14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

[MrFrumpylane]

Typical.. I blame this whole mess on the CSU professor for conducting this research. (Just trying to gear up for football season, people!)

Go Buffs!

And oh, for the record, I'm against the fees.

[Jim Davies]

Catherine Keske.
Here's a summary of her previous 14er economic study:
http://www.agsci.colostate.edu/news/e-c ... 14ner.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[djkest]

Turning it into a Liberal vs Conservative debate was NOT my intention, and is NOT the issue that I'd like this thread to focus on (we all know this forum is sharply divided on their voting preferences).

But, PLEASE lets keep a decent dialogue going about the fee situation itself. It is important, and it is an issue that many of us are concerned about, at least judging by the poll response in this thread.

i'd be in favor of a $10 fee just because i bet it would keep the crowds down a good bit. would be worth the small upgrade.

Yep. I would gladly pay $10, which might not be enough. Unfortnately enforcement would cost enough that I'm not sure you could and still break even. It would be nice ot know that the money you pay would go to improvements and maintenance and not just go into the general fund though.

[Hungry Jack]

We should be able to discuss this issue (14er fees) without getting into the sweeping generalizations of how each party might approach this issue. On the list of things that dominate our two-party discourse (I am being generous in describing what occurs in the media) on national issues, public recreation fees fall far, far down the list (even in the taxation debate, recreational user fees would amount to a fraction of a percentage of an infinitesimal amount of a drop in the bucket of what our government takes and spends).

As we have seen here, one's position on paying user fees to offset the cost of caring for public lands does not all along party lines, at least in this small sample. Nor is this notion a "big idea" in the policy spectrum. The big ideas in public recreation were brought forth by Aldo Leopold, Teddy Roosevelt, et al a long time ago. At best, it is an incremental policy that is more operational than fundamental.

So let us forget trying to analyze this issue through the over hyped, over simplified lens of our two-party system, which only serves to make us all dumber by casting false dichotomies on every stupid little issue that might emerge. I would bet that for most of us, our love of the outdoors weighs far more than our allegiance to any party. Let's leave the political baggage at home for a change.

Jack, I wish we could live in a country where everyone got along nicely and politics was just something people had fun with. However, in the current situation we live, politics affects your life. A lot of things are going to change in this country over the next 10 years and quite frankly, we need to make the right changes or we are going to have some major problems. The money my family takes in is important and to have to pay to do what I love in Colorado, is what I see as an unnecessary evil when there are other ways to address the issue. However, as I already stated, if policy is going to be changed or kept the same, it is going to come from Congress which is elected by us, through a very harsh political process.

Agreed that political decisions and election outcomes will have a very big influence on our lives given the juncture our nation faces: taxation/deficits, defense, healthcare, education, social security, environmental protection are all major policy items that leave a lot at stake.

But in the grand scheme of things, whether or not you pay a use fee for a 14er is meaningless. We already have user fees in many areas, so it's nothing new from a policy perspective. Nobody is going to win a federal election by virtue of their stance on this issue. I doubt it would carry that much weight in a state election either.

So let's dispense with the drama and hyperbole. It's not guns or butter. The Germans didn't just bomb Pearl Harbor. Sputnik is not up there spying on us. It has little to do with our national trajectory.

[CHWitte]

So let's dispense with the drama and hyperbole. It's not guns or butter. The Germans didn't just bomb Pearl Harbor. Sputnik is not up there spying on us. It has little to do with our national trajectory.

Alright, I'll give you that one...except for the "Germans bombing Pearl Harbor." I know what you meant. :D

You are right that this will not change the election or make it to a national stage, but it is a little taste of the taxation debate that we are currently having on a larger scale that will affect this nation. I'm not one to lay down my guns on any taxation debate, especially when it involves increasing taxes. (oh, and the guns reference is a metaphor.) I know we got people from California, Illinois and Massachusetts on this forum so I have to be careful.

[MrFrumpylane]

Typical.. I blame this whole mess on the CSU professor for conducting this research. (Just trying to gear up for football season, people!)

Go Buffs!

And oh, for the record, I'm against the fees.

Any idea which CSU professor is doing this research? I may have taken a class with him/her.

EDIT: Someone beat me to it.

[Hungry Jack]

So let's dispense with the drama and hyperbole. It's not guns or butter. The Germans didn't just bomb Pearl Harbor. Sputnik is not up there spying on us. It has little to do with our national trajectory.

Alright, I'll give you that one...except for the "Germans bombing Pearl Harbor." I know what you meant. :D

You are right that this will not change the election or make it to a national stage, but it is a little taste of the taxation debate that we are currently having on a larger scale that will affect this nation. I'm not one to lay down my guns on any taxation debate, especially when it involves increasing taxes. (oh, and the guns reference is a metaphor.) I know we got people from California, Illinois and Massachusetts on this forum so I have to be careful.

Well, I don't fit the political stereotype of one who lives in Chicago. I feel taxed to death in a country, county, state and city that cannot manage its fiscal affairs. It's a disaster on all levels. But I'll stop there.

But my point is that the love of the outdoors probably has the potential to sway individuals on this issue away from positions that might be attributed to their party of choice. But I guess as someone whose views are probably pretty pronounced Libertarian views, "pay for what you use" might fit. But as you argue, I may be paying twice, which is something I would be willing to do. 14ers are that important, even to a flatlander.

[mikemalick]

I cannot remember for sure, but I believe it was at the Mt Massive TH a couple years back where I saw a voluntary "contribution" box/post. I was happy to throw some money in there and it was my choice to do so, to park at that location, etc. I don't recall seeing that type of arrangement at other THs. Anyone know if this was tried on a larger scale in the past, but failed due to maintenance issues, incompetence, theft, etc? I just hope the money that goes into those is used for work in that area rather than being wasted in a general fund somewhere. I have nothing to back it up, but I think most folks would be much more amenable to a voluntary contribution arrangement like that...especially if those funds were explicitly destined for projects right there.

[PeteDunnewald]

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

[Hungry Jack]

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.

[CHWitte]

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?

[nfire]

But why pay twice if you don't have too??

to