Some things are free, others are not. You could treat that as a fact of life, and often I do just that. If I don't want to pay the fee, I'll go elsewhere. It does make a difference if I believe that my fee is being put to good use to protect the natural wonder I'm visiting. That would make me more willing to pay a bit. However, even if it's a purely commercial operation, if it interests me enough and the price is right, I'll pay. Talking about the Cave in particular, simply from looking at your pictures and reading your description, I wouldn't mind at all paying a few dollars to have a look. However, I most definitely would not enter a lottery with these odds, whether I would consider it a scam (I do) or not, nor would I be willing to go to the hassle of showing up for the actual draw, given the high probability of not getting a permit. I'd feel like I was wasting time and I'd much rather go out hiking or climbing somewhere else, where there is no hassle!
P.S. I'm from Europe, and I'm fortunate that there is still a lot of wilderness and national or natural parks et cetera, without access fees, and I've barely scratched the surface in visiting them.
Re: Don't stop, do keep us posted about these issues
You're certainly better off to avoid fee areas, and thankfully, so far so good on having plenty of choices. If the fee situation is allowed to spiral out of control, this will quickly not be the case and it will cost money to go anywhere and enjoy the great outdoors in America. I'm with you on certain situations, such as our National Parks here in America. They are certainly worth the price of admission, but they are run under a different and accountable system. While you are wise to avoid the lottery situation to see The Wave, should you choose to do so, any effort you make to see it would be justified. You wouldn't be disappointed, and lots of folks would agree. But as the article states, there are many FREE places worth your time and effort that are as good or better. Thanks for your comment.
Aaron, I am pleased to see that there are like minded people out there who care about this. Please continue to keep us informed. It is an interesting story. I was not aware there were agencies that took a non-refundable fee just to apply for a permit; I find that sickening.
I try to avoid fees whenever possible, camping in dispersed areas, using free areas, and avoiding permits when I can (this was one of my motivators towards getting my overnight pack down to the size of a daypack). I can understand and support quotas when they are set appropriately, however in many cases they are not. I sympathize with the gentleman who announced he would visit The Wave anyway, given the system they have in place.
This reminds me in some ways of a property tax measure that was on my local ballot for acquiring more land for parks in my area. Sounds nice on the surface, but after some research I discovered how badly the funds were mismanaged. The parks district was already sitting on literally 1000s of acres of acquired land already they had not yet opened to the public, in some cases land they have had for 10-20 years, and were only using it to lease out to ranchers for grazing rights. The head of the department makes more money than a US Senator, and they own a helicopter they use for targeting mountain bikers for tickets who are biking on hikers-only fire roads. They still charge a daily or annual use fee for anyone that chooses to visit some of the parks they manage. This is just the beginning. The tax passed btw. Voters are not that educated.
Your trip report mentioned the increased use that occurs when areas become National Parks. This sounds logical and reasonable; however I have not observed any data that seems to support it. I made the same argument in a discussion I had some time ago, but was not able to back it up. I do not know the effect of creating a National Monument, not sure how to access that information, but it appears that changing the status from National Monument to National Park has little if any impact. I didn’t look at it in a robust manner, but enough to convince me. If you are interested I can direct you the resources I used.
Please continue your efforts. Are there specific things you are progressing on currently?
Thanks mrchad9 for your extensive comment. I am currently party to the civil lawsuit in the Mount Evans case that is mentioned near the end of the article. The case appears on appeal before the 10th circuit court on May 11. Thanks for your interest and support.
Sure Bubba. As I said it wasn't all that rigorous, but it was enough for me to see that it shouldn't be simply assumed national park status increases visitation. (You were in the thread that provoked me to look at this, on Pinnacles NM. I didn't mention this because I still don't want it to be a national park!) Even if it doesn't mean more crowds, it likely does mean more permits, costs, and regulations.
From Wikipedia you can get a list of when National Parks were created. It is sortable by creation date.
For the stats, leave the left side alone, select the park from the dropdown, and then select 'Annual Park Visitation (All Years)'. Under report options at the bottom you can view onscreen or in a graph (I used a graph).
I clicked a few recent National Parks. I only checked 5-6, but did not see any that showed a sustained increase in the rate of change in visitation (rate of change being key here). Some like Joshua Tree show a decline in the rate of increase. Cuyahoga Valley and Saguaro even show an overall decline in visitation after becoming a national park.
There are exceptions. I checked a few more just now and Great Basin clearly has more visitors as a result of becoming a NP, but this was the only one I caught. It doesn't appear that increased crowds are the rule, but the exception. Although it can happen. This all certainly surprised me.
Thanks for the links. I spent some time checking them out and have some further observations about what you noted. Your two listed examples for NPs that did not see much visitation increase after their change in status, Cuyahoga and Saguaro, were both in large urban areas. If you look at other parks that are more remote, or do not have a well known feature, there is often a spike in visitation, such as at Congaree NP. I think the logic that seemed evident, that elevation to NP status would increase visitation, still holds true, if the new parks are remote or not well known prior to the status change. For example, if Steens Mountain in Oregon became a NP, I would be heavily that it would see a major uptick in the number of visitors there. Just my $0.02.
Although I do agree with such an incredible natural miracle such as The Wave being put under protection and the amount of people walking on the fragile sandstone it consists of being strictly limited, I'm glad to see someone really speak out about the advantage that is apparently being taken for as much money-grubbing as possible by means of bureaucratic absurdities...it's really amazing how an actually good cause will always be mis-used...
As someone who has gone on the record before as being cautiously supportive of fees and quotas when they are tied to usage and the fragility of the landscape, I do have to say that I think the lottery system and the nonrefundable application fees are ridiculous. When I got backcountry camping permits for Glacier and Grand Teton some years ago, I remember that the fee was refundable if your choices were unavailable. I don't know if that's changed since then. And while I am willing to pay a small price for the convenience of online applications, it remains just a small price I am willing to pay. What they are doing at The Wave does indeed seem like a racket.
And Bob, Kitty Benzar asked what happens if the road is undriveable and folks can't make it to The Wave. I asked Ellen, who had overheard the same question being asked at the BLM office. The answer was if any "unused permits" for the following days were available, folks could possibly get one of those. I'm guessing if there were multiple contenders, another lottery would be held. But who would want to give up their permit after going to so much trouble of getting one? It might happen, but very rarely, I would think. Otherwise, folks are screwed and their money is gone. Don't you just love government organizations that ignore their own rules, yet expect everyone else to abide by them? The FLREA fee system is seriously flawed and invites out-of-control opportunists to move in, take over and rob taxpayers indefinitely. Right now, the FS in Arizona is trying to do this very thing with private companies-it's on the Western Slope No Fee website. Arizona citizens are already sensitive to the issue, and that's a good thing. Awareness must be increased. For everyone's good, the FLREA must be abolished.
Aaron, I largely agree with Bob's position on all points there. But even if I disagree with you on some points, I sure hope that SP is a good forum for you to fight this fight. I would very much like you to continue to keep us informed about these battles -- they *do* have the potential to spiral out of control in bad directions.
I followed your link to the WSNFC site and was checking out their interactive map. In theory, would the $80 annual pass cause all of those fees to be waved? In 2008 I went down to Sedona and the concessionaire at West Fork Oak Creek still made me pay to part and hike into the canyon, despite my possession of the annual pass. I am always opposed to government regulation of access to public land but that was the genesis of my serious opposition to fees and the like. It just did not seem right to a. charge me a fee to park and hike in a wilderness and b. still charge me after I had the annual pass.
Re: Probably not the place to ask it but here goes...
The FS in Arizona is currently "conspiring" with private companies to "set up shop" on public land. I'm betting your $80 annual pass will not be honored there, as well as many other places. The money you paid for that pass doesn't cover their profit margin. It goes "elsewhere." We'll see more of this if the public doesn't wake up. Hopefully the already pissed off Arizona folks will scream even louder. Thanks for your comments!
That's what bikes are for. I still have great memories enjoying a specific site back during the mid 90's government shut-down. A gate was locked, required more hiking, but had the place to ourselves.
Agreed. Some fee areas are privately managed though. If the required amenities are not in place, or if the visitor does not used said amenities, the fee does not have to be paid even if someone is on duty.
rgg - Mar 30, 2011 10:01 pm - Voted 10/10
Don't stop, do keep us posted about these issuesSome things are free, others are not. You could treat that as a fact of life, and often I do just that. If I don't want to pay the fee, I'll go elsewhere. It does make a difference if I believe that my fee is being put to good use to protect the natural wonder I'm visiting. That would make me more willing to pay a bit. However, even if it's a purely commercial operation, if it interests me enough and the price is right, I'll pay. Talking about the Cave in particular, simply from looking at your pictures and reading your description, I wouldn't mind at all paying a few dollars to have a look. However, I most definitely would not enter a lottery with these odds, whether I would consider it a scam (I do) or not, nor would I be willing to go to the hassle of showing up for the actual draw, given the high probability of not getting a permit. I'd feel like I was wasting time and I'd much rather go out hiking or climbing somewhere else, where there is no hassle!
P.S. I'm from Europe, and I'm fortunate that there is still a lot of wilderness and national or natural parks et cetera, without access fees, and I've barely scratched the surface in visiting them.
Aaron Johnson - Apr 1, 2011 9:56 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Don't stop, do keep us posted about these issuesYou're certainly better off to avoid fee areas, and thankfully, so far so good on having plenty of choices. If the fee situation is allowed to spiral out of control, this will quickly not be the case and it will cost money to go anywhere and enjoy the great outdoors in America. I'm with you on certain situations, such as our National Parks here in America. They are certainly worth the price of admission, but they are run under a different and accountable system. While you are wise to avoid the lottery situation to see The Wave, should you choose to do so, any effort you make to see it would be justified. You wouldn't be disappointed, and lots of folks would agree. But as the article states, there are many FREE places worth your time and effort that are as good or better. Thanks for your comment.
mrchad9 - Mar 31, 2011 3:51 pm - Voted 10/10
Keep it up!Aaron, I am pleased to see that there are like minded people out there who care about this. Please continue to keep us informed. It is an interesting story. I was not aware there were agencies that took a non-refundable fee just to apply for a permit; I find that sickening.
I try to avoid fees whenever possible, camping in dispersed areas, using free areas, and avoiding permits when I can (this was one of my motivators towards getting my overnight pack down to the size of a daypack). I can understand and support quotas when they are set appropriately, however in many cases they are not. I sympathize with the gentleman who announced he would visit The Wave anyway, given the system they have in place.
This reminds me in some ways of a property tax measure that was on my local ballot for acquiring more land for parks in my area. Sounds nice on the surface, but after some research I discovered how badly the funds were mismanaged. The parks district was already sitting on literally 1000s of acres of acquired land already they had not yet opened to the public, in some cases land they have had for 10-20 years, and were only using it to lease out to ranchers for grazing rights. The head of the department makes more money than a US Senator, and they own a helicopter they use for targeting mountain bikers for tickets who are biking on hikers-only fire roads. They still charge a daily or annual use fee for anyone that chooses to visit some of the parks they manage. This is just the beginning. The tax passed btw. Voters are not that educated.
Your trip report mentioned the increased use that occurs when areas become National Parks. This sounds logical and reasonable; however I have not observed any data that seems to support it. I made the same argument in a discussion I had some time ago, but was not able to back it up. I do not know the effect of creating a National Monument, not sure how to access that information, but it appears that changing the status from National Monument to National Park has little if any impact. I didn’t look at it in a robust manner, but enough to convince me. If you are interested I can direct you the resources I used.
Please continue your efforts. Are there specific things you are progressing on currently?
Aaron Johnson - Apr 1, 2011 9:50 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Keep it up!Thanks mrchad9 for your extensive comment. I am currently party to the civil lawsuit in the Mount Evans case that is mentioned near the end of the article. The case appears on appeal before the 10th circuit court on May 11. Thanks for your interest and support.
Bubba Suess - Apr 1, 2011 11:18 am - Voted 10/10
Re: Keep it up!Thanks for your efforts to fight and inform Aaron. The fee system is a racket. I loathe the day I have to start paying for a wilderness permit.
Mrchad, could you send me the resources you were referring to?
mrchad9 - Apr 1, 2011 2:40 pm - Voted 10/10
Re: Keep it up!Ah... I didn't click the links. Will watch the video when I get home. Please let us know how the case turns out.
mrchad9 - Apr 1, 2011 3:02 pm - Voted 10/10
Re: Keep it up!Sure Bubba. As I said it wasn't all that rigorous, but it was enough for me to see that it shouldn't be simply assumed national park status increases visitation. (You were in the thread that provoked me to look at this, on Pinnacles NM. I didn't mention this because I still don't want it to be a national park!) Even if it doesn't mean more crowds, it likely does mean more permits, costs, and regulations.
From Wikipedia you can get a list of when National Parks were created. It is sortable by creation date.
Park List
And this think shows park visitation stats kept by the government.
Park Stats
For the stats, leave the left side alone, select the park from the dropdown, and then select 'Annual Park Visitation (All Years)'. Under report options at the bottom you can view onscreen or in a graph (I used a graph).
I clicked a few recent National Parks. I only checked 5-6, but did not see any that showed a sustained increase in the rate of change in visitation (rate of change being key here). Some like Joshua Tree show a decline in the rate of increase. Cuyahoga Valley and Saguaro even show an overall decline in visitation after becoming a national park.
There are exceptions. I checked a few more just now and Great Basin clearly has more visitors as a result of becoming a NP, but this was the only one I caught. It doesn't appear that increased crowds are the rule, but the exception. Although it can happen. This all certainly surprised me.
Bubba Suess - Apr 4, 2011 2:35 pm - Voted 10/10
Re: Keep it up!Thanks for the links. I spent some time checking them out and have some further observations about what you noted. Your two listed examples for NPs that did not see much visitation increase after their change in status, Cuyahoga and Saguaro, were both in large urban areas. If you look at other parks that are more remote, or do not have a well known feature, there is often a spike in visitation, such as at Congaree NP. I think the logic that seemed evident, that elevation to NP status would increase visitation, still holds true, if the new parks are remote or not well known prior to the status change. For example, if Steens Mountain in Oregon became a NP, I would be heavily that it would see a major uptick in the number of visitors there. Just my $0.02.
EricChu - Apr 1, 2011 4:19 pm - Voted 10/10
A very good article!Although I do agree with such an incredible natural miracle such as The Wave being put under protection and the amount of people walking on the fragile sandstone it consists of being strictly limited, I'm glad to see someone really speak out about the advantage that is apparently being taken for as much money-grubbing as possible by means of bureaucratic absurdities...it's really amazing how an actually good cause will always be mis-used...
Aaron Johnson - Apr 8, 2011 1:03 am - Hasn't voted
Re: A very good article!Thankyou Eric.
Bob Sihler - Apr 1, 2011 7:46 pm - Hasn't voted
Aaron...As someone who has gone on the record before as being cautiously supportive of fees and quotas when they are tied to usage and the fragility of the landscape, I do have to say that I think the lottery system and the nonrefundable application fees are ridiculous. When I got backcountry camping permits for Glacier and Grand Teton some years ago, I remember that the fee was refundable if your choices were unavailable. I don't know if that's changed since then. And while I am willing to pay a small price for the convenience of online applications, it remains just a small price I am willing to pay. What they are doing at The Wave does indeed seem like a racket.
Aaron Johnson - Apr 1, 2011 11:41 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Aaron...And Bob, Kitty Benzar asked what happens if the road is undriveable and folks can't make it to The Wave. I asked Ellen, who had overheard the same question being asked at the BLM office. The answer was if any "unused permits" for the following days were available, folks could possibly get one of those. I'm guessing if there were multiple contenders, another lottery would be held. But who would want to give up their permit after going to so much trouble of getting one? It might happen, but very rarely, I would think. Otherwise, folks are screwed and their money is gone. Don't you just love government organizations that ignore their own rules, yet expect everyone else to abide by them? The FLREA fee system is seriously flawed and invites out-of-control opportunists to move in, take over and rob taxpayers indefinitely. Right now, the FS in Arizona is trying to do this very thing with private companies-it's on the Western Slope No Fee website. Arizona citizens are already sensitive to the issue, and that's a good thing. Awareness must be increased. For everyone's good, the FLREA must be abolished.
Arthur Digbee - Apr 4, 2011 1:52 pm - Voted 10/10
Re: Aaron...Aaron, I largely agree with Bob's position on all points there. But even if I disagree with you on some points, I sure hope that SP is a good forum for you to fight this fight. I would very much like you to continue to keep us informed about these battles -- they *do* have the potential to spiral out of control in bad directions.
MoapaPk - Apr 3, 2011 9:36 pm - Voted 10/10
Lucky!I showed up 3 days during the middle of the week, hoping to get a walk-in permit. No dice!
Bubba Suess - Apr 4, 2011 2:30 pm - Voted 10/10
Probably not the place to ask it but here goes...I followed your link to the WSNFC site and was checking out their interactive map. In theory, would the $80 annual pass cause all of those fees to be waved? In 2008 I went down to Sedona and the concessionaire at West Fork Oak Creek still made me pay to part and hike into the canyon, despite my possession of the annual pass. I am always opposed to government regulation of access to public land but that was the genesis of my serious opposition to fees and the like. It just did not seem right to a. charge me a fee to park and hike in a wilderness and b. still charge me after I had the annual pass.
Anyway, keep up the good work.
Aaron Johnson - Apr 5, 2011 12:08 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Probably not the place to ask it but here goes...The FS in Arizona is currently "conspiring" with private companies to "set up shop" on public land. I'm betting your $80 annual pass will not be honored there, as well as many other places. The money you paid for that pass doesn't cover their profit margin. It goes "elsewhere." We'll see more of this if the public doesn't wake up. Hopefully the already pissed off Arizona folks will scream even louder. Thanks for your comments!
ridgeguy - Apr 5, 2011 6:11 pm - Voted 10/10
Government Shut DownIf it happens next weekend, it seems like a good time to visit without a permit. Government employees and BLM Law Enforcement don't work for free.
stokel - Apr 6, 2011 9:43 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Government Shut DownYeah, but then they'll be gated if gates are available. Although in theory, it would be nice if they weren't.
ridgeguy - Apr 7, 2011 9:55 pm - Voted 10/10
Re: Government Shut DownThat's what bikes are for. I still have great memories enjoying a specific site back during the mid 90's government shut-down. A gate was locked, required more hiking, but had the place to ourselves.
Aaron Johnson - Apr 8, 2011 1:06 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Government Shut DownAgreed. Some fee areas are privately managed though. If the required amenities are not in place, or if the visitor does not used said amenities, the fee does not have to be paid even if someone is on duty.