KRA Posting Regarding Forest Service Meeting On User Fees
PRIVATE BOATERS MEETING WITH THE FOREST SERVICE
July 31st, 7:00
at the Forest Service Building in Kernville.
Dear Private Boaters,
Congress has given permission for the Forest Service to charge for
river permits. 80% of the fees are to be used to benefit the boating community.
Unfortunately, the Forest Service has no idea was benefits us, what our needs
are, what improvements they could make. They do not know how much they will
charge, if it will be yearly, or, if in fact they will charge a fee at all.
THEY NEED FEEDBACK!!!!
Please come to the meeting. Bring ideas on how they could help us.
If you cannot attend the meeting PLEASE fill out this survey and send it to :
KRA: Survey PO Box 93 Kernville, CA 93238
PRIVATE BOATERS SURVEY
1. How do you feel about having to pay for a river permit?
2. If the fee was implemented, what do you think is a reasonable amount,
and how should it be charged (annual pass, upper, lower)?
3. What are some things the fee could be used for to benefit the private
boater? (Some suggestions have been river signs to show the rapids, education
for people on river safety, web page showing flows and camp site availability,
river ranger, trash pick up, bathrooms. or...?)
4. What do you think about the manifest boxes and signing the manifests?
5. If you run the lower Kern, what do you think about the fees for the
parking?
6. If the Forest Service hired a river Ranger, what could be part of their
job that would BENEFIT us? (Besides Not give us tickets...)
7. Any other comments, complaints (try to keep it under ten pages...) and
suggestions. :)
Here is the American Whitewater response to the Kern River survey:
PRIVATE BOATERS SURVEY
1. How do you feel about having to pay
for a river permit?
Fee Demo was established as a way for all users to help pay for the
resource. Charging for permits under fee demo is a direct contradiction of the
intent of Congress for this program, it targets one user group to support the
program.
2. If the fee was implemented, what do you think is a reasonable
amount? And how should it be charged (annual pass, upper, lower)?
First fees must be equitable among all user groups. For instance, an
entrance fee would target all users at an equitable price. However, even a
parking fee should take into account those who use the resource on a daily or
weekly basis (ie locals in the Kern Valley). Annual passes and weekly passes
are one way to accomplish this. The NPS Golden Eagle pass costs $50 per year
and gets you into most federally managed areas in the country. Regional or
individual resource passes should use the Golden Eagle as a guage. Great Falls
Park in Maryland and Virginia have a $10 weekly pass that gets you into either
park, and is the same for all user groups. Annual passes should cover a wide
range of resources. For example, it would be unacceptable to have separate
passes for the Upper and Lower Kern. To take this one step further, Federal
Agencies should coordinate among themselves on at least a regional basis before
issuing annual or weekly passes. Having a pass which is acceptable to a number
of agency managed resources is both convenient for users and easily managed and
enforced by the agencies benefiting from the pass.
3. What are some things the fee could be used for to benefit the
private boater? (Some suggestions have been river signs to show the rapids,
education for people on river safety, web page showing flows and camp site
availability, river ranger, trash pick up, bathrooms. or...?)
While each of these are a benefit, none are benefits to just boaters.
Therefore, boaters cannot be the only ones paying for these services. If
boaters want specific benefits, then they should ask the FS to obtain better
flow in the river, better access around Fairview dam, and a fair policy that
allows boaters to run all or part of the Lower Kern. All of this can be
accomplished through relicensing of the 6 dams on the Kern (and the FS has just
approved $11M per year for the next 3 years to work on improving rivers through
relicensing) so this should not come from fee demo.
4. What do you think about the manifest boxes and signing the
manifests?
(I'll keep quiet here; I need more information on what this is
about?)
5. If you run the lower Kern, what do you think about the fees for
the parking?
While we said above that parking fees would be fair, the Lower Kern
is a good example of a parking fee that is not! It is also a good
demonstration of how this program needs to be coordinated. It is my
understanding that boaters now need to pay a fee at both the put in parking lot
and the take out parking lot? If this is correct then this unfairly targets
boaters to pay twice. Also, the FS does not allow boaters to run only a piece
of the river, it's either all or nothing which eliminates boaters from
afterwork or other short runs on this river and reduces those able to enjoy the
Lower Kern run. Before the FS can begin to charge boaters with any fee on this
river section (including parking) they need to resolve this issue first.
(Besides, boaters have been subsidizing the FS for years with the bogus tickets
given out if you want to take out somewhere else than the designated parking
areas)
6. If the Forest Service hired a river Ranger, what could be part of
their job that would BENEFIT us? (Besides Not give us tickets...)
American Whitewater opposes fees to put more rangers on the river,
unless the need is obvious to all and well documented. If your skilled enough
to run almost any section of the Kern (as a noncommercial boater), then you do
not need rangers to explain safety or river etiquette. This leaves only
enforcement that we do not support. Again, river safety would benefit all river
users (commercial and non-commercial) and should not be paid for by
non-commercial boaters. (PS What is being discussed regarding commercial
companies paying for fee demo?)
7. Any other comments, complaints (try to keep it under ten pages...)
and suggestions. :)
I think I've said enough for now! Jason Robertson Access Director
301-589-9453 American Whitewater fax: 301-589-6121