Flap Over Forest Fees

* Re “Opposition to Forest Fee Heating Up,” Aug. 17: I will be pleased to pay for my Adventure Passes, as soon as the logging, mining and livestock industries start paying a fair fee for their use of our national lands. As it stands, we Americans are subsidizing extractive businesses, including foreign-owned companies, that are permitted to profit from below-market sale of timber and mining claims and grazing leases. After the “resource” is depleted, we taxpayers get to pay for the cleanup of eroded mountainsides, clogged rivers, denuded stream banks and toxic tailings.

In a lifetime of enjoying our beautiful national parks, forests, monuments and recreation areas, I will not profit by a penny, nor will I have extracted an ounce of ore or a board-foot of tree, yet I will, and have, gladly pay for the invaluable experiences that I’ve had. The heavy users should pay as well.

GARY PAUDLER

Summerland

* The uproar over the Forest Adventure Pass is unfortunate. Funding for national forests and parks stands at 1966 per capita levels. The infrastructure is collapsing under the increased popularity.

Thanks to the Forest Adventure Pass, I have seen the following improvements--Ice House Canyon on Mt Baldy: For the first time in years, this hasn’t been trash strewn and abused. South Fork Creek near Llano in the Antelope Valley is likewise nearly natural, and not littered and blighted. New Pacific Crest trail and road signs have appeared along the Angeles Crest Highway.

I’ll bet that most of the people who hate the “guvmint” expect a free ride in national forests. If Californians want to keep their forests and parks from being a corporate theme-park or landfill, it’s going to require more than a Forest Adventure Pass. And hey! It’s my backyard too.

LARRY GASSAN

Los Angeles

* Re “Old Animosities and New Battles,” Aug. 15: It seems to me that the “heroes” of Rio Arriba County are as thoroughly hypocritical as any big-time, big-city wheeler-dealer. In defending their exploitation of public land against “outsiders,” they invoke the old Spanish land grants as their birthright. Yet what were the Spanish if not consummate outsiders, who came in as conquerors and wrested the land from the aboriginal peoples by force of arms?

As for their vilification of government entities such as the Forest Service or BLM, let me say this: The government’s ownership and conservation practices are at least a little closer to the philosophies of the original inhabitants of the area, who believed that land was naturally held in common by the peoples who lived frugally on it. To see land, as the Rio Arribans seem to, as something to be used up for commercial gain is definitely an “outsider’s” philosophy in this area. Let’s face it, they don’t want the land--they want the money.

RICHARD RISEMBERG

Los Angeles