14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Colorado 14ers access and fee issues only, please

Are you okay with paying a user fee to access Colorado 14'ers?

Yes, for all 14'ers.
24
8%
Maybe, for certain areas.
40
14%
Maybe, but only if the fees were small.
33
12%
No, fees should generally not be charged to access these areas.
187
66%
 
Total votes: 284
User avatar
PeteDunnewald
Posts: 70
Joined: 7/1/2008
14er Checklist (13)
14ers in Winter (1)
13er Checklist (14)

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Postby PeteDunnewald » Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:48 pm

Hungry Jack wrote:
4Lo wrote:
Hungry Jack wrote:I may be paying twice, which is something I would be willing to do. 14ers are that important, even to a flatlander.

Aww, come on! How about groceries? Are you willing to pay twice for them? They're pretty important.
We pay enough in taxes and fees.
Pete


That's a weak rebuttal. Groceries are available everywhere with all kinds of options. There is nothing special or unique about groceries, and they are consumer goods meant to be gobbled up and pooped out (sometimes on top of a 14er).

And since I am not around to volunteer and do trail work in CO (I have built a lot of trail in the Missouri Ozarks), paying a 14er fee would be a simple way to compensate for my use. But then again, I could just mail a check to CFI, which is probably something I need to do.

Sorry for the dumb/weak (just saw the edit) rebuttal. My point is: Why would you want to pay more for something that was already paid for? Doesn't really matter what it is.
Contributing to the CFI is a great way to get trail work and other things that directly impact the 14ers done. I have zero confidence that money collected by a governmental agency is going to go towards what they said it would.
Pete
User avatar
Hungry Jack
Posts: 987
Joined: 7/18/2008
14er Checklist (12)
13er Checklist (4)

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Postby Hungry Jack » Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:52 pm

LtWitte wrote:
Hungry Jack wrote:That's a weak rebuttal. Groceries are available everywhere with all kinds of options. There is nothing special or unique about groceries, and they are consumer goods meant to be gobbled up and pooped out (sometimes on top of a 14er).

And since I am not around to volunteer and do trail work in CO (I have built a lot of trail in the Missouri Ozarks), paying a 14er fee would be a simple way to compensate for my use. But then again, I could just mail a check to CFI, which is probably something I need to do.


But why pay twice if you don't have too?? Why would you let the government charge you twice for something and get away with it? Surely as a Libertarian as you say, the government is not what you desire to be messing in your everyday life, especially one of your favorite hobbies, is it? Why not vote people into Congress who will use part of the $2.9 trillion to apportion more money to the NFS?


It's simple. I value 14ers a lot more than I currently pay to use them (whatever imaginary figure that may be). It's voting with your wallet. It is the ultimate expression of freedom (for those who have economic choice).

Others here have suggested a willingness to pay a fee if they could be assured that the funds would be deployed locally for capital improvements. This makes the decision easier, and addresses your point about the $2.9T cesspool.

I won't vote people into office who will support 14ers because: 1) they don't exist, at least in terms of a policy preference, because no one is going to campaign on this issue; 2) if they did exist, they would probably have stances on other issues that would turn me off; and 3) politicians lie all the time.

So the willingness to pay a user fee is a bit like volunteering for a specific cause, like building trails in the Ozarks. You make an investment or contribution of time or money. It goes directly to the intended source. The bureaucracy is minimized. You feel good. Choice made. Utility maximized.
I need more dehydrogenase.
KBenzar
Posts: 4
Joined: 5/26/2010
14er Checklist Not Entered

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Postby KBenzar » Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:55 pm

Although my message to coloradokevin got this conversation going, I have largely stayed out of it. However because the organization I head (Western Slope No-Fee Coalition http://www.westernslopenofee.org) is actively engaged in trying to influence national policy (i.e. congress), and has been for a long time, I will contribute one observation and one suggestion.
The observation is that access fees began as Fee Demo in the late '90s. They were pushed by some key Republican legislators (Ralph Regula, Richard Pombo - both gone now) but were embraced by the Clinton administration and made part of Al Gore's "Reinventing Government" initiative. They have been continued and expanded by both the Bush and Obama administrations. Fees have been supported and opposed by members of congress of both parties. There is plenty of blame (or praise depending on your point of view) to go around and no need to point fingers at each other down here in the real world where we are all just citizens. The prime movers pushing for fees are the commercial interests, led by the American Recreation Coalition http://www.funoutdoors.com/arc/about which promotes "public/private partnerships" that are really privatization of our public lands. ARC proudly claims responsibility for Fee Demo as an "ARC initiative." (see also http://www.parkprivatization.com) Their goal, which is already well advanced, is to accustom us to paying for access, then the commercial interests move in to commercialize that access and profit from it. Anyone who thinks the Forest Service can be trusted to protect us from that is, as one poster phrased it, "a special kind of naive."
Now my suggestion: The long term policy on recreation fees is set in congress and one of the key players is Colorado Senator Mark Udall, who sits on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, chairs the National Parks Subcommittee, and takes a keen interest in National Forest issues. All of you who are Colorado residents and have an opinion about this should send him your thoughts via his constituent webform: http://www.markudall.senate.gov/?p=contact_us Like other members of congress he only accepts comments from his constituents but those of you outside Colorado can write him c/o the National Parks subcommittee at http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-form

I will now crawl back under my rock. Thank you for your time.
User avatar
Hungry Jack
Posts: 987
Joined: 7/18/2008
14er Checklist (12)
13er Checklist (4)

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Postby Hungry Jack » Mon Aug 20, 2012 2:00 pm

KBenzar wrote:Although my message to coloradokevin got this conversation going, I have largely stayed out of it. However because the organization I head (Western Slope No-Fee Coalition http://www.westernslopenofee.org) is actively engaged in trying to influence national policy (i.e. congress), and has been for a long time, I will contribute one observation and one suggestion.
The observation is that access fees began as Fee Demo in the late '90s. They were pushed by some key Republican legislators (Ralph Regula, Richard Pombo - both gone now) but were embraced by the Clinton administration and made part of Al Gore's "Reinventing Government" initiative. They have been continued and expanded by both the Bush and Obama administrations. Fees have been supported and opposed by members of congress of both parties. There is plenty of blame (or praise depending on your point of view) to go around and no need to point fingers at each other down here in the real world where we are all just citizens. The prime movers pushing for fees are the commercial interests, led by the American Recreation Coalition http://www.funoutdoors.com/arc/about which promotes "public/private partnerships" that are really privatization of our public lands. ARC proudly claims responsibility for Fee Demo as an "ARC initiative." (see also http://www.parkprivatization.com) Their goal, which is already well advanced, is to accustom us to paying for access, then the commercial interests move in to commercialize that access and profit from it. Anyone who thinks the Forest Service can be trusted to protect us from that is, as one poster phrased it, "a special kind of naive."
Now my suggestion: The long term policy on recreation fees is set in congress and one of the key players is Colorado Senator Mark Udall, who sits on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, chairs the National Parks Subcommittee, and takes a keen interest in National Forest issues. All of you who are Colorado residents and have an opinion about this should send him your thoughts via his constituent webform: http://www.markudall.senate.gov/?p=contact_us Like other members of congress he only accepts comments from his constituents but those of you outside Colorado can write him c/o the National Parks subcommittee at http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-form

I will now crawl back under my rock. Thank you for your time.


Excellent perspective. Thanks for weighing in. Yikes.

Like many here, I am willing to pay more if it supports upkeep of the natural asset. I would not want to pay a dime for some corporate entity to profit off this.
I need more dehydrogenase.
User avatar
PeteDunnewald
Posts: 70
Joined: 7/1/2008
14er Checklist (13)
14ers in Winter (1)
13er Checklist (14)

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Postby PeteDunnewald » Mon Aug 20, 2012 2:11 pm

Hungry Jack wrote:
KBenzar wrote:Although my message to coloradokevin got this conversation going, I have largely stayed out of it. However because the organization I head (Western Slope No-Fee Coalition http://www.westernslopenofee.org) is actively engaged in trying to influence national policy (i.e. congress), and has been for a long time, I will contribute one observation and one suggestion.
The observation is that access fees began as Fee Demo in the late '90s. They were pushed by some key Republican legislators (Ralph Regula, Richard Pombo - both gone now) but were embraced by the Clinton administration and made part of Al Gore's "Reinventing Government" initiative. They have been continued and expanded by both the Bush and Obama administrations. Fees have been supported and opposed by members of congress of both parties. There is plenty of blame (or praise depending on your point of view) to go around and no need to point fingers at each other down here in the real world where we are all just citizens. The prime movers pushing for fees are the commercial interests, led by the American Recreation Coalition http://www.funoutdoors.com/arc/about which promotes "public/private partnerships" that are really privatization of our public lands. ARC proudly claims responsibility for Fee Demo as an "ARC initiative." (see also http://www.parkprivatization.com) Their goal, which is already well advanced, is to accustom us to paying for access, then the commercial interests move in to commercialize that access and profit from it. Anyone who thinks the Forest Service can be trusted to protect us from that is, as one poster phrased it, "a special kind of naive."
Now my suggestion: The long term policy on recreation fees is set in congress and one of the key players is Colorado Senator Mark Udall, who sits on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, chairs the National Parks Subcommittee, and takes a keen interest in National Forest issues. All of you who are Colorado residents and have an opinion about this should send him your thoughts via his constituent webform: http://www.markudall.senate.gov/?p=contact_us Like other members of congress he only accepts comments from his constituents but those of you outside Colorado can write him c/o the National Parks subcommittee at http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-form

I will now crawl back under my rock. Thank you for your time.


Excellent perspective. Thanks for weighing in. Yikes.

Like many here, I am willing to pay more if it supports upkeep of the natural asset. I would not want to pay a dime for some corporate entity to profit off this.


Well, sounds like we're a little farther down this trail than I thought. Yikes is right!
Pete
User avatar
ChrisRoberts
Posts: 697
Joined: 7/17/2011
14er Checklist (12)
13er Checklist (10)

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Postby ChrisRoberts » Mon Aug 20, 2012 2:23 pm

Dex wrote:If the $ was for SAR. Then I think instead of everyone paying; the person rescued should pay.

Good luck getting people to call in when they know theyre footing the bill.
*****

I honestly wouldnt be opposed to paying $5, to get to the TH and back the gas money is already a necessary expense, plus you have to stop and get a bite to eat afterwards...paying a bit extra would just be part of life. I could find a bigger waste of a couple of dollars pretty easily, at least I'd be in the mountains and maybe helping to upgrade the trails or facilities.
Some rise, some fall, some climb to get to terrapin
NoCoChris: Now with less Colorado!
User avatar
Bean
Posts: 2742
Joined: 11/2/2005
14er Checklist (29)
14ers Skied (28)
14ers in Winter (8)
13er Checklist (7)
Contact:

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Postby Bean » Mon Aug 20, 2012 2:49 pm

Dex wrote:I agree with a per car parking fee.


The judge who oversaw the Mt Lemmon case doesn't.

I'm astonished at how many of you want to give money to the USFS for nothing. If you care about maintenance of summer 14er walking trails, give money to the CFI. Creating another fee paid to the USFS will just bloat the bureaucracy (and encourage concessionaires), and maybe stick a ranger at the TH every once in a while.
"There are no hard 14ers, but some are easier than others." - Scott P
http://throughpolarizedeyes.com
User avatar
Chicago Transplant
Posts: 3299
Joined: 9/7/2004
14er Checklist (56)
14ers Skied (10)
14ers in Winter (23)
13er Checklist (575)

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Postby Chicago Transplant » Mon Aug 20, 2012 2:49 pm

Based on responses to an earlier post I made, I felt I should clarify. I wrote:

Chicago Transplant wrote:the post below is meant to act as a summary of people's opinions of each other views


I never said my summary was what people were saying about their OWN political affiliation, I said it was what people were saying about the OPPOSITE one... It doesn't mean either is correct, but it shows the reason why people are butting heads.

I then went on to say re-appropriation of fees to the NFS is the way to go, but with the realization that a hiker lobby in DC is weak (if it even exists!) and that w/o deep pocket lobbyists, the hikers will always lose.

We might have a big budget as a nation, and the NFS part might be a drop in the proverbial bucket, but the fact is outside of our relatively small user group, nobody gives a rats rear-side about hikers and getting anyone in DC to actually move that money to where we want it is incredibly unlikely. We don't make anybody enough money for them to care about us. Maybe we need to brag more post-climb when we are in the neighboring towns having a meal or shopping in their stores, but fact is in the non-hiker diners and shoppers far outnumber us. Hiker groups have no lobbying power, maybe we need to get more vocal about our wants and needs as a community so people will listen to us.

Talking about how to fund the NFS amongst a bunch of hikers (like we are doing on this thread) is not going to fix anything, we need to change the minds of non-hikers to see our view and realize the importance of funding our public lands (preferably through money we already have, and not by new fees!)
"We want the unpopular challenge. We want to test our intellect!" - Snapcase
"You are not what you own" - Fugazi
"Life's a mountain not a beach" - Fortune Cookie I got at lunch the other day
User avatar
PeteDunnewald
Posts: 70
Joined: 7/1/2008
14er Checklist (13)
14ers in Winter (1)
13er Checklist (14)

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Postby PeteDunnewald » Mon Aug 20, 2012 2:58 pm

Chicago Transplant wrote:Based on responses to an earlier post I made, I felt I should clarify. I wrote:

Chicago Transplant wrote:the post below is meant to act as a summary of people's opinions of each other views


I never said my summary was what people were saying about their OWN political affiliation, I said it was what people were saying about the OPPOSITE one... It doesn't mean either is correct, but it shows the reason why people are butting heads.

I then went on to say re-appropriation of fees to the NFS is the way to go, but with the realization that a hiker lobby in DC is weak (if it even exists!) and that w/o deep pocket lobbyists, the hikers will always lose.

We might have a big budget as a nation, and the NFS part might be a drop in the proverbial bucket, but the fact is outside of our relatively small user group, nobody gives a rats rear-side about hikers and getting anyone in DC to actually move that money to where we want it is incredibly unlikely. We don't make anybody enough money for them to care about us. Maybe we need to brag more post-climb when we are in the neighboring towns having a meal or shopping in their stores, but fact is in the non-hiker diners and shoppers far outnumber us. Hiker groups have no lobbying power, maybe we need to get more vocal about our wants and needs as a community so people will listen to us.

Talking about how to fund the NFS amongst a bunch of hikers (like we are doing on this thread) is not going to fix anything, we need to change the minds of non-hikers to see our view and realize the importance of funding our public lands (preferably through money we already have, and not by new fees!)


Well said!
Pete
User avatar
Hungry Jack
Posts: 987
Joined: 7/18/2008
14er Checklist (12)
13er Checklist (4)

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Postby Hungry Jack » Mon Aug 20, 2012 2:58 pm

Bean wrote:
Dex wrote:I agree with a per car parking fee.


The judge who oversaw the Mt Lemmon case doesn't.

I'm astonished at how many of you want to give money to the USFS for nothing. If you care about maintenance of summer 14er walking trails, give money to the CFI. Creating another fee paid to the USFS will just bloat the bureaucracy (and encourage concessionaires), and maybe stick a ranger at the TH every once in a while.


I'd split hairs with the "for nothing" part, but you are spot in arguing that probably the most efficient way to have an impact is directly support CFI. In terms of operating efficiency and ROI, these local non-profits are far more capable than the federal bureaucracy.
I need more dehydrogenase.
User avatar
Mtn Geek
Posts: 153
Joined: 5/10/2007
14er Checklist (14)
13er Checklist (22)

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Postby Mtn Geek » Mon Aug 20, 2012 3:41 pm

Putting a $20 fee at a 14er TH may or may not cut down on the volume of people. If it stops 50 people hiking Gray/Torries on a busy weekend are you really going to notice the decline of hikers? I think the surrounding 13ers are going to be impacted the most. There is no way I'm going to pay $20 to hike a lowly 13er like Kelso. If I hike Kelso I'm going to do G/T and hopefully Edwards as well.
User avatar
Patinator
Posts: 176
Joined: 8/13/2007
14er Checklist (56)
13er Checklist (12)

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Postby Patinator » Mon Aug 20, 2012 3:59 pm

Why not make the trail head a lot further from the peak? Sure it will have some upfront costs associated with new gates, signage etc., but over time it would require less road maintenance and would probably see a drop in casual climbers. Take for example what has been done at the South Colony Lakes trail head. I don't have any usage numbers, but would be willing to bet that the extra miles have discouraged some people. If this issue is really about the environment, I think this option should be in the mix.

Return to “Peak Usage Fees and Restrictions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests