America the Beautiful Pass-- Ripoff or Reasonable?

Article

Images (6)

Comments (57)

America the Beautiful Pass-- Ripoff or Reasonable?

Page Type: Article

Page By: Bob Sihler

Created/Edited: Feb 13, 2009 / Feb 17, 2009

Object ID: 489416

Hits: 3302

Page Score: 90.72% - 44 Votes

Vote: Log in to vote

Table of Contents

Foreword

Since forum threads on controversial subjects sometimes devolve into personal attacks or go off on tangents only marginally related to the original topic, I’ve made this submission an article rather than a forum topic. My hope is that any debate the article spurs will be spirited but respectful, but if two or more people head down that road of personal vilification or off-topic posts, any newcomer to this topic can always read it according to its original intent and add new comments while the keyboard warriors boldly continue to launch electronic missiles at one another.

Also-- although I normally respond to every comment someone makes on a submission of mine, I can see that this article may generate so many comments that it may be difficult for me to keep up with the replies. Therefore, I will read every comment and do appreciate every civil and constructive one whether you agree or disagree with me, but I may refrain from a reply if my answer has already been revealed in the text, if the comment is mostly an affirmation of my position, or if I perceive the tone of the comment to be insulting; as to that last-- I welcome civil debate but disdain Internet bravado.

Thank you for reading.

Photographs-- the pictures here are of public-owned areas not protected by the NPS and not currently subject to user fees; they are places dear to my heart and places I strongly feel are worth our collective effort to preserve.

Opening

On January 1, 2007, the National Parks Pass and the Golden Eagle Hologram became things of the past, replaced by the America the Beautiful Pass, also know as the Interagency Pass. The new pass, which is a fairly pricey $80, covers admission to all federal fee areas administered by the National Park Service (NPS), the USDA Forest Service (FS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS-- administers most national wildlife refuges), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM--sometimes not-so-fondly known as the Bureau of Livestock and Mining), and the Bureau of Reclamation (think dams). Previously, one could pay $50 for a National Parks Pass and an extra $15 for the hologram expanding access to other federal fee areas.

Leading up to the enactment of this program, there was a good bit of criticism of it here on SP. Some people either had the impression or tried to give the impression that this pass would be required for use of any federally owned public land. Some posted links to blogs and articles that exuded hysteria and conspiracy theories; I even saw one article claiming that the off-road-vehicle lobby was somehow behind it all. (Some of those pages have since disappeared, but here is a discussion begun by a respected Western publisher and commentator; note not only his certainly valid points but also the valid points by the few who disagree with him.) Another blog I read seemed to imply that declining park visitation is because of higher fees and that the fees are a sinister way for powerful special interests to erode public support for the parks so that they (the special interests) can gradually turn them into places for private enterprise.

Well, it is within the realm of possibility that that is true, and, in fact, some people who worked for or with the Bush Administration did espouse the idea of privatizing some of the smaller, “less profitable” national parks, but maybe declining park visitation, if it is in fact occurring, also has something to do with the fact that we Americans get lazier and fatter by the second, or that high summer gas prices and less free time due to our work schedules and commutes play a role, but maybe the mysterious special interests are behind that, too. You see, fast-food companies, along with the oil industry, are encouraging us to eat unhealthy foods and are raising gas prices in an attempt to keep us in bad shape and at home, which will cause a collapse in support for national parks since no one will be visiting them, which will, in turn, enable those companies to buy parklands at basement prices and use them for grazing so that they can hostilely take over American ranching, buy up all the ranchland, and turn those places into subdivisions, strip malls, and drilling fields. Then more and more Americans will live farther and farther from their workplaces, resulting in more gasoline usage, which will result in higher prices, longer working hours, and so on.

If you just read the above paragraph and are thinking that sounds pretty plausible, then for your own sake I suggest you stop reading this article. First, it was heavy on sarcasm. Second, if you read on, you may get into a fit over something that really is not worth blowing your top over.

Time could prove all that to be right, of course (I guess). And the bill’s wording does open the door to an expansion of fee areas (which shouldn’t matter to pass holders). But for now at least, the program is what it says it is, or at least it seems to be.

Rocky Mountain; Bob Marshall Wilderness, MT

Arguments

Here are some reasonable criticisms of the policy and my own takes on them. It is not the definitive list of issues, and my views are not proposed as the final word on any of the issues but should be seen as just one person’s opinion and a starting point for civil debates.

But before you or I go on, let's establish a few things:

• Nobody likes paying fees. So although my overall position on this issue is one of support, I am not saying I am happy to be paying any fees, increased or otherwise.

• I am not under any illusions that the government wisely spends every dollar it collects. But when it comes to managing the wilderness, I trust private entities less than I do the government.

• There are always those who are going to be against taxes and fees and regulations. I am not trying to reach those people or change their minds; I am trying to reach those who believe fees are sometimes necessary but who have reservations about the current program.

• My observations and positions are based mostly on my experiences in the Rocky Mountain states, the Desert Southwest, and the East. I have read anecdotal evidence that fee programs are more burdensome in parts of California and the Pacific Northwest. It is my understanding that the America the Beautiful Pass covers federally owned fee areas there, but I would be interested to know if that has not been the case in particular instances.

San Juan Mountains, CO

Okay, on to those arguments--

• This was pushed through without any debate, attached to a must-pass spending bill. Fair enough. I live in the Washington, D.C. area, which is saturated with political news to an extent that most of the rest of the country is not. The fact that I did not hear about this program until environmental groups began complaining about it suggests there is a good bit of truth to this claim.

I could go on with this into a discussion of partisan politics (and my draft of this article did), but in the interests of keeping this a non-PnP topic, I'll just offer this:

This is what goes on in Washington all the time. Congressmen attach riders to must-pass bills; everyone rails against the practice but everyone keeps doing it. More likely than not, there are programs and/or regulations you support that got through by the same means. I'm not defending the practice; I'm just saying it is what it is and that idealism has its limits and ultimately must give way to realism. It may stink (actually, it does), but it does not, in my opinion, undermine the core idea of needing to increase funding for our public lands.

• It’s too expensive. $80 does seem pretty expensive, but it’s really not that bad when you consider what it gets you. Say you take a cross-country trip and visit ten national parks (regular entrance fees would cost $10-25 per park). That’s $8 per park for a week’s worth of access to each; if you are into the one-hour-dash method of visiting the parks and think you’re not getting your money’s worth, that’s your problem. In comparison, have you seen what it costs to go to a movie these days? Have you noticed how bad most of the movies are? Which is the better value?

If you live close to a park and visit it just once per month on average, it’s costing you less than $7 per visit. Go twice as often and it costs less than $3.50 per visit. If you don’t go to other parks, you can get an annual pass (less expensive) or just pay the regular fee if either is the more economical choice. It isn’t law that you have to buy the America the Beautiful Pass just to go to a national park or visit any other federal fee area.

• The costs are hard on the locals of modest or meager means. This is supposedly one of the reasons many Western-state legislators opposed the plan. Part of my response-- see the preceding paragraph. The other part-- the vast majority of FS and BLM lands do not require fees, and it is these lands that local hunters and fishers use the most, and a great deal of hikers, climbers, mountain bikers, etc. use them, too (and hunting and all off-road motorized travel, including by bicycle, are already banned in most national parks and many wilderness areas). If fee areas and, more importantly, fee levels dramatically increase, that could put a bite on lower-income wilderness users, and that is a reasonable concern that people ought to be alert to. That necessitates vigilance.

Also, $80 out of a year's earnings is not that much for most people; it is less than $7 per month. I suspect that most people for whom about $6.66 per month is a major expenditure are not spending what free time they have hiking and climbing, anyway, and I thus see this as one of those arguments that has emotional power but is weak in reality.

• This will hurt local economies. Anytime there’s an environment-related controversy, one or both sides trot out this argument, often cynically. Cancel a logging project and local kids will go without Christmas presents, some say. Raise fees at parks or campgrounds and people will stop coming, hurting the restaurants, motels, and stores in local towns, say some others. Keep the logging and the low or nonexistent fees and people will ultimately stop coming due to the eventual environmental degradation and/or traffic congestion, killing the local businesses, yet another faction may say. It’s hard to refute these scientifically; it is easy to find one essay or study showing these arguments are bunk and find another saying they aren’t. For every argument proclaiming that the local economy has improved with the scaling back of extractive industry and the increase of “ecotourism,” there’s a real guy sitting there whose way of life has disappeared. It’s hard-- the jobs created by a bad mining project shouldn’t be justification to keep ruining the land, but how do you tell those workers they are losing their livelihoods and have to do something else? But that’s another topic, and I digress.

Getting back to the idea that the higher fees will negatively impact local economies, I am highly skeptical. First, high travel expenses (airfares, car-rental costs, gasoline costs) are far more likely to deter me (and the much-maligned vacationing families that unload a lot of money on local economies) from visiting a place than an admission fee is. Second, backpackers, hikers, climbers, and many other outdoor-oriented people are seen by a lot of people as being notoriously cheap, and many of them are not pumping much money into local businesses. We’ll spend hundreds or thousands of dollars at REI (well, only those of us who are “soft,” that is), but we gripe about access fees. Go figure. We wear all our fancy clothes and use all our fancy equipment but sleep in cars instead of at campgrounds to save a few bucks (and to get some more privacy and quiet-- count me as guilty of this). It’s people like the birdwatchers, the skiers, the golfers, and the tourist families who are the types that spend the big bucks in the gateway and resort communities; most of the rest of us spend only what we have to while dashing through as quickly and painlessly as possible.

Local residents have more to fear from runaway development and the pricing out, plus the degradation of quality of life, that results from it than they do from increased fees in nearby parks and other natural areas. In many areas of the Mountain West, the proliferation of tacked-up subdivisions, trophy homes, and affluent transplants who want the politics, people, and culture of their new hometowns to match their old ones change communities by making land (and, accordingly, taxes) more expensive, killing small businesses and replacing them with big-box stores, chain restaurants, and niche shops catering to the well-heeled. Whenever I have to pass through some of these towns, I can’t help but think that except for the stunning mountains in view, I seem to be back home in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. The long-time residents in these towns sometimes adapt and get by or even flourish, but many get driven out by the changing demographics and lifestyles. So fear developers and those they serve or draw (depending on your view), not fees.

As a rebuttal to this, someone might point out the situation in Ouray, Colorado a few years ago. There was a fee system for the Canyon Creek area (think Yankee Boy Basin), but the system was discontinued after local business owners complained of lost business. I have no idea where the truth lay. Part of me can picture locals banding together to protest a program they found disagreeable just for its own sake; another part of me understands that although it is laughable to think that a fee deterred the thousands of out-of-staters who visit the area every year to see with their own eyes what so many calendars, posters, and the like depict, it might have encouraged in-state residents to go elsewhere on their weekend and day-off forays. Still, though, considering the popularity of the area with both in- and out-of-state people, I'm a little skeptical of those business owners' claims. Politicians aren't the only ones who take cynical stands on the issues.

• We already pay taxes for these places. We pay taxes for a lot of things, and no one is happy about all of the things his or her tax dollars support. There are people who resent that their taxes support places like national parks and other public lands, and they’re not only entitled to that view but also can sometimes eloquently and plausibly argue their case. I wish we appropriated more money to the parks and other wildlands, but the political reality is that it won’t happen anytime soon. The money just isn’t there without a large tax increase or cuts to programs that someone else cherishes (or canceling a war the government simply is not going to cancel, despite the rhetoric and despite whether it should or should not), and the chances of any unhidden tax increases at all are pretty slim for almost everyone. And what will happen if there is a tax increase, even one dedicated to funding the national parks? People, even park lovers, will say they're being ripped off or will complain that this wouldn’t be necessary if the government managed its (our) money better. People hate tax increases. It just becomes a circular argument-- we want all these things, don't want to pay more for them, and think we should instead cut elsewhere, as long as the cuts aren't to things we care about; or, we can increase funding, as long as the increases come from someone else's paycheck, preferably those who deserve to pay more (always a popular idea until you're a member of the must-pay-more crowd).

• Too much of the money goes to infrastructure, too little to conservation and restoration. I agree. I personally don’t have much interest in visitor centers, ranger programs, and the many road projects that strike me as little more than welfare for local construction companies and their employees, and I’d like to see more emphasis on trail maintenance, wilderness restoration, habitat protection, and wildlife conservation. Maybe healthier budgets will lead to these things. Maybe they won’t. But a lot of people do care about those things that I and some of you don’t. And enhanced visitor experiences can turn curious sightseers into devoted advocates of wilderness. Ranger programs can get kids into nature and away from their video games and televisions. Nobody who experiences nature closely is unchanged by it. Today’s tourist masses in air-conditioned visitor centers may produce some of tomorrow’s John Muirs, Bob Marshalls, and Aldo Leopolds.

• Why should we pay more when the loggers, miners, and grazers only face cut-rate costs for using public lands? That is an excellent point. My only answer, unsatisfying though it is: that situation is not changing anytime soon; and large-scale refusal to comply with policies, though some think such will lead to the abandonment of said policies, is more likely to become an argument for anti-wilderness forces that recreational users don’t care about wilderness as much as they say they do, leading to the development of policies that are even worse than what we have now.

• It is unfair that we are forced to pay for National Forest, USFWS, BLM, etc. sites if we primarily visit national parks and when before we had the option to pay extra for access to the non-NPS fee areas. Don't expect much of an argument from me here; I agree with the sentiment. It is not enough to turn me against the program, but I do think it's unfair. There are at least two explanations for this change. One is that the government is just using its power to make us hand over more of our money. The other is that places like national wildlife refuges are important but can never hope to pay for themselves through targeted user fees, and they need some extra help. But yes, it's still unfair that the choice is gone.

• It is not right that areas that never had fees before have fees now. I'm guessing that this argument resonates strongly with long-time locals and many people a good 10-20 years (at least) older than I am. The point has its merits, but there's also another perspective-- times and circumstances change. Let me use an example from my own back yard to illustrate...

Here in Virginia, we have Old Rag Mountain in Shenandoah National Park. It is in many ways a standout mountain for the Southeast, and one of the chief reasons for that is the Ridge Trail, a rocky route that includes a good deal of Class 3 scrambling and unbroken views, both of which are not terribly easy to find, especially together, in Virginia or any other Southeastern state. In short, although the trail traffic there can be maddening, it is easy to understand why there is so much trail traffic.

I first climbed Old Rag in 1994. It was busy then, and it is busier now. Unless one goes on a winter weekday, peace and quiet are hard to find unless the weather is poor. Back in 1994, there were no fees for those approaching Old Rag from outside the park, which is what the vast majority of Old Rag's climbers do.

March 1997 was the last time I climbed Old Rag for almost 11 years. The crowds just became too frustrating, especially at some of the narrow Class 3 areas, where lines would often form because of someone inching his or her way up with the kind of caution one might expect of someone free soloing El Capitan. Sometime between 1994 and 2007, probably when the Fee Demonstration Program began (one of the precursors to the current situation), the Park Service began requiring user fees.

This made perfect sense to me. The area had become overcrowded and overused. Signs of wear were apparent all over the trail system. User fees probably did not cut the crowds much, and they will not restore the damage done to the mountain as long as the mountain remains open to the public, which it should and will, but those fees might help meet other important needs the park faces. Also, it puts a tangible out-of-pocket cost on the impact people make.

Related: I pretty much only go to one place; it has never had fees and does now. That stinks, but, and I don't mean to be flippant, you should buy an annual pass instead of paying each time you go, or you should diversify your interests. Going back to the Old Rag example-- if you've been visiting Old Rag every weekend for the last ten years, that might mean you know the place better and may even appreciate it more than others do, but it doesn't lessen your impact on the resource. In fact, you are probably making much more of an impact than the average visitor is, and maybe it's time to give a little extra back.

And that brings me to the last point to cover:

• Some of these fee programs are ripoffs and serve no need other than the government's need to raise money. Despite my overall position, I will not deny that. For a good example of such an abusive and possibly illegal program, watch this video by a well-known SP member and site administrator about the fee program on Mount Evans in Colorado. Long story short-- the federal government is charging you to drive and, in some cases, hike, on a road and land owned by the city of Denver, not the Forest Service. Furthermore, according to the video, no one is saying where the money is going.

Although I disagree that a fee itself is inappropriate, I agree that it is wrong for people to have to pay to an entity that is not responsible for most of the facilities they are paying to visit. Here, we have a good example of an abusive program. Where such programs exist, they should be called out and challenged. But as to the argument that it's wrong to pay for services you don't personally use but which a public entity is deciding to provide, I refer to the argument four bullet points above. There's a lot of gray in that argument, but I do generally believe that it is not unreasonable to expect user fees to cover the services that are provided to all, even though few individuals utilize all those services. To recap-- when I go to a national park, I rarely go to visitor centers or attend ranger programs, but it doesn't bother me that my user fees help pay for them. If I feel the cost exceeds the value, I can choose not to go. And the vast majority of public lands, including the mountains, are still fee-free.

Great Divide Basin, WY

In Conclusion

I’m cautiously supportive of the America the Beautiful Pass and the Fee Demonstration Program that led to it (that program was the one that created increased entrance fees for most national parks and established user fees for some very heavily used non-NPS sites back around 1996). The land agencies do need more money. The government won’t give it to them. And can’t we give a little extra back instead of wanting everything to be free? I say this not with the smugness of someone who lives in opulence and can shrug at fee increases but with the perspective of a teacher who makes a decent salary but is far, far away from making the Forbes list.

If every national forest access road develops a fee station and every BLM parking lot starts seeing ticket-wielding rangers patrolling them and checking for passes, we have a problem. Currently, it’s mostly only the national parks and some very popular non-NPS areas that have fees. As I said, we need to watch for “fee-station creep,” and we must vocally oppose it if and when it manifests itself. In fact, I’ve read that more increases are planned, that by 2020 it could cost $50 to visit parks like Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, and Yosemite. If those increases are fair relative to inflation or needs resulting from user impacts, okay. If not, get ready to protest.

But in the meantime, can those of us who frequently visit national parks and other wilderness areas that charge fees part with a little extra money to give something back to the places that have given us much, much more than we can ever repay? These places have immeasurably changed my life for the better; I'm thus willing to do a little more than everyone else has to do. Maybe the wilderness areas belong to all Americans and thus must be supported to some extent by all Americans, and maybe they are treasures that deserve to exist even if taxes and user fees can never meet all their needs, but is it that unreasonable to ask those who use them the most to put in a little extra?

Red Rock Lakes NWR, MT

P.S.

This is not the take of an ideologically crazed right-wing fanatic who’s tired of hearing the moaning of liberal environmentalists. I admit I’m more conservative than I am liberal and seem to be politically right of the SP mainstream, but in political terms, I think of myself as a Republican disgusted with what the Republican Party has become but unable to buy much of what the Democrats are selling. I’m more like a Roosevelt Republican-- advocating strong defense, economic fairness, wilderness conservation, and toughness on crime-- something about as rare these days as a Truman or JFK Democrat.

I’m no secret apologist for those that rape the land or enable those who do. The dollar-driven practices of developers/builders and the oil industry, the former of whom will happily tack up anything anywhere and the latter of whom will drill anywhere for every little drop when drilling will never solve our energy problems, sicken me. The many other businesses and corporations that seem to see the wilderness as a resource for pecuniary profit and nothing more likewise dismay me. The many ORV operators who show a complete lack of civic responsibility infuriate me. So do the mining companies that make toxic messes and then leave them for the taxpayers to clean up. And then there are those landowners who legally and sometimes illegally block access to public lands. I am well right of center if you talk to me about certain issues, but I’m solidly left of center on other issues, including most conservation and environmental ones. However, I just can’t see in this fee program the Orwellian scenario that some others do. So I simply want to tell people that the parks and the national forests and their brethren are still there, you can still go to them, you probably won’t have to get on the welfare rolls after you do so, and that it might be both good and right to pay a little more to preserve what we love.

So what do you all think?

Mt. March Madness-- Wyoming Range, WY

P.P.S.

If you see that this page has been edited since its submission date, please take my word that it has only been edited for grammar, spelling, and punctuation. I will not change or add any positions and thus misrepresent the original submission.

Images

Comments

[ Post a Comment ]

Viewing: 21-40 of 57

« PREV 1 2 3 NEXT »


	mmcguigan	Re: WRITE on, Bob ! !
	Hasn't voted	I live in Guatemala where you can go just about anywhere without paying a fee and you get what you pay for. Some of the most beautiful spots in the country are littered with plastic bags and bottles. In addition, you run the very real risk of being relieved of all that very expensive equipment you purchased at REI. However, there are three "national" parks that do charge a very modest entrance fee (the equivalent of $2.00 for locals and $10.00 for non-locals - gringos). What a difference! Folks from nearby communities are hired to maintain the trails and pick up what little trash gets deposited. Rangers patrol the area to keep the criminal element at bay and the criminal element is actually working and no longer needs to be criminal. It almost seems that asking people to pay a small sum instills a sense of ownership and responsibility. I for one am happy to pay because you really do get what you pay for!
		Posted Mar 1, 2009 7:54 pm


	Bob Sihler	Re: WRITE on, Bob ! !
	Hasn't voted	Thanks for adding this; it seems to reinforce what some others here are saying, and it's interesting to see that the idea applies and works in other countries, too.
		Posted Mar 2, 2009 7:34 am

FortMental

No.

Hasn't voted

On the face of it, we're all in favor of paying for resources and services that we use. Maybe it's fair to pay an entrance fee, on top of what's paid in taxes, for National Parks as they cover buildings, road/trail maintenance, security, waste disposal, etc. And this is precisely why we here at SP are being had by the above argument

Since its inception, the Forest Service's Fee Demonstration Program (FDP) has exploited our collective sense of responsibility to enact legislation created by the "outdoor industry". This isn't crazed conspiracy-speak, it's just an obvious fact of how our government has worked since the days of the railroad barons: find a resource that the government owns, misrepresent the public's sense of ownership, dress up the resource, and sell it back to the people at a huge profit. Extracting that profit has become easier and more tempting from a population that has become fatter, lazier, and wealthier.

Don't believe me? Just look at who lobbied to have these Forest Service Fees enacted; it's hardly a state secret that the American Recreation Coalition representing hundreds of stakeholders from RV manufacturers to condo developers wrote the fee demo program knowing it would steer the Forest Service, BLM, and state land agencies into it's larger agenda of privatizing capital intensive recreation on public lands. The following link points to a Recreation in America survey commisioned by the ARC in the mid 90's and is an example of the kind of document that was used by the Forest Service to justify a Fee Demonstartion Program: [url]http://www.funoutdoors.com/files/Roper%201996.pdf[/url]. I urge you and everyone else looking at this page and the parent site to read it as it highlights who uses "wilderness" in America. Especially p. 8, where it says, "Data from the Forest Service shows that the top recreation activity on lands that it manages is pleasure driving:"

Back in 1996, I too was happy to pay a $3 parking fee, believing that it went towards managing the Sandia Mountains, barely 5 miles from home. When I saw new buildings, expanded parking, new service vehicles, and new fee enforcement personnel and concessionaires, I also saw resource (non)management in the form of un-paid trail maintenance volunteers, barricaded trails, and unstudied wildlife. A large climbing area is seasonally closed for falcon recovery hasn't been surveyed since the mid '80s. Anecdotally, the situation is similar elsewhere in the US. Ultimately, I refused to pay the fee on the grounds that it was fraudulently represented, and was brought to court and threatened with heavy fines and expulsion from public lands, further evidence that the misnamed Demonstration Fee was really an "Extortion Fee".

Future readers of this article should do a little homework and see how their willingness to "suck it up" and pay fees has been used to further the aims of the very entities we go to the mountains to escape.

Mandatory Reading:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03470.pdf : Forest Service Fee Demonstration Expenditures in Fiscal Year 2001: A GAO Report on what the Forest Service pays for with your fee (%3 to Resource Preservation and Enhancement Resource and habitat restoration, enhancement and preservation, such as landscaping and wildlife fencing)

Pay VERY close attention to page 26 and how the Forest Service underreports the true cost of fee collection when a vendor (private concessionnaire) collects your fee; that's unreported profit going to a private entity.

http://www.headwatersnews.org/HCN.userfees.html: A moment of truth for user fees, 2004 article published by High Country News...Of the $35 million in gross revenue the Forest Service reports from fee demo in 2001, the report finds that 43 percent went back into collecting fees and administering the program.

Posted Feb 15, 2009 3:56 pm


	Bob Sihler	Re: No.
	Hasn't voted	Thank you for the detailed and civil response presenting a different viewpoint. I remember reading about the involvement of the ARC, but the sources were hardly objective and left me unconvinced. You present a strong case, and though I can't dispute the facts you've laid out, I still have to respectfully disagree when it comes to my overall interpretation of them. I am interested, though, about the private entities collecting fees. Where are some examples of them? I'm not challenging you, just curious for examples. I've only seen uniformed rangers at entrance stations and rangers collecting from the self-pay boxes. I do remember some non-government people collecting fees at Albion Basin in the Wasatch some years back. They were basically a group of kids in jeans and tee shirts manning a booth. I refused to pay them anything since I could see no evidence that they were authorized to be doing that. Perhaps they were employed by a vendor; if so, I don't think fee collection should be farmed out to private companies, and I also think that company was doing an exceedingly poor job representing itself and its function.
		Posted Feb 15, 2009 4:16 pm


	FortMental	Re: No.
	Hasn't voted	Well.... Here it is straight from the horse's mouth: "ARC also calls for legislation to put in motion a program approved by the Congress in 1993: non-federal sales of Golden Eagle Passes. ARC, the catalyst for this provision, has been stymied in its efforts to implement the program by a Department of the Interior conclusion that the passes could not be provided on consignment to our members, including L.L. Bean and the Coleman Company, who would act as a consortium to dramatically increase sales of the pass plus provide the public with valuable information on recreation opportunities at lesser known sites. Although the 1993 legislation permits a deduction of up to 8% of the purchase price to cover selling costs, this "commission" will barely cover the costs of handling and order processing. The Interior demand for prepayment torpedoes the program completely, making it too costly to implement." Here is the link from ARC Website: http://www.funoutdoors.com/node/view/878
		Posted Feb 15, 2009 4:25 pm


	tarol	Re: No.
	Voted 10/10	Bob - Many vendors are authorized to sell passes and Southern California is probably the grandest example of this. In So Cal many local mom and pop owned stores as well as larger stores in the area (Big 5's, REI's, etc) sell the Adventure Passes. The $5/daily or $30/yearly passes allow you to recreate in the most highly-impacted recreation sites and areas on the 4 Southern California National Forests. (The ATB pass works, too) The vendor keeps 20% of the sale, the other 80% goes to the Forest. This helps keep our local economies strong which has been suggested might otherwise be hurt by a pass program. And it gives the public ample easy opportunities to purchase a pass... before they get to the forest if they choose, or after ranger station business hours, or if the ranger station isn't conveniently in route to their destination, etc. Helps out everyone really as it was designed to do. Vendors who sell the passes/collect fees should be clearly identified. If they aren't or you aren't sure, ask. And if you don't get anywhere please let the local ranger station know. And rest assured that vendors in our area buy the passes outright from the Forest first, so the Forest is sure to get its share. Forests and Parks helping out businesses and local economies in various ways is nothing new, it's indeed one of our overall goals, and this is just one of the ways in which it is accomplished. With the stimulus bill that was just signed an infusion of money is going to public land management agencies which will then use it to create jobs, jobs, jobs which will hopefully help turn this economy around...
		Posted Feb 18, 2009 11:05 am


	Bob Sihler	Re: No.
	Hasn't voted	Thank you for that information and perspective. I must admit that although I support the fee programs, my gut reaction to private vendors selling passes and making a profit from it is a negative one. However, you've just done a great job in support of that idea, and while it doesn't instantly change my gut feeling, it certainly makes me more open to the idea. And if it helps the local economy, then that indeed is a good thing.
		Posted Feb 18, 2009 12:33 pm

MoapaPk

ARC tangent

Voted 10/10

What's the angle?

Posted Feb 15, 2009 5:42 pm


	FortMental	Re: ARC tangent
	Hasn't voted	From: "Private / Public Ventures Desk Guide: Joint Private and Public Sector Investment in Forest Service Recreation Facilities and Services, July 1996 When and Why to Use PPV There are technical and philosophical issues to address in offering recreation facilities through PPV. For example: Transferring title to government-owned improvements for on-site use is a new concept for both the FS and the General Services Administration (GSA). Coordination with GSA is essential as we jointly test a new application of procedures to manage excess and surplus government property. There are traditional views of what types of facilities are appropriate on the national Forests; these views may need to be reevaluated. For instance, to provide a viable business opportunity it may be necessary to consider amenities such as showers and telephones, or additional sources of revenue such as laundries, electrical hookups, or camp stores, that are not traditionally associated with FS campgrounds. There are publics who seek a natural setting with separation from their camping neighbors. The agency should evaluate whether the private sector could develop such opportunities economically. Requirements for an Economically Viable Proponent General Industry Standards (page 14) The campground industry has identified some general standards that should be met to ensure a financially successful operation and investment. Criteria may vary, depending on the location of the project proposal. The following minimum standards may be used to compare typical private-sector development to FS developments: Availability of full hookups for water and electricity. Availability of Sewer hookups or dump station. Flush toilets. Hot showers. Telephone service. Reservation system. Seasonal use of 100-150 days. Average income per site, per night, of $20. Other highly desirable features include: Store. Laundry facilities. Recreation Hall. A project may not be economically viable unless these minimum standards are reasonably attainable." The ARC's goal is to have the Forest/Park Service use tourism on our land as a revenue generator and become dependent upon that revenue. That's it. The rest is icing.
		Posted Feb 15, 2009 6:13 pm


	MoapaPk	Re: ARC tangent
	Voted 10/10	This was a bad joke... angle... arctangent...
		Posted Feb 15, 2009 6:37 pm


	lcarreau	Re: ARC tangent
	Voted 10/10	Ha, ha! I just LOVE that dry Nevada humor. : )))))
		Posted Feb 15, 2009 6:46 pm


	FortMental	Re: ARC tangent
	Hasn't voted	My knickers are so bunched up that I missed it. OK....deep breath.
		Posted Feb 15, 2009 6:53 pm

lcarreau

There's continuous

Voted 10/10

mention of ARC's involvement with FS campgrounds. I haven't stayed
overnight in such a campground for several years.

When I purchase a pass, I'm wondering what PERCENTAGE goes to trail
maintenance, picking up litter and NOT being worried about
somebody breaking into your vehicle while you're out bagging a peak!?!?!?

Posted Feb 15, 2009 6:32 pm


	FortMental	Re: There's continuous
	Hasn't voted	The ARC is a lobbying group. See who they represent here: http://www.funoutdoors.com/taxonomy/view/or/69. They represent the interests of the concession that wants to make money off the campground. When you purchase a pass, %0 goes to trail maintenance. Don't be fooled....that's all work done by volunteers. As for parking lot security, you'll only see a ranger when he's looking for your pay stub, or when the crapper has been vandalized.
		Posted Feb 15, 2009 6:51 pm


	lcarreau	Re: There's continuous
	Voted 10/10	HEY! That must be WHY so many crappers are being vandalized, because people want to see a RANGER more often! "I see the light," said the Blind Man. : ))))) (And, I always thought that "Law Enforcement" rangers were supposed to be searching for pay stubs. I mean, how can Big Brother be watching us if this is NOT the case???) Does anybody know how many rangers it takes to repair a lighting fixture? People are really BIG on security these days.
		Posted Feb 15, 2009 8:34 pm

taxinvestor

Wake up Early!

Voted 10/10

In my experience there are no employees at National Park gates before 7am. Since I bought the pass I've visited Rainier, Olympics, Shenandoah, and Volcanoes NP without needing to stop and show the pass.

Posted Feb 16, 2009 9:34 am


	Bob Sihler	Re: Wake up Early!
	Hasn't voted	Funny-- that's happened to me, too. In fact, that's usually the case when I'm by myself. It almost made me feel foolish for buying the pass!
		Posted Feb 16, 2009 10:27 am

MOCKBA

Some outdoorspeople are poor

Voted 10/10

I remember the first few years in the US. We camped a lot with the kids, legally and otherwise, and crisscrossed the East from the Carolinas to the Canadian border. All with garage sale gear. Never ever stopped in a motel, even stayed away from fast food as much as possible, because we could scarcely afford it.

Of course it is mostly the immigrants' plight, with their high expectations of public land use, lack of access to credit, and an imperative to save for homes in a furiously accelerated clip. By the time they get their voting rights, they are better off and ready to turn the page. Still, that's how so many of America's disadvantaged children get their first taste of Nature's grandeur. It may be worthwhile to keep them coming.

Posted Feb 16, 2009 7:46 pm


	Bob Sihler	Re: Some outdoorspeople are poor
	Hasn't voted	It's a good point. While I do believe people should pony up a little more for parks and other popular places unless we miraculously ever fund them properly, I do want to see newcomers and the poorest among us able to appreciate our national treasures and develop a respect for them. I don't know how exactly to do that-- maybe working to increase awareness of opportunities, especially very low-cost ones, could be an answer. Something somewhat related that really concerns me is whether young people today, with all our emphasis on technology, video games, and plain old laziness will ever care about the wilderness the way recent generations have. It also worries me that the vast majority of people I see in the mountains are white Americans and Europeans, and I don't mean just in fee areas. I see more and more people of East Asian origin, but few of other ethnicities. As this country's demographics keep changing, will interest in the wilderness decline, easing the way for those who wish to plunder it? As people's socioeconomic status improves, will they "discover" the wilderness, or will it be too late? How do we reach out to new groups and get them to share in the wonders of the wilderness?
		Posted Feb 17, 2009 12:30 pm


	lcarreau	Re: Some outdoorspeople are poor
	Voted 10/10	In the old days, the CCC and YCC helped to get people not only interested in the wilderness, but OUT in the wilderness. We need to revert back to the days/ways when people took pride in building something with their own two hands. For example, we all WALK on trails - but, how many have actually constructed trails or maintained them?? It has to be a grassroots effort. But, the way the economy is right now, who can even afford to attend a volunteer work party? It's getting scary out there in the woods. Things are falling apart, and nobody seems to care anymore.
		Posted Feb 17, 2009 8:57 pm

Viewing: 21-40 of 57

« PREV 1 2 3 NEXT »