H.R. 4888, The Cabin Fee Act of 2010 (16 comments ↓ | 5 wiki edits: view article ↓)

  • This item is from the 111th Congress (2009-2010) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.

H.R. 4888 would revise the Forest Service Recreation Residence Program as it applies to units of the National Forest System derived from the public domain by implementing a simple, equitable, and predictable procedure for determining cabin user fees.

(

Learn More

From the Blog

WashingtonWatch.com Digest – September 20, 2010

This is the WashingtonWatch.com email newsletter for the week of September 20, 2010. Subscribe here. email newsletter | tell a friend | wiki | about | home | log in On the Blog: Congress Fails Government Management—and Nobody Notices! With....

Visitor Comments Comments Feed for This Bill

Cal H. Turner

March 23, 2010, 7:53pm (report abuse)

This bill is a WIN-Win for cabin user and US Forest Service. Immediate reduction in fees to users with no loss of income to USFS. It will enable people to maintain cabin ownership and forest stewardship for the bettermant of all. Please strongly urge your Represensitive to support and guickly pass this important bill.

Deborah Stuart

March 29, 2010, 12:07pm (report abuse)

This bill could not come at a better time. If this does not pass, my family will loose our cabin that was built in 1930. The current fees are $5300.00 a year for a cabin that can only be used 4 months out of the year and my family can no longer afford these fees. If we have to give up the cabin, along with all the wonderful memoires that were built there, it will mean not only a great loss for my family, but also less revenue for the government. I know that there will be others in the exact situation that we now find ourselves in.

Please, Please, Please make sure this bill is passed

Thank you

Deborah Stuart for the Baisch Family


145 9th Ave N.

Twin Falls, ID 83301

(208) 490-1878

John M Baisch

March 29, 2010, 2:27pm (report abuse)

This bill will be important in distinguishing cabins from vacation homes. Our cabin is very rustic and does not have the basic amenities that many vacation homes do. Our cabin is a real cabin built many years ago that can only be accessed during the spring and summer months. We have been good stewards of the forest and in many cases have done more to make the forest a cleaner, safer environment for all. If this bill does not pass we may be forced to sell our cabin to someone who is less concerned with the forest and is more interested in capitalizing on distressed owners who struggle to pay their taxes.. Our family legacy dates back to over 100 years in Idaho and we are hoping that we can continue to keep our legacy alive enjoying our cabin for many more years to come. Please pass this bill to keep the fees reasonable for all.

John M. Baisch


7671 Snohomish St.

Boise, ID


Robert Elden

April 20, 2010, 7:40pm (report abuse)

Essential that this bill pass. Our cabin has been in family for 5 generations, since 1918. Really need this to go.

Robert Elden

Portland, OR

Chris Pein

April 26, 2010, 2:50pm (report abuse)

As a cabin owner, I just finished going thru the appraisal process. The present process is extremely unfair, especially considering lease restrictions. I read comments from one person that stated we have had a sweetheart deal, and should be willing to pay the excessive fees. If the lots were leased without all the restriction, the process would be more fair. The proposed legislation would correct the CUFFA legislation. I would recommend support of this bill to eliminate the problems created by the Forest Service interpretation of the CUFFA legislation.

Richard A. Fink

April 27, 2010, 11:28am (report abuse)

While for many of us, H.R.4888 would have some advantages, we must be honest with ourselves and admit that, for some, it would be disadvantageous. For example, if you own an expensive cabin on a low-lease lot and plan to sell in the next few years, H.R. 4888 is going to cost you a lot of money.

Richard A. Fink

April 27, 2010, 11:43am (report abuse)

I have concerns about what I consider to be vague wording in Sec. 4 when it comes to ownership transfer within families. For example, if an estate leaves a cabin to one heir and a second heir receives the appraised value of the cabin in other assets, and the appraised value of the cabin is $400,000, does the first heir pay $1,000 plus 5% of $150,000 or do they pay only $1,000? What if the cabin is left to all heirs equally? Certainly the cabin has value and certainly that value will have to be determined by appraisal to settle the estate. My point is that I am not convinced that cabins will be able to be passed from one generation to another without paying the full transfer fee unless the wording of Sec. 4 is more specific in this regard.

Joanne Watling

May 2, 2010, 12:59pm (report abuse)

We are looking at the probability of having to give up our cabin due to the excessive lease increases. This is a small, very rustic cabin built in the early 1900's, no running water, no plumbing. Outhouse up the hill. We can only access it in the summer. With the lease jumping to 4000.00/ year, we just couldn't afford it. Please pass this!


May 20, 2010, 6:35pm (report abuse)

Current user fees are based on appraisals comparable to privatly owned, simular properties. This is unfair because permit holders have many restrictions on the property they "use" not "own". New appraisals have caused fees to go up drastically. Many permit holders have had their permits handed down from generation to generation. Each generation being a caretaker of the forest. I myself am a third generation holder. I've brought hundreds of people up to enjoy this part of the national forest that wouldn't have otherwise enjoyed it. Our permit fees should be calculated by including the restrictions we have on our permits and the fact that we don't own the property and have limited access to it. WE don't mind paying fees as long as they are fairly implemented. Please put deep consideration into supporting this bill. Thank You!

Meredith Randall

May 31, 2010, 10:19pm (report abuse)

The cabin program is good for the forest, good for the public and good for the Forest Service. The families that enjoy these cabins are caretakers of the forest far beyond the boundaries of their cabin permit. They share the cabins with friends and relatives bringing more healthy interaction for the public in the forest. The cabin program is good for the Forest Service because it provides valuable funding. HR4888 will correct the inequities in the prior CUFFA bill; thereby enabling families with cabins to retain the cabins and continue to bring friends to enjoy and care for the forest. Mathematical modeling has shown HR4888 to be revenue neutral to the FS. Please support HR4888.

Nick Kearns

June 1, 2010, 4:00am (report abuse)

This is a great bill because it will strengthen the National Forest Cabin program. The fees scale is outlined is fair and transparent to both the cabin users and the Forest service. With the simplified fees, the National Forest is assured a lower cost of administering the cabin program and Cabin owners will have predictable fees. Thanks to Doc Hastings and staff for introducing this bill!

A. 4gotton Baisch

August 1, 2010, 3:48am (report abuse)

The fees seem within reason, especially for the families that have lived, loved and passed on these cabins for generations to enjoy, as everyone has already stated so devotedly, these are legacies not just simply a taxable property, but a family history. Please pass this bill so that the fee will be afordable and resonalbe for all.


August 1, 2010, 3:50am (report abuse)

thank you

Larry Curriston

September 24, 2010, 10:41am (report abuse)

We have 11 cabins in our group in Northern Michigan. We went through the appraisal process 2 years ago and our lease increased 600%. As soon as we knew that this was happening, 6 out of the 11 cabins went up for sale, as they could not afford them. Some people think that this is a sweet deal, but most of these cabins were for sale for under $100,000 and there were no offers to buy them, as nobody wanted to be involved in the lease process since it was so restrictive. However, even though that was the case, the appraisal was based on privately owned land with no restrictions. This is proof that the appraisal process is unfair, please support HR488 so that we can have fair and equitable lease agreeements. Thank You

Brousek Family

October 6, 2010, 8:17am (report abuse)

This bill still needs revisions. We are still going to be paying over $3,000 a year for our rustic cabin, whether under CUFFA or CFA....The appraisal process was flawed and current CFA proposal does not adequately address this flaw.

Thomas Penman

January 9, 2011, 1:46pm (report abuse)

The current CFA actions are nothing more than a huge tax subsidy for the higher end cabin lots.The lower and mid-range appraised lot owners will pay up to 500% more in leased lot cabin fees relative to those with high end appraisal rates.Shame on the wealthy for this taxation manipulation.The middle-class deserves better consideration.

RSS Feeds for This Bill

Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)