> > When were you given sole title to those woods?

Speaking of which, a week or so ago there was a table on the Mall at which
two Forest Servicemen were attempting to recruit new members of their

As they were breaking down their "booth," I engaged them in a discussion
re: demonstration fees.

My points: (1) the land is my birthright, (2) charge businesses making a
profit off of NF land higher fees, or (3) get more from the federal gov't.
(if necessary, by raising taxes).  Oh yeah, and (4) (though in the
conversation it was #2) the demonstration fee program is prejudiced
against the poor.

Now one of the fellas agreed with me 100%.  The other couldn't bring
himself to see my infinite wisdom, objecting that (1) users demand upkeep,
so they should be willing to pay for it, (2) businesses, such as ski
areas, have overhead of their own to take care of, (3) payment via federal
gov't and (possibly) increased federal taxes are unfair for those who
don't use National Forests.  Now the obvious answer to #1 is that if usage
fees charged to businesses profiting from NF land are deemed to be
below-market, they should be increased until they do.  If this is still
not enough to cover the costs of maintaining the land for all users, then
the federal government should make up the difference, if necessary, by
raising taxes.  Objection #2 and #3 are obvious fallacies.

Both kind Forest Servicemen did recommend that I take my case to my
Congressmen.  And how right they are.  So, I'll do the necessary research
to provide hard facts in support of my valid arguments and right to
Messrs. Leahy, Jeffords, and El Pinko - I mean Sanders.

Anyone else interested?

El Scorpion

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.

To unsubscribe, visit