14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

[plantmandan]

-NO, NO, NO to fees. Once the fees are in place, it's nearly impossible to go back, and they will undoubtedly increase over time. Anyone remember when an annual pass to all National Parks was $25? It wasn't too long ago.

-The abstract of this paper plainly states that $20% of the revenue collected will not be used for any benefit of the wild areas. That is a horrible overhead rate by most standards. Who will be pocketing that money?

Like many have stated, we all already pay a "fee" that comes out of each paycheck. Enough is enough.

[CHWitte]

WRONG!!! And the state in the case of the article openly wants to sell much of the lands to the highest bidders and put them in private/corporation hands in order to provide money for the state. Apparently you are completely ignorant to what has been going on. Whether or not you agree with that stance (and it is your right to take a stance) doesn't change the fact that it is proposed under the adgenda of true conservatism.

You cannot protect everything. There must be a balance between industry and preservation. This discussion is off topic from this thread so I will not begin to argue on it.

[CHWitte]

-NO, NO, NO to fees. Once the fees are in place, it's nearly impossible to go back, and they will undoubtedly increase over time. Anyone remember when an annual pass to all National Parks was $25? It wasn't too long ago.

-The abstract of this paper plainly states that $20% of the revenue collected will not be used for any benefit of the wild areas. That is a horrible overhead rate by most standards. Who will be pocketing that money?

Like many have stated, we all already pay a "fee" that comes out of each paycheck. Enough is enough.

Good point. You are right in that once the fee is in place, it will never go away and will only increase over time as the government gets more greedy...

[Scott P]

Really, conservatives can't be in support of the government protecting certain things (like forests) and not others (like the NEA)?

True conservative ideals are against government ownership of land (other than military/DC). Of course a conservative can be for government ownership of public lands, but that would make him/her a moderate conservative rather than a true conservative. Most conservatives are actually moderate conservatives (as are most liberals moderate). From your post, I assume that you fall into the catogory of a moderate conservative since it sounds like you support public land ownership.

There must be a balance between industry and preservation

Agreed.

[Hungry Jack]

There aren't many areas where an expanded federal policy makes sense, but I think public land and environmental policy is one of the them. If the forests of Colorado (or the UP, or the Ozarks, etc.) were privately owned, I think there is a good chance they would be clear cut and left to rot.

[SteveBonowski]

I really love threads that "go political," but this should not be one of them. Thanks to Bill for his patience in letting this go on.

For Mr. Witte, I'm conservative and I don't have a problem with a trailhead fee if it is done right. Using the user fee for the Vail Pass Winter Recreation Area as an example, 95% of fees collected there remain on the area for maintenance and user education.

Talamo wrote (sometime back on an early page of the thread): "The Colorado Nativists should have done themselves a favor and taken the land from the federal government when it was recently proposed." Bad idea. I studied the issue at length, as did others, and testified against the bill at the Legislature earlier this year.

The O.P., ColoradoKevin, made reference to the 14er fee study and that it would be presented next month. I for one would like to see and read the study before jumping to any conclusions. I helped gather data for the 14er economic impact study done by Dr. Keske some years ago. That study has proven to be highly useful in various venues, even if some posters here don't understand it. Steve

[edhaman]

Just curious about some of the posts as to what is a "true conservative" or a "true liberal." What are your sources for your conclusions? My reading has indicated that the definition of these terms has changed drastically over time.

[CHWitte]

I really love threads that "go political," but this should not be one of them. Thanks to Bill for his patience in letting this go on.

For Mr. Witte, I'm conservative and I don't have a problem with a trailhead fee if it is done right. Using the user fee for the Vail Pass Winter Recreation Area as an example, 95% of fees collected there remain on the area for maintenance and user education.

Talamo wrote (sometime back on an early page of the thread): "The Colorado Nativists should have done themselves a favor and taken the land from the federal government when it was recently proposed." Bad idea. I studied the issue at length, as did others, and testified against the bill at the Legislature earlier this year.

The O.P., ColoradoKevin, made reference to the 14er fee study and that it would be presented next month. I for one would like to see and read the study before jumping to any conclusions. I helped gather data for the 14er economic impact study done by Dr. Keske some years ago. That study has proven to be highly useful in various venues, even if some posters here don't understand it. Steve

Steve, it is saddening to hear that you as a conservative would agree to such a proposal if it is "done right." How exactly can imposing a fee on people who hike a 14er be done right? How do you enforce it? How do you make sure that money actually goes to what it is suppose to and not just the Forest Service coffers?

As a conservative, you don't believe that $2.9 trillion is enough to take care of our forests? We still need more?

[CHWitte]

Just curious about some of the posts as to what is a "true conservative" or a "true liberal." What are your sources for your conclusions? My reading has indicated that the definition of these terms has changed drastically over time.

I have no idea what the individual who used these terms was referring to. I only referenced a general "Liberal" platform that has been established over decades.

[Chicago Transplant]

There were some earlier posts suggesting that people who complain about the crowds are "part of the problem", and I have to disagree. For one, the people complaining about the crowds are the people most likely to not climb 14ers in summer. I also think many of us are the best educated with regards to Leave No Trace and reducing our environmental impacts.

One of the biggest problems on the 14ers is that people lack the education in backcountry safety and ethics to really belong on them in the first place. They think of them like they are city open-space or something. Just look at the threads related to "poop and tp", "dirty camps attracting animals", "lost/injured/dead hikers and pets", "writing on summit rocks with sharpies", the list goes on. These people probably never should have left the parking lot with the level of education they have with regards to backcountry safety and ethics. While I would like to avoid fees and quotas, I think something has to be done to make sure the people out there are properly educated and not just going up a 14er because they think its "something to do" or worse, to "look cool".

I volunteer of the Eagle-Holy Cross Ranger District through a group called Friends of the Eagles Nest Wilderness. We are basically an educational group, we can't write tickets for rules breakers so what we do is tell someone who is breaking a rule what they are doing wrong, and why that rule is in place. Maybe there is something similar that can be organized for the 14ers. A group that hikes the trails and talks to people on the trail about not littering, about weather and personal safety, proper clothing, not cutting switchbacks, just general do's and don'ts that will make themselves safer and protect the peaks for the long term. It doesn't need a fee because its a not-for-profit that works off donations.

The CFI is great, and focuses on trail work, I am not suggesting they take on more duty. I am thinking of a "Friends of the 14ers" type of group that does volunteer "peak patrols" and tries to educate people about the peaks and how to protect them (and the hikers!). I wear a Forest Service uniform on patrol, so we look rather official, and not as a nosy fellow hiker butting into someones business. I think something official looking would be key to a successful education program on the trail. Our uniforms are certainly more effective and people stop and talk to us and listen to us more than some joe-shmoe on the trail trying to tell them what to do. My ranger district covers Holy Cross, and I have already done this sort of thing on Holy Cross. I would be willing to help out with ranger training for sure.

As far as whether the government has enough money to take care of our forests, the answer is that the money is not being allocated to our forests, its being used for other stuff that someone else thinks is more important than our forests. The district I volunteer with has only 2 full time wilderness rangers that are responsible for the western side of Eagles Nest and probably 75% of Holy Cross wilderness areas. They have somewhere around 300 miles of trails they are responsible for. They don't have the funding to rehab campsites and cut trees out of trails because they aren't important enough the Washington to get that funding. Our volunteer group now has two certified sawyers who can cut trees off of trails, plus we can report back other areas in need of maintenance such as a bridge that is out. I frequently destroy illegal fire rings and pick up trash. I take branches and put them over social trails that cut switchbacks. More volunteers can help to offset this budget gap.

I say to the people on this thread, put your money where your mouth is and start volunteering. Maybe then we won't need fees?

[Hungry Jack]

Thanks Transplant for the volunteer work you do. That's awesome.

I love to see independent volunteer-driven organizations pick up the slack where government fails. Transplant gives a great example. Another hugely effective volunteer organization is the Ozark Trail Association in Missouri, which has done more to build and maintain trails in the Missouri Ozarks than anyone else.

These organizations, when well-run, can be incredibly effective in doing things that governments struggle to do. I think to be effective, they require a great deal of focus (eg one "adopted" wilderness area and/or a limited set of skills, activities and expertise, such as trail construction and maintenance), plus a large enough local population of volunteers who have a vested interest in the property.

I am not sure many of the far flung places out west would have enough of a local interest to create and sustain these types of organizations. There may not be enough people to sustain it (the River to River Trail Society in southern Illinois did yeomen's work in building the trail, but the lack of local critical mass suggests there good work will likely be undone in 10-15 years as trail signage, tread, heads, etc. degrade).

[Scott P]

I agree with Hungry Jack:

There aren't many areas where an expanded federal policy makes sense, but I think public land and environmental policy is one of the them

PS, great post Chicago Transplant.