Prepared by the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition Page 1 of 15 02/20/2014 Public Comment Summary – King Range Wilderness Access Fee [Complete text of all comments, obtained from BLM under the Freedom of Information Act, is available on request.] Ambiguous Selected Excerpts From Comments Name City, State Supports Opposes or No (Chosen to show that comments were substantive and to demonstrate their tone and Opinion* tenor without being overly repetitive.) “This proposal is an outrage. Making access to our Wilderness treasures an “elitist” 1 A. Bonvouloir Sunnyvale,CA x experience available only to those who can afford to pay is offensive and counterproductive. Who gets the money?” 2 A. Pershnokov Not provided x 3 Abi Queen Petrolatum, CA x Petition signed by 21 people at the Petrolia Store from Oct 15-18 requesting a “local 4 Abi Queen (Petition) Petrolatum, CA x resident” exception to the fee/permit requirement. “I don't buy the argument that charging for access will keep out people who may not care for the wilderness as they should. People who would damage the wilderness 5 Adi Fairbank Portland, OR x wouldn't pay any fee anyway. All charging will do is change the public's relationship with their own land, making them feel they are not welcome and deterring them from enjoying it. This is the public's land, and everyone should have access to it.” “I am happy to pay for the backcountry and wilderness fee and increase for developed 6 Adrian Cerda Not provided x campagrounds proposed.” “A.J.” [Same comment submitted “The proposed fee would violate the intent and spirit of the Wilderness Act, including 7 Not provided x twice] protecting Wildernesses from commercialization and commodification.” “I would like to see the King Range properly funded so that it can be kept as a safe place for people to hike and seek some ‘alone-time'. I particularly don't want to be hiking along a nice trail and have to worry about being shot or attacked because of inadvertantly wandering into an area where farming that supports illegal drug trade is 8 Alan Fox Fortune, CA x occurring. I also don't want criminals fleeing the law coming to the King Range to hide for awhile. That's just plain dangerous for the rest of us 99.9% who use or would use the area if it were safer. I am a resident of Fortuna and Humboldt County, and support your proposed business plan.” 9 Albert Wiebe Not provided x “The proposed BLM access fee for the King Range WIlderness's "business plan" is not only in violation of the Federal Land Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) concerning undeveloped sites, but also violates the right of citizens to have access, not to mention it 10 Al Hansen Not provided x commercializes the BLM in collecting monies for access -- and that violates the Wilderness Act and a 2012 ruling by the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals concerning the Mount Lemmon area in the Coronado National Forest. It makes one wonder. Yes, everyone's short of money, but some things deserve priority.” 11 Ali Freedlund Arcata, CA x 12 Amy Curry River Vale, NJ x “I oppose the proposed fee hike in the King Range Conservation Area. To charge $5 a night for wilderness camping and $15 a night for your campgrounds, which are very 13 Amy Gustin Redway, CA x primitive, is way out of line. Camping is supposed to be an inexpensive activity, and it used to be free on many public lands. Your fee hike would make it less accessible for working people. It would be discriminatory, which is wrong on public lands.” “I want to comment that the King Range is NOT a business, and creating a price barrier to entry is not only ethically wrong from a class standpoint—it just makes people more angry and unhappy with the government--but it's bad economically for the BLM. How do tiny increases in fees ever pay for the cops to patrol and enforce them? Those cops 14 Andy Couturier Santa Cruz, CA x need training, uniforms trucks, repairs on the trucks, firearms, insurance on those firearms, health insurance , pensions, etc. The BLM and the forest service lands are one of the few places left where American citizens, whose land it is already can go without having to rent their time there. Can't you just let people be in the forest?” “I AM OPPOSED TO ANY ACCESS FEE for the King Range Wilderness. The proposed fees will allow access to the non-developed land at issue only by those who can pay the significant amount of money that will be required as per the proposal. This is not only Salt Lake City, 15 Andy Eatchel x unfair but also the FLREA does not permit such fees for access to designated UT Wilderness for noncommercial recreation. Such fees are a step toward privatization of OUR (i. e., public) lands. I wish to maintain my ability to access ALL Wilderness areas belonging to US, citizens of the United States of America.” * The BLM proposal has several components. Not everyone commented about the Wilderness access fee. Those who addressed only other issues or whose opinion about the Wilderness fee could not be discerned were categorized as "No Opinion or Ambiguous" for the purposes of this chart. That should not be taken to imply that their comment was not substantive on other topics. Prepared by the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition Page 2 of 15 02/20/2014 Public Comment Summary – King Range Wilderness Access Fee [Complete text of all comments, obtained from BLM under the Freedom of Information Act, is available on request.] Ambiguous Selected Excerpts From Comments Name City, State Supports Opposes or No (Chosen to show that comments were substantive and to demonstrate their tone and Opinion* tenor without being overly repetitive.) “Once again we are baffled by some of the positions our Land, Forest, and Water managers are taking. Several efforts have occurred to charge fees to enter national forests, fees to park at trailheads, etc., and now fees to enter Wilderness areas. Is the motivation money? Are you planning to begin some activity in this Wilderness? Wilderness is a very special designation which has intrinsic components. Lack of roadways, lack of maintained facilities, lack of signs of encroaching civilization. These components are priceless, and once you begin charging fees for entry, you 16 Ann & Paul Hill Stanley, ID x automatically defy the very attributes which make these areas so special. They are WILD! They are WILDERNESS! Please rethink this effort, which, in addition to all else, is against the law, and will result in litigation which could cost more than you might possibly bring in with fees. We are privileged to back up to the largest Wilderness in the lower 48 states, The Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness, and are committed to keeping it Wilderness, as we are with all others sharing the same designation. Please respect these very special places.” 17 Anne Dal Vera Not provided x 18 Anne Young Not provided x “Redwood Unit, Backcountry Horsemen of California are writing in opposition to the new Carole Polasek overnight use fee and the proposed backcountry and wilderness fee for the King Range Redwood Unit, Backcountry 19 Not provided x National Conservation Area (NCA). We also oppose the increase in the fees at the Horsemen of California Mattole, Honeydew Creek, Horse Mountain, Tolkan, Nadelos and Wailaki campgrounds President and Public Lands Chair from $8 to $15 per night.” 20 Barbara Aronowitz Not provided x “I oppose the wilderness access fee for the King Range National Conservation area in northern California. This fee would violate the Federal Land Recreation Enhancement 21 Barbara Baird Not provided x Act which prohibits fees for parking, hiking, and camping in undeveloped federal sites. This fee also violates the intent and spirit of the Wilderness Act. The KRNCA must be protected from commercialization.” “I am opposed to any fees for hiking and backpacking access to wilderness areas. My two children, my husband and I backpacked in wilderness areas every summer that we were able to get to the West in particular. That experience was invaluable and should obviously be the REASON for having wilderness. No private company managed our trips, we did our own thing and without any damage or danger to the wilderness or to us. 22 Barbara Bond Not provided x As a 77-yearold, I am weary of the government taking advantage of those people wishing to use that which belongs to all of us. And, by the way, get the private profit makers out of the business of running campgrounds in national parks. If electricity, showers, etc. are needed, let those private companies provide them on their property, not the nation's property. Grumpily yours,...” “The proposal by a federal bureaucratic entity, the BLM, to impose fees upon taxpaying Americans, and not an act of Congress, is to me an atrocity. What makes you think that Barbara Jacobsen on email ID but you have the authority to do this? We taxpayers pay for the upkeep of this wilderness. 23 Not provided x signed by Chris Monroe We also pay your salaries to manage the King's Range in a way beneficial to the American people, which to me does not include user fees. Your allocated budget is more than enough to cover that as well as other wilderness areas in America.” “I oppose the wilderness access fee for the following reasons: 1. The proposed fee would violate the Federal Land Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA), which prohibits fees for parking at, hiking through, or camping in undeveloped federal sites such as Wildernesses.