PAYING TO PLAY: THE FUTURE OF RECREATION FEES.

Only recently have recreation fees begun to swing from indoor services and facilities -- ice arenas and swimming pools, for example -- and infiltrate the world of outdoor recreation. Subsequently, and not surprisingly, fees in outdoor recreation have become a topic of much debate and study. And while the implementation of outdoor recreation fees is quite advanced in the United States, Canada has yet to implement them outside of its national parks, although it is evident that there exists much potential.

Recreation fees are monetary payments given in turn for admittance or use of a recreational area or service. These fees often are charged so that a service or site may be maintained to the public's expectations. Unfortunately, public lands are often viewed as free spaces, and recreation fees infringe upon this view. Canadians view forests as national treasures that are being held in trust for future generations (Carrow, 1994).

Because of the public's love for forested landscapes, fee implementation is a subject of heated debate. Levying fees for the use of public lands has been one of the most controversial topics in outdoor recreation over the last decade (More, Dustin & Knopf, 1996). However, these fees are more accepted now than ever before.

As Canadian and U.S. governments cut funding for public park and recreation areas, other sources of funding must be located in order to support these sites. According to Hammond (1991), between fiscal years 1982 and 1989, the Canadian Ministry of Forests' budget dropped from $4.2 million to $3.38 million. The budget allocated to the Vancouver forest region was $500,000. In contrast, the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest in Washington state, many times smaller than the Vancouver forest region and considered a "poorly funded" national forest, spent $1.19 million.

This article will look at the results of implementing recreation fees on public forestlands in the United States, and how Canada needs to adopt a similar management strategy.

Not Out of the Forest

It's a fact that outdoor recreation users contribute large sums of money to the tax base (Steinstra, 1997). Unfortunately, very little of this revenue is used to maintain and manage the sites from whence it was generated.

An audit of the U.S. Forest Service by the General Accounting Office (1997) shows that 74 percent of its contribution to the gross national product comes from outdoor recreation, especially from camping, fishing and hiking; yet Congress allocates only 2.5 percent of the Forest Service budget to recreation (Steinstra, 1997).

This inconsistency generally stems from the lack of importance that has been given to outdoor recreation, an attitude that is now changing.

As we move into the 21st century, greater emphasis is being placed upon the importance of outdoor recreation (Warren & Rea, 1998). Public forestlands can no longer be managed strictly from an industrial point of view. The public is demanding that the full range of recreational, social, and environmental values be given greater consideration (British Columbia Ministry of Forests, 1991).

Unfortunately, current government budgets call for the money that is generated from outdoor recreation to be allocated for vital public services such as education and health care. As a result, legislation has allowed the Forest Service to implement outdoor recreation fees.

Recreation Fee Demonstration Project

In 1996 a recreation fee demonstration program was legislated by Congress to test the effectiveness of recreation fees among the Forest Service and three other agencies. This program, which ends in September, gauges the practicality of collecting fees to help maintain federal recreational facilities and enhance visitor services and wildlife habitat (USDA Forest Service, 1998).

Forest recreation areas provide a variety of recreation opportunities, many of which have traditionally been provided for free. Visitors use restrooms and trash facilities, campgrounds, picnic areas, exhibits, and resource restoration programs -- all of which cost money to run (USDA Forest Service, 1999). More notable are the vital -- and expensive to maintain -- systems upon which visitors rely.

In the Pacific Northwest, the recreation fee pilot project has spurred the implementation of the Trail for Generations Trail Park Project. Specifically designed to generate funds for trail maintenance, this experimental fee project allows for trailhead parking fees (USDA Forest Service, 1997). The project has enjoyed great success since its inception in 1997. Through the generation of revenue and involvement of the community in revitalization of recreation areas, this project has contributed to the quality of the system as a whole (USDA Forest Service, 1998, '97).

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest

Through the Trail for Generations Trail Park Project, the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest has generated the revenue needed to properly maintain and improve forest areas for outdoor recreation (Table 1). From January 1998 through mid-October 1998, the project generated $532,000, $460,000 of which was returned directly to the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest (USDA Forest Service, 1998).

Unlike many other forms of outdoor recreation revenue, money generated by outdoor recreation fees through this program is being returned to its source. This is critical, as research has revealed that the majority of the public will accept paying fees only if their money is returned directly to the site that they are paying to use (Johnson, 1991; Kerr & Manfredo, 1991).

Unfortunately, not all outdoor recreation sites are this self-sufficient. Remote areas and areas with minimal visitation are unable to generate ample funds to offset budget cuts. The nature and extent of economic activity will depend on a number of factors such as the type of area, facilities and services, features, location, and management of the area (Ecopolus Consulting Services, 1995).

As such, the U.S. Recreation Fee Legislation authorizes each area to retain 75 percent of its newly collected recreation fees,

[MISSING PAGES]

TABLE 1. MT. BAKER-SNOQUALMIE NATIONAL FOREST
WORK FUNDED BY TRAIL PARK PROJECT

(Source: USDA Forest Service, 1998)

Services:

1. Twenty-four trail maintenance workers ($240,000).

2. Two trail maintenance contracts ($53,669).

3. Four Northwest Youth Corps crews ($22,400).

4. $20,000 partnership agreement with Washington Trails Association,
   which resulted in $18,000 worth of trail maintenance work.

5. Worked with more than 20 volunteer organizations to accomplish
   trail maintenance work.

6. Hired the equivalent of five part-time seasonal workers for
   information services and sales; funded part-time accountant and
   processor.

Trail maintenance:

1. Cleared (removed downed trees and branches), 741 miles.

2. Brushed, 409 miles.

3. Trail tread repairs, 93 miles.

4. Drainage work, 203 miles.

5. Puncheon (replace/repair boardwalks), 546 feet.

6. Turnpikes (built-up trail tread), 1,080 feet.

Trailhead maintenance:

 1. Maintained 61 trailhead toilets.

 2. Maintained/updated 136 trailhead bulletin boards.

Nicole A. Bates, an avid outdoor enthusiast in her own right and a natural resources management student at UNBC, takes a closer look at the practice of levying fees for the use of public lands. Long the standard at indoor facilities -- ice arenas, weight rooms, and swimming pools -- recreation fees have only recently begun to infiltrate the world of outdoor recreation. And while the implementation of outdoor recreation fees is quite advanced in the United States, Canada has yet to implement them outside of its national parks (p. 46).3