johnson pay to ride on Minnesota’s more than 4,000 miles of paved bike trails? Nothing.
ReplyDeleteGet back to me (an avid biker) when all 135,000 miles of Minnesota roads are toll roads.
4,000 miles is pathetic BTW. The Netherlands, which is a big larger than Maryland (so a lot smaller than MN), has 153,000km in bike lanes. Paid from taxation without a single bike lane fee.
Over to the Mayor of Quebec City:
https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/1dg4h7v/tax_the_cyclists_journalist_gets_owned_by_the/
The whole point of taxes is to pay for things that individuals can not pay. Furthermore, collecting taxes is much more efficient than collecting fees for every freaking service that the government provides.
This is why tolls (and user fees) are stupid. For tolls you need to get a payment every time someone uses something. You need to administrate that. Taxes are collected lump sum and that's way cheaper.
Also, when you collect all these individual user fees, you get dumb arguments between groups of fee payers. As if hunters aren't also birders and bikers.
A bit of false equivalence there, Nepkarel. I'm sure you understand that "paved bike trails" are not the same as "bike lanes," which are also present on Minnesota roads.
Delete
DeleteThe point was that creating conflict between different users of the same facility over fees is a function of the existence of those fees. Get rid of them and the conflict goes away.
IMHO Parks should be free for all, because they're owned by us all (ok, you all, but I'm still paying taxes for them). Park entrance prices have gone way up in the last few years, and that means lower income people can't enjoy the parks anymore. That's not ok.
I totally agree with your second paragraph. I don't know enough info to judge the first one.
DeleteIf birders have to pay, will they be able to "keep" the birds they see, the same as hunters paying to "keep" their animals?
ReplyDeleteSounds very American to me. Someone is getting something for free? Make them pay! With a side dish of Why are there restrictions on people shooting guns?
ReplyDeleteI guess pricing people out of visiting national and state parks is all part of the American Way.