A backpacking tax?

[Wandering Daisy]

There have also been "provisional" fees (just another tax) assessed. I have yet to see any fee imposed that was later dropped. Years ago, the Desolation Wilderness fees were supposed to be a "test" and are still there, but they had no problem eliminating the very economic $20 annual fee. Even though Desolation is the closest wilderness to me, I rarely go there anymore- for same $$ I can go to Yosemite or Emigrant. But I suspect the underlying purpose of use-fees are to reduce use. The real crowd factor in Desolation is not backpacking, but day-hiking because the area is so small and so close to population centers. It is crawling with day-hikers, who pay no fees.

[Gogd]

Calm down, the author of the article linked by the OP suggests a hypothetical policy. There are no current considerations to levy a hiking tax.

Also let's not construe that Special Use Permits for Cabins in Mineral King ever included free access to the backcountry.

Politicians have been talking a long time about targeting recipients of myriad services for fee collection as a means to support these services, versus obtaining these revenues from the general fund accounts. They already do this in many instances. It is one way to look good to their constituents, claiming they lightened the burden of Joe Tax Payer by making only the beneficiaries pay for these services. For example, I paid just over $800 annually as a restaurant owner for a Health Department Permit, yet was inspected only 2 times every three years. Sooo what did they do with that revenue? This is obviously a shake down scheme, but it also illustrates taxation strategies hiding behind the cover of a permit or use fee are inefficient methods to collect revenue, particularly if we are talking about collecting low value fees currently charged to enter a park or obtain a trail permit. Each permit and fee revenue stream requires duplicating the bureaucracy already in place for collecting and managing general fund tax revenues. It would be cheaper if budgets for airports, boat marinas, first responders, park and forest service operations and many other niche services were also funded through the general fund revenue account.

Ed

[c9h13no3]

It is a fairly recent concept that public lands should be largely self-supporting It’s also a ridiculous concept. There are numerous things that are covered by taxes that much of the public does not utilize, from schools (only people with school-age children) to fire departments to even the police. Just how often do you actually need/use your local fire department in your lifetime? If you’re lucky, never. But I definitely want it there when/if there’s a fire. The same thing with the police. I am 70 years old and I have needed the police twice in my entire life.

Unfortunately, all of us who use public lands on a regular basis (where I live it’s literally almost every day) will probably always be dealing with and having to refute this ridiculous concept of public lands being self-supporting

I find this very convincing, but use fees are also very popular among the public. Bridges almost always have tolls, parking meters exist, and the public sees it as a more fair way of raising revenue than just taxing everyone. Of course, this is largely because of marketing. "Money from bridge tolls will go to pay for the bridge!" they say, but in reality the toll stays long after it's paid off to pay for other transportation projects.

Taxing backpacking is dumb for a variety of reasons. Parking fees are probably the most reasonable way to incur a use fee on recreational areas. It hits day hikers and backpackers roughly the same, and it encourages car pooling.

Currently one of the biggest sources of funding for public lands is fishing & hunting license fees. Anglers & hunters have historically paid more than their fair share.

[dave54]

...
Few people realize the thousands of new laws implemented each year which mostly go unnoticed, using the the federal rule making system. The most common use of it occurs when legislators pass a bill into law, but the actual details and text are written by the implementing "agency" (e.g. USFS) by an individual, often at a manger level occupation. The significant gap between the authority and intent of the legislator and the person writing the rule is huge, allowing for many fees to be slipped in for which the lawmakers never intended and never know about.

Have a look at the website where the rules are available for viewing, maybe do some searches on issues important to you, it'll make your head spin.
https://www.regulations.gov/

People often misunderstand how laws and the resulting regulations work.
Congress passes a law mandating X. The legislation specifically directs the appropriate government agency to implement the requirement. Supporters of the bill pop the champagne corks and all congratulate themselves on the 'ground breaking action'.

The agency HQ in Washington DC has their staff attorneys review the law and try to figure out what they are supposed to do, and review all the other laws that affect the new mandate. Departments heads get together and sketch out some actions to implement the new law. Their staffers flesh out the outline created by the dept heads and write specific regulations. The regulations are published for public comment. The original supporters of the bill are either pleased or angry with the proposed regulations (usually angry, don't do enough). The bill opponents are outraged. So the staffers go back to the drawing board to rewrite the regulations. This give and take usually takes several iterations to get everyone satisfied (no one is ever completely happy, the best you hope for is everyone is equally unhappy but willing to accept it). The regulations became official. The agency disseminates the regulations to their regional offices that write regional policy to implement the regulations. The individual offices receive the new regional policy, and try to figure out how to make it work, coming up with some action plan. Finally, the poor schmuck with boots on the ground is handed the local office plan and told "Go forth and make it work".
Now, what are the chances the way it gets done on the ground bears any resemblance to the original intention by the bill's sponsors?