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.

Why not go after those who shut down the endangered species list, INCLUDING Ken Salazar and President Obama? How about taking in one of the homeless women from the streets of Denver who are turned AWAY from shelters because they're women and there are fewer beds for them than for men? Protest sanctions against Bolivia that are preventing village women from sending their crafts to a country that will support their Save the Children foundation? How about lobbying for legislation in Denver that supports the rule of law for legislators? Did you know that legislators can't be arrested for a DUI because it's considered an impedence to performing their job responsibilities?

Jeezus, who gives a crap about a couple of bucks parking fee here and there. Hon, you're starting to sound like 1000pks with your obsession...

AND TURN OFF YOUR DAMNED CAPS LOCK! NOBODY WANTS TO BE YELLED AT!!

What do kids in Bolivia have to do with anything "global"? Same can be said for homeless women in Denver. Remember that just because you don't support a cause doesn't mean that it isn't significant.

OK, I can't follow all the logic here, but I'm sure this thread has something to do with health care reform, global warming, or reality TV.

As the French say, << chacun à son goût >> which means, literally, that Chaka Khan's son has gout.

Aaron, You sound just like me 12 years ago when they started this BS here in SoCal. Keep fighting dude you are 100% right. These fees are the result of incompetent land management and poor political representation.

Some tips from inside the "Adventure Pass" curtain:

1. Always park without a pass and take the ticket. It keeps them busy writing tickets and puts up a solid face of resistance.

2. When you get a ticket, just go buy a day pass and send it in. That handles the ticket. Or if you go out a lot, simply put your annual pass # on the ticket and send it in. Don't display the annual pass just use it to get out of the fine. If a day pass is $5 and an annual pass is $30 you'd have to get more than 6 tickets to cover the cost of an annual pass.

We went through this in our local mountains. They tested it, then made in permanent. At first they wrote lots of tickets. Now the rangers are too few and too busy to write tickets. I never get them any more.

If you can jump in and make the legal system work that would be great. Otherwise, a population that resists compliance is often a slow but effective way to crush oppression.

Thanks guys for your support.

Further specifics from Western Slope No Fee:

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. I don't know the spot, but I'm told that its main purpose is as a trailhead into the Cloud Peak Wilderness.

Of course this just gets us back to the whole HIRA argument, and all those trailhead fees in Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona, etc etc.

Also the news stories quote the ranger as saying there is currently no trash service but they are planning to add that, not because they have a trash problem, but solely to (in their minds) qualify to charge a fee. It's the "build it and they will pay" mentality.

One more thing. Fee Demo was signed by Bill Clinton, and FLREA was signed by George W. Bush. Both were riders on unrelated bills that never were debated or voted on as stand-alone bills. There's plenty of bipartisan blame to go around.

mconnell:

What do kids in Bolivia have to do with anything "global"? Same can be said for homeless women in Denver. Remember that just because you don't support a cause doesn't mean that it isn't significant.

Well put. I fight the battles that I know I can fight and make a difference in, and where my talents can best be used. Thanks.

Fortmental:

This is precisely the kind of ignorant comment (and self-righteousness) that allows corporations to insinuate themselves further into our lives. If you think this is only about not wanting to pay a lousy $3, A) you don't understand the basis of the Fee Program and B) to you, the outdoors is a commodity, for sale, just like everything else. The irony here is that this is the precisely the attitude that puts a price on a bald eagle, a hungry kid, and an abused woman.

Nicely put.

SpiderSavage:

If you can jump in and make the legal system work that would be great. Otherwise, a population that resists compliance is often a slow but effective way to crush oppression.

Well said, and good advice, too.

People: This is double taxation without representation. They get a little bit, they'll just take more and more and more. It must be stopped before it gets out of control. It may already be out of control.

Wyoming needs the money, i just finished $100,000 worth of work for the new dept of game and fish expansion project HAHA Im not cheap you know

I suppose I am trying to sort out my feelings on the topic. I started my hiking in NH, and long paid the $3. At first, my teen-aged self was annoyed, but then I figured, it's freaking $3, and if that's what I have pay to access gorgeous country, then so be it.

Now I'm in California, and those $3 have NOTHING on backcountry permits and the like that I deal with in the Sierra.

Now, I guess I AM willing to think of the outdoor lands as a commodity. Those lands are administrated and cared for. Access is provided. Even land that has nothing done to it is being actively kept away from uncontrolled private holders. I may carp about HOW they are administrating or caring for it, but they are doing more good than harm. And they aren't getting enough tax dollars, you can bet on it. In which case, I would think you should be making case against the tax allocation, not the Forest Service (or whatever).

I am betting that if the lands were not public we would not have access . . . or there would be access that we hikers/climbers/dirtbags generally do not appreciate. I'm thankful that I don't get run down by dirt bikes when I'm grinding up to Shepherd Pass.

I guess I think that what the services do are more of a good thing than bad. I support them with my use fees. The fed does not have to give us access. Military bases, that sort of thing. They choose to. If the public makes it a headache to administrate the lands, away the lands go. They are sold. Laws can be changed to accommodate this.

I'm okay with access fees. I do not expect to change anyone's mind, and I do not expect many people to agree.

well, i haven't been snowed by anyone, because I haven't read any of it, one way or the other. Try me with an executive summary. Where do my forest service fees go? If it went straight to the Delaware catering business (or whatever it is in Yosemite), sure I'd be miffed.

If it went straight to the Delaware catering business (or whatever it is in Yosemite), sure I'd be miffed.

Most of your fee goes to the concessionaire's pocket.

Misallocation of funds is the biggest problem with this scam.

The very first trial program was tried at Yankee Boy Basin near Ouray. The disappearing funds were soon noticed. The very first program was also the very first to be shut down due to this issue and public outcry from local businesses, the City of Ouray and Yankee Boy Basin users.

You can call these concessionaires on it, too. They back down when you do (see my original post).

what concessionaire are my funds in the White Mountain National Forest going to?

Being a fungible asset, it is difficult to show that this money is going directly there. And why would the FS pay the concessionaire?

And can I even spell concessionaire?

I just don't see this argument. I'm will to consider it, I am, but this ranting is obscuring any facts.

Fees in Washington really irritate me. More and more roads are being gated. Less maintenance is being done on trails. More places are simply becoming out of reach for your average hiker/climber. A fairly popular climbing spot up here needed public intervention to maintain the trail- a trail that was so bad it was unable to be followed in places. 20 years ago the road and the trail were in great shape, but once the road was gated, the trail started to disappear. We've had places where 5, 10, 20 miles have been added to the approach due to gates and/or no maintenance.

I hate the fees, but I pay them to avoid the ticket. I may just start leaving the pass in the glove box as Aaron suggested.

One of the reasons I left WA state (17 years ago) was because of the intense land use issues and the gates beginning to close.

But, I found out that I can run but I can't hide. Now, I'm living in Arizona, and I have to pay
out my ass for recreational fees - until I get my OLD FART'S PASS, of course.

Until then, the entire state of Arizona is going broke, parks are closing, and my taxes will
soon be going up NO DOUBT.

What's the name of that country where you don't have to pay taxes?

The Republic of Northern Beerwah ??? Until then, guess it's Keystone Light for me ...

I have to stand with Aaron on this issue.

knoback wrote: ...yeah, OK, let me get my pitchfork.

FortMental wrote:I respectfully urge you read up on the literature regarding this issue. If you need links, we'll all gladly post them for you here.

Fort, if you don't mind, could you post those links? I'd be interested in reading up on this stuff.

I always thought the fees are used to pay for rangers, maintenance, facilities and so forth. So if that's not the case, where does the money really go? It never bothered me to pay an entrance or permit fee if it was used for a good cause.

To correct my earlier tongue-in-cheek comments:

leasing fees from logging and mining go directly into the national treasury, so the USFS does not get the benefit of that income stream, at least directly.

I urge you to read Aaron's links at the top of this thread; some of the most interesting thoughts (pro and con) come from the reader comments at the bottom of two articles.

lcarreau wrote:

knoback wrote: ...yeah, OK, let me get my pitchfork.

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