mrh wrote:
Hey Larry, I propose we tar and feather all FS employees. What do you think?

Wouldn't do any good. The one's tarred & feathered would be 'efficiently" replaced.

Just like one of these day's, I'll be replaced by a an android wearing a green hat with his
hand stretched out looking for some dollars to be mismanaged and cast into a Black Hole.

Actually most the money does go to the concessionaire rather than the FS because they are the ones actually doing the work to maintain the trailhead or facility. I don't like paying the fees, but I do know they go to the benefit of the resource. I would rather there were no concessionaires, but rather FS employees do this because there would not be the profit cost necessary, but thats not the way it works. It would be nice if everyone picked up their trash or cut trees out of the road in the spring that block access or cleaned the trailhead shitter up, but they don't. The cost of doing business has gone up, while funding has crashed. The money has to come from somewhere. If you really don't like paying the fee, then find a wide spot in the road a couple hundred yards away from the trailhead and park there. You shouldn't get a ticket. If you do get a ticket and don't pay it, nothing will happen generally. At least thats what a FS person told me who handles such things on her forest. She said, "we aren't going to spend the time going after people over this". Your location may vary.

OK, I RTFAs, as they say. I still am not getting all riled up about it. Disclaimer No. 1: I do not access this area, nor am I even remotely familiar with it, and can not relate to the passion local hikers would feel about it.

What does strike me is this:
1) $10 is kinda steep, guys. Like one of the writers said, I can respect trying to shore up the budget but . . . yeah, that is a bit pricey.

2) Charging day users and not campers or other recreation groups is silly and unfair. Disclaimer No. 2: I am not familiar with the legislation, and don't really care much about what the legislature put together anyway. I doubt they understand the local effects. I deal from the view of "fair." I know that will be maddening for some.

I continue to not have a problem with charging something for access, although I would not mind seeing a sliding scale depending on impact (ATVs:high, camping:middle, day-use: low to free). I have seen this implemented in state parks back east. Accessed land needs maintenance. Unmaintained or unsupervised land gets really ugly, really fast.

It's fun to rant against the man, and I'll take free over pay every time, but some pragmatism is required.

mrh wrote:Your location may vary.

My location is totally broke, due to mismanagement of funds.

I think everybody should abandon and leave the state of Arizona in a mass exodus, and
descend upon the regions of Idaho and Wyoming.

Those states have more mountains, anyway.

ALL MONEY GOES TO CONCESSIONAIRES.

Asked earlier concerning who the concessionaires are in New Hampshire:

Southern White Mountains NH
Campton Campground (Reservable)
Campton Group Area (Reservable)
Waterville Valley (Reservable)
Osceola Vista (Reservable)
Tripoli Road Dispersed Camping
Russell Pond

Kancamagus East and West NH
Wildwood
Hancock
Big Rock
Passaconaway
Jigger Johnson
Covered Bridge (Reservable)
Blackberry Crossing
White Ledge (Reservable)

Zealand Valley NH
Zealand Campground
Sugarloaf I
Sugarloaf II (Reservable)

Northern Presidential NH
Dolly Copp (Reservable)
Barnes Field Group (Reservable)
South Pond Recreational Area

Evans Notch NH
Hastings Campground (Reservable)
Wild River Campground
Cold River Campground (Reservable)
Basin Campground (Reservable)

Any fee paid at any of these sites goes directly to Pro-Sport Inc. The FS does not consider it as recreation fee revenue, rather as goods-and-services revenue and claims that as such it is exempt from any of the requirements or restrictions in the FLREA including any public participation in fee increases. Because of this twisted interpretation of the law, NONE of the concessionaire revenue is required to be spent at the site where it was collected.

That promise was always a sham that did not hold up to close scrutiny but it did make some people feel better about the fees if they were willing to believe it. But if you pay your fee to a concessionaire, not one penny is required to be spent at the site where you paid it.

Information above was supplied by the Western Slope No Nee Coalition, which is a great research resource when you're looking into this new scamming industry that coporate opportunists are orchestrating.

More from the WSNF Site:

PS to all the "Old Farts" feeling smug about their lifetime $10 passes, there is a proposal by the FS to eliminate the 50% camping discount for them and at day use sites their pass would only give a 10% discount, not cover the fee completely as the law requires. There's an open comment period on that until Feb 1. Info on how to comment at WSNFC.

WSNFC President Kitty Benzar writes a column for Writers on the Range Syndicate, which discusses how serious this situation is becoming:

Don't Squeeze the Geezers in the Great Outdoors.

Comments are encouraged.

From Kitty Bennzar:

Please emphasize that the day-use fee issue dwarfs even the impacts on seniors/disabled. If concessionaires take over day-use sites to the same extent that they have taken over campgrounds - which they are well on their way to doing - and are not required - as the FS claims they are not - to adhere to any of the REA's restrictions, requirements, or public participation, nor required - as the FS claims they are not - to honor any of the REA passes, then our public lands are lost.

This proposal is an attempt to entirely turn management of, and policy decisions about, all federal recreational lands over to a few private for-profit corporations, and to do it without congressional approval. If this succeeds, it's Game Over.

BE SURE TO READ INFO IN THE LINKS SUPPLIED IN MY ORIGINAL POST!

FortMental: Great Post!

Well FortMental, too bad you don't live in NV and could investigate our own bizarre expenditures.

We have SNPLMA, a program enacted in 1998, whereby BLM land sales monies in southern NV go back to NV, rather than going into the national treasury. 85% of this money -- which is now close to $7 billion -- is supposed to go for improvements of parks, trails, acquisition of environmentally sensitive land, and other things that sound really good on paper.

But the same old crappy trails in wilderness are still crappy. The fees still exist and are going up. Land open to public use is disappearing.

It is not easy to track down where the money is going. We have built a lot of stuff, with an emphasis on civil-engineering-type projects, that smell suspiciously of patronage to big campaign donors. We have a shooting range that cost $63 million, a new Red Rock visitors' center for $22 million (the "old" one, which wasn't old, is now used to house the large number of personnel at the RRNCA, and who pass off all the hard stuff to volunteers), elaborate over-designed parking lots for equestrian parking in areas that are pretty much unused, plans for a gravel bike path through Red Rock (which the bicyclists say they won't use (gravel is hard to do on a bike), but the path keeps lurching forward, and will now be for equestrians as well as bikes), and plans for "trails" all over the city of Las Vegas (running at costs of 6 million a mile). Actual wilderness trails are maintained (or not) pretty much as they always were. The BLM has decided not to do maintenance on wilderness roads unless there are lessees on the roads, so all the roads are falling into decay. Many roads have been posted as closed, even if they were used by just a few people a year, and showed absolutely no signs of abuse.

So, we have a large amount of money, which appears largely to be going down a black hole of patronage construction and administration.

MarthaP wrote:OMG, Aaron, why don't you just give up this ghost. Pick the battles that are more global and less about you, i.e., monetary. You can't win this one and if the NF is hurting for money so they have to charge these fees, who gives a flying? There are infinitely MORE illegal/immoral things going on than someone charging for a parking lot. blah blah
blah...

Wow. Talk about panties in a knot and "globally myopic" too.

I am with you 100% Aaron. This is a really slippery slope. The first time I ran into this problem was at Horsetail Falls in the Desolation Wilderness. I really got upset about in Sedona, when a concessionaire (I hate that word, it makes me think of soggy popcorn at a movie theater) told me my new "America The Beautiful" pass wasn't any good at their toll booth to get into a hike in Oak Creek Canyon. What good was upping the price for the NPS pass and making it cover all the federal lands if it does not cover all the federal lands? Whose lands are these anyway (cynics, hold your fire, I know what you will say)?

[quote=FortMental]Holy Shit![/quote]


Now, now .... let's not bring "religion" into the mix, or this will probably be moved to PnP dark!

Wanted to respond before this got too far down the list. First, thanks to Aaron and FortMental in running down some information for the discussion. I had a misunderstanding of what concessionaires were, so that was important. And thanks for keeping it civil and not getting into histrionics.

I have to assume (damn the man arguments aside) that the NFS contracts with many of these concessionaires because the NFS feels the conessionaires can do the job more efficiently than the NFS can do it. Perhaps you feel t he NFS could do it better than the privates? The NFS would have to seriously staff up to take care of things if the concessionaires go away. As a youth, I stayed at a few of the campgrounds list in Aaron's list; I am familiar with many of them. I don't think you are arguing to close the campgrounds. Those campgrounds are the gateway for many people to begin a relationship with the outside world, so I do not think you are advocating against that.

So I am trying to drill to the root of your complaint (and am trying not to sound belittling as I simplify). Is the problem that you are paying any money, at all? Is the problem that the money is going to the concessionaires instead of to the NFS? Or that the money is not well tracked so you do not know where it is going, if the profits are excessive, and that sort of thing? I suppose if the profit margin is lower, you get more services for your dollar . . .

To quote an aquaintance, you don't change an existing reality by fighting it, you change it by offering a new model that makes the old one obsolete.

Aaron quoted this...

"If the site has all six of the required amenities for a Standard Amenity Fee then they can legally charge people - to use the amenities.
What they cannot do is charge for the things on the prohibited list, which include "solely for parking" "roadside parking and picnicking" and traveling through dispersed backcountry without using any facilities."

So if I put a big sign in my window stating that I'm there ONLY to park (and perhaps a smaller note beneath it quoting the sources for the above named parking privileges), and that I am not using their outhouse, perhaps the rangers would skip writing a ticket.
Of course that does not fight any real issues, but if 10,000 of us began putting signs in our windows..........

The only cogent argument I've heard against the way these fee programs are implemented was that public lands are often the only recreational opportunity available to low-income people who are least able to pony up an additional few bucks.

Steve Larson wrote:The only cogent argument I've heard against the way these fee programs are implemented was that public lands are often the only recreational opportunity available to low-income people who are least able to pony up an additional few bucks.

If there is no accountability IMHO that is indeed an argument. As to lower income: IMHO Roosevelt and all the greats are unequivocally rolling in their proverbial graves because if one child's parents have to choose between parking and a days worth of groceries there is *NO* "benefit of all," period. Eurpoeans take on their cathedrals, etc., as national, not personal responsibilities. Time for us to do the same AGAIN.

No, no - no, let's not bring cathedrals and religion into the equation !!!

This is all just a "numbers game," and the GOVERNMENT has more numbers, so they end up
on top of the heap and always telling folks what to do.

You're either part of the solution OR part of the problem, RIGHT ???



This here's MY cathedral :

Dingus Milktoast wrote:Frankly I don't care about low income access to the extent I need to wring my hands over user fees. A lot of low income users leave a lot of low income trash behind, to be blunt. I have made my peace with user fees. I will not join your jihad.

I've been mum on this aspect, as it is so un-PC. But in the popular areas around here, where there are no fees, the trailer trash trash trailheads. Except a lot of them don't live in trailers.

Lots of folks mob the highways to Mt Charleston at the first sign of heavy snow, even if they don't have the required chains or 4wd, and leave incredible amounts of junk, including dirty diapers and their improvised sleds (usually cardboard). They will double park behind the folks who sensibly got there early to hike, and block exit until they feel like leaving. These folks spend $10 on gas per visit, so I'm not sure what great hardship would come from a $5 fee. I can say for sure that fees and tollbooths tend to turn them back, and they do more than $5 damage per visit.