Buz:

I thought we got rid of PnP?

I've been a crusader on SP against fees long before PnP. We do have anti-fee supporters on SP who appreciate and participate in these discussions.

This is a valid concern that SP folks should be paying attention to unless they don't mind double taxation and paying some private business 10 bucks every time they want to go on a hike. Private corporate interests are creeping in to first revamp the current system, and once they get away with that, all day use activities are next. You won't be able to go anywhere within the FS or BLM without having to pay a fee, regardless whether you use any facility or kiosk or whatnot.

Public opposition has been consistent, recreation organizations oppose it, and congressmen are speaking out against it. The FS and their business committees continue to ignore the laws set forth by congress and do as they please. There is great latitude for corruption. The FS and the private businesses view any public apathy and indifference to make a buck by doing nothing. So most of all, it is unfair.

Some SP folks might think most SP members are "upwardly mobile" and don't mind fees, even if they dont benefit anything other than the concessionaire's pocket, because they can easily afford it and don't mind blindly handing their money over because someone has their hand held out. And perhaps that's the case (though I know a number of SP folks who do not fit this description) as there is an indifference to this matter as well. But for those that DO care about this important matter, I continue to post information as it is made available to me. It is an important issue affecting many Americans, not just upwardly mobile (or not) and indifferent (or not) SP users, and is far from a PnP oriented topic.

Those that disagree that the increasing fee scandal is a problem need only ignore the thread and participate in discussions that interest them.

Yep, that's the big rub in the program right there. I was told that 85% comes back to support
the local facilities, but I'm not sure that a "measley" 85% is enough to support the facilities
the way folks want them to be supported.

When I go to the trailheads, I bring a garbage bag and have a field day with the trash!

In the podcast posted above, a caller states they have to pay the fee to clean up the trash and maintain a trail as a volunteer!

We see the same thing in the Angeles National Forest. I would prefer to see the ANF funded to a level where there could be adequate enforcement of litter laws, parking, etc.

I have no problem with fees if they follow the rules and the fees go toward what they're supposed to. More often than not, you'll find this is NOT the case. The fee system was removed at Yankee Boy Basin near Ouray due to misappropriation of funds. Public opposition and scutiny won the day, not to mention timely updates on the Mount Sneffels page here on SP. This is proof that if the public is aware and vocal, opportunistic business interests cannot take advantage of public lands. I urge anyone who has any question about a fee program in their area research its validity and mode of operation carefully.

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..........

I called a concessionare on the carpet about this. I inserted a letter demanding a refund citing the regulations with my enclosed fee. THEY RETURNED MY MONEY TO ME! What does THAT tell you? See the SPANISH PEAK VIDEO on my PROFILE PAGE.

And if the income from fees pays for maintaining the parking lot, why shouldn't you pay the fee in order to park even if you already paid for building the parking lot? Your analogy is just as bogus.

And if you park on down the road rather than use their parking lot, these businesses still want to charge you a fee.

I would agree except that, in this case, the fees don't go to maintaining the parking lot. The income from the fees is to maintain other facilities, and to make the concessionaire more money. At the campground/trailhead by here, all of the fees collected went to the concessionaire, whose only expense related to the facilities was to have the outhouses pumped a couple times a year and trash collected. The road to the campground was maintained, and all winter access for about 2.5 miles to get to the campground was done by private individuals. Trail maintenance, signage, and clean-up was done by a non-profit.

Precisely. The business collecting the fees gets the money for doing nothing. At Yankee Boy Basin, despite healthy fee collection, Yankee Boy was still a mess and the portapot was still unmaintained. Upon investigation, the collected money was "gone." And then the concessionaire was gone, too.

I personally am not against paying fees. I'm against FS property being used as a money making scheme by private companies while taxes are still used to maintain the facilities those companies are charging me to use. If 100% of the fees go towards supporting the local facilities, then I have no problem paying them.

Alas, this is a rare situation. There is too much room for corruption, for businesses to run amuck and do as they please. Meanwhile, the taxpayer gets nothing in return and still must pay taxes AND fees to access public land.

Aaron Johnson wrote:Buz:

I thought we got rid of PnP?

I've been a crusader on SP against fees long before PnP. We do have anti-fee supporters on SP who appreciate and participate in these discussions.

I'm opposed to fees also. But it is a political issue, and the rhetoric on this issue definitely looks like the old PnP (only without the garbage). Just seems like we have two sets of rules here.

Dingus Milktoast wrote:Clearly its an outdoor issue affecting or potentially affecting many of us. It is SPOT ON TOPIC.

+1

And, as I recall, this thread originally began in the general forum, as it is a general outdoor issue that affects us all, and didn't originate in the cesspool of PnP.
Continue on Aaron!

This is (possibly) one of the most important issue facing the outdoor athletes of all kinds, the takeover of public lands by private concerns and the loss of our "already paid for" access. Please keep commenting and following the issues here. This IS the place for it. Thank you.

If it discourages RV drivers, it can't be all bad!

asmrz wrote:This is (possibly) one of the most important issue facing the outdoor athletes of all kinds, the takeover of public lands by private concerns and the loss of our "already paid for" access. Please keep commenting and following the issues here. This IS the place for it. Thank you.

It isn't anything new, and I have to admit that the NIMBY attitude of "not in Wyoming" is annoying as hell. Westerners did not pay for the National Parks, National Forests, etc. out there, they were cut from federal lands. Virginia had to pay for Shenandoah Park and donate it to the federal government for it to become a National Park - and we have been paying an entrance fee ever since. Either recognize this as a national issue and get rid of the NIMBY attitude or move it to the Northern Rockies forum. Also, the fee in Wyoming may be onerous, but there hasn't been any evidence shown yet that it is illegal.

Can't do much to support you from over here Aaron.

But we have similar problems over here coming up. To park at Pen y Pass, the trail head for a lot of routes up Snowdon, (Highest mountain in England and Wales), currently costs US$10 a day. From very soon it is going to be US$16, (UK £10), a day.

And if you park in the main road nearby I have been told the traffic wardens make a special visit at busy times to slap a $100 parking ticket on your car windscreen.

All I can do is offer Trans Atlantic support to my brothers and sisters in the U S of A!

Buz:

I'm opposed to fees also. But it is a political issue, and the rhetoric on this issue definitely looks like the old PnP (only without the garbage). Just seems like we have two sets of rules here.

Unfortunately, the political bullshit comes with it. I try to keep the focus on the basics and avoid the rest. Sometimes it's unavoidable, but I do appreciate your point. If it's anything I hate, it's politics. So, to me, when I see something wrong, I do what I can with what tools and talents I have to TRY to make it right. Because it's wrong.

DMT:

Clearly its an outdoor issue affecting or potentially affecting many of us. It is SPOT ON TOPIC.

Ax grind.

Thanks. And yes, it's an ax I've been grinding for a long time and will continue to do so.

dskoon:

And, as I recall, this thread originally began in the general forum, as it is a general outdoor issue that affects us all, and didn't originate in the cesspool of PnP.
Continue on Aaron!

Thanks. I don't recall posting stuff about fees in PnP-maybe I did...?

asmrz:

This is (possibly) one of the most important issue facing the outdoor athletes of all kinds, the takeover of public lands by private concerns and the loss of our "already paid for" access. Please keep commenting and following the issues here. This IS the place for it. Thank you.

Thanks. Next thing you know, we won't be able to step out of our cars anywhere without having to dig into our wallet first. People need to wake up and realize there are businesses opportunists out there who want to make easy money doing nothing, with no investment, and do it off of the land we have all previously enjoyed for free. The FS and BLM are eager to do this (for a piece of the action of course), and they'll do it where ever they think they can get away with it. And they'll do it as long as the public remains apathetic and the laws are not enforced. The Wyoming Cloudsrest area is the latest example, The NW Pacific NFs are notorious and apparently the worst offenders (listen to that podcast-it's very telling). Thanks for your support.

FortMental:

....just a little anecdote.

Thanks for the story. Your input and support is always appreciated!

Bob Sihler:

If it discourages RV drivers, it can't be all bad!

I too would love to see the SLOW gas hogs off of the road, but this is America, and all outdoor enthusiasts of all types have a right to enjoy public lands as they desire (without trashing them and being considerate of other Amercans, of course). Their concerns must be considered as well, and they (as in the many industries that support their activities) are formidable allies in this confrontation. Though I do not share their interests and uses of natural resources, we do share a common goal of keeping public land access free, as it always has been.

Buz:

It isn't anything new, and I have to admit that the NIMBY attitude of "not in Wyoming" is annoying as hell. Westerners did not pay for the National Parks, National Forests, etc. out there, they were cut from federal lands. Virginia had to pay for Shenandoah Park and donate it to the federal government for it to become a National Park - and we have been paying an entrance fee ever since. Either recognize this as a national issue and get rid of the NIMBY attitude or move it to the Northern Rockies forum. Also, the fee in Wyoming may be onerous, but there hasn't been any evidence shown yet that it is illegal.

Lots of points raised here. I'll see if I can address them efficiently.

Westerners did not pay for National Parks. True. We're not talking about national parks. We're talking about an area previuosly, by precedent, free to the public. I fully support fees to national parks. To simply charge a fee at a trailhead because it's popular is an obvious money grab. There are rules these business intersts must follow, including the FS, before a fee site is established, and after it's established. This is rarely the case. It's a scam.

Well, I learn something every day. I did not know that about Shenadoah Park. However, it is a NATIONAL PARK and I don't have a problem with a fee in that situation, because the fee buys a certain experience the visitor is expecting, as in whatever amenities the Park offers. If the Park does not deliver, well, that's another issue, but it's clearly wrong. Again, Park's aren't the issue here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPORTANT:
As to the legality of the issue, please research the ENDLESS material at the Western Slope No Fee Coalition. It is illegal. The whole thing is illegal. It is a blatant disregard of the laws and rules set forward under the Granger-Thye Act and the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (currently proposed to be thrown out by several congressmen due to abuses by concessionaires) and the Forest Service Manual Section 2344.31 (which the FS itself does not abide by). Such sites are PROHIBITED for charging for merely parking to access public land, or for travelling through to use undeveloped public lands and wilderness resources.

Watch the Spanish Peak Video on my profile page. That note I sent to them resulted in a refund of my paid fee. They knew I was right and they know they are wrong, yet they continue to charge the fee at that site because people aren't informed or don't care and just blindly hand over the money. Yes, folks are stupid. These money grabbers are COUNTING ON IT. If we lose this battle, I guess I'm not one of the stupid ones!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I DO recognize this as a national issue, needing national exposure, and that is why I posted this in the GENERAL forum. There is also a posting on the regional board. Past experience with these matters has taught me to post in the general forum on such matters, because even the locals will tend to REPLY in the GENERAL FORUM. This is where their REPLY will be seen the most.

These are precedent happening events. I don't think people realize this. If these isolated incidents are allowed to continue (which the concessionaires, FS and BLM agencies are counting on) unabated, without any opposition, soon they will be everywhere and a new precedent will be set. There will be no turning back, and folks will have to pay for every outdoor experience in locations they once enjoyed for free, with no accounting for where the money goes (and you can count on it not benefiting the obscure place you visited).

Time is running out on this battle. If the agencies continue to move quickly and the public remains indifferent, it will be game over. Much sooner than we think. At least I have done what I felt was right and what was needed and fought the good fight.

Because it's wrong. Plain and simple.

Thanks everyone for your comments!

edit: Added "SLOW"

Bryan Benn:

Can't do much to support you from over here Aaron.

But we have similar problems over here coming up. To park at Pen y Pass, the trail head for a lot of routes up Snowdon, (Highest mountain in England and Wales), currently costs US$10 a day. From very soon it is going to be US$16, (UK £10), a day.

And if you park in the main road nearby I have been told the traffic wardens make a special visit at busy times to slap a $100 parking ticket on your car windscreen.

All I can do is offer Trans Atlantic support to my brothers and sisters in the U S of A!

Thanks for your comment Bryan. It's very unfortunate it has come to that over there. I am not familiar with the circumstances over there in the UK, but instinct suggests our situations are very similar. It's all about money, making it fast and easy and UNFAIRLY.

Americans need to wake up and take a stand now, or clearly, this is what we're headed toward. I know such situations have been accepted for a while in other places, but it's contrary to what the concept of recreation on public land is all about in America, particularly the western half of America. But nothing's free. Folks that take their public lands for granted will soon find them gone. They'll be priced right out of the market.

Thanks again Bryan for your comment and support.

Hey, Aaron, what I meant was that this thread did not originate in PnP, as I thought someone suggested, being it is political, etc.
And, where is this podcast I should listen to?
And, I have some hiking friends here in Portland, who never seem to question these fee programs, rather think that they are doing their "part in helping support the outdoors, the trails, restrooms, etc." Your thoughts on this, which I know are already voiced in this thread?

Hey, Aaron, what I meant was that this thread did not originate in PnP, as I thought someone suggested, being it is political, etc.
And, where is this podcast I should listen to?
And, I have some hiking friends here in Portland, who never seem to question these fee programs, rather think that they are doing their "part in helping support the outdoors, the trails, restrooms, etc." Your thoughts on this, which I know are already voiced in this thread?

Yeah-this thread did not start in PnP. That I know for sure!

The link to the podcast is in my post on page 6, post #1.

Your friends are not informed. They are being fooled like others, which is just what the FS and its concessionaires are counting on. They need to visit all of the links I have posted in this thread, namely the Western Slope No Fee Coalition. If they wish to be enlightened, they must invest the time and energy to read up on this stuff. If they choose not to, they will contribute to someone's wallet.

READ READ READ READ READ! Folks must open their eyes if they are to see clearly.

Thanks for your interest and good luck enlightening your friends.

Aaron Johnson wrote:Unfortunately, the political bullshit comes with it. I try to keep the focus on the basics and avoid the rest. Sometimes it's unavoidable, but I do appreciate your point. If it's anything I hate, it's politics. So, to me, when I see something wrong, I do what I can with what tools and talents I have to TRY to make it right. Because it's wrong.

I fully support fees to national parks. To simply charge a fee at a trailhead because it's popular is an obvious money grab. There are rules these business intersts must follow, including the FS, before a fee site is established, and after it's established. This is rarely the case. It's a scam.

Well, I learn something every day. I did not know that about Shenadoah Park. However, it is a NATIONAL PARK and I don't have a problem with a fee in that situation, because the fee buys a certain experience the visitor is expecting, as in whatever amenities the Park offers. If the Park does not deliver, well, that's another issue, but it's clearly wrong. Again, Park's aren't the issue here.

1. The political bullshit started when you called the fee "illegal." Since no court has found that to be the case, it's merely your political view.

2. Whether it is a National Park or National Forest makes little difference to me. Both provide outdoor recreation opportunities and both provide facilities. If National Forests shouldn't charge for their facilities, then National Parks shouldn't either.

3. Yes the trailhead in question is popular (I've actually been there). That means that it should get trash pickup and should have some decent restrooms (it's a long way to the nearest town). The trailhead also has a paved entrance road and parking lot and picnic tables. Those things cost money and someone has to pay for them - doesn't mean that it has to be from a use fee, but the law does allow a fee where certain amenities are provided.

4. The law is a bit unclear in regard to situations like the trailhead in question, but the intent seems clear to me. The law says that they can only charge when certain amenities are provided and can't charge a fee just for a trailhead. The wording may be a bit unclear, but it seems to be saying that they can't charge for unimproved trailheads, but can charge when the required amenities are provided, as they are in this case. The fee is based on the availability of facilities, not on their use. Just because you choose not to use some of the amenities provided, that does not exempt you from the fee. You don't get a discount at the movie theater for not using the rest room and you shouldn't at a National Forest either.

5. Sounds like they outsourced the trash pickup, maintenance, and such - not unusual. The government often does this sort of thing. They say that it is more efficient. Services can end up getting poorly done at high expense due to corruption (ask Halliburton about this). If there is corruption involved in the contracts that are supposed to be paid out of this fee, that's another issue entirely - doesn't make the fee illegal.

6. The entrance fee at Shenandoah Park was originally ($0.50 back then) supposed to pay for the road, not any "park experience." Now it's just an entrance fee, same as most other National Parks. You are supposed to pay it if you hike in.

Gary Schenk wrote:The fees are used to line the pockets of the big timber companies. The forest service use these fees to subsidize infrastructure for the harvesting of lumber, and not incidentally more or less sell off our trees for next to nothing.

I have no problem with careful harvesting of trees, it is needed. But Weyerhauser and the rest make enough money that they don't need mine.

Don't encourage them. Don't buy the pass, and don't pay the "notice of non-compliance." Those notices recycle quite nicely, and you can help save a tree!

You won't save trees by not buying the pass or paying the fees. The forest service was selling timber at a loss, long before the "fee demonstration" thing came a long.