14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

[painless4u2]

No, fees should...not be charged to access these areas

Except Bross. That baby's worth at least $100.

If it keeps Texans off our mountains, I'm for it!!!!!!

And Aug_Dog. He should pay for just thinking about climbing a 14er.



Free Culebra!

[Aug_Dog]

I'll get ripped for this but I thInk Longs should be permit-based. Not saying they should necessarily charge for the permit, but I think a permit should be required. 7 rescues in one day!? That's why.

Tragedy of the commons.

Go somewhere other than G&T if you want a quiet mountain experience. The parking lot is packed at 7am on a friggin' Thursday these days. Deal with it and go elsewhere.

Cool story?

Um, why in the hell do you think I was up climbing Mt McClellan and Edwards last weekend? LOL!

[TheF79]

Is anyone familiar with how well the Colorado fishing licensing program works? Growing up in Minnesota, it was just standard operating procedure that you and everyone else in the state who fished (i.e. everyone else in the state) would buy their fishing license each year. Sure some people would only go a few times, and others would go alot, but everyone knew the revenue (couple of million dollars I believe) was 100% channeled back to the fishing division of the DNR to be used to improve and maintain fishing in the state. I don't recall a whole lot of whining, either on the lake or at the store when I sold them (filled them out by hand back then, would get hand cramps filling out a several dozen a night the week before season opener) Is the Colorado fishing license program as well run? It seems like something like the $26 dollar annual CO fishing license would be how they would implement something like a 14er fee, as opposed to a per peak/th system.

Also, the whole "I already pay my taxes" thing doesn't hunt. The non-fire USFS budget is like $3 billion a year, or 10 bucks per capita, and the entire Department of the Interior budget is only $11 billion a year, or 35 bucks per capita. So unless you're a way-way-above-average tax payer, any regular hiker/reader of this website gets way more benefit from USFS/BLM et al. than that average of $45 dollar paid in taxes.* People on the east coast who have little-to-no federal lands could rightly ask why the hell they should pay taxes so us Coloradoans and other Westerners can go galavanting off into the mountains on their dime.

* - I could be wrong if it in fact costs pennies per user to maintain the 14er "system," but I'm guessing that's probably not the case.

[Shawnee Bob]

Bad idea. Really, really bad idea. Unless someone can show me an iron-clad plan that would use those funds for trail maintenance, trailhead improvements, SAR subsidies, etc, then no way.

And as far as the crowds on the popular peaks go, there's some good and bad with that. I know someone who went up a popular front range peak awhile back, got hooked on it, and now is not far from being a 14er finisher. And lost 60 pounds in the process. If free access means people getting outside, getting fit and improving their health, I'll put up with sharing Bierstadt's summit with 80 others on a summer weekday. I do those hikes for the company; if I want solitude, there's a ton of 13ers in the San Juans no one visits.

[coloradokevin]

To add to my above post, I would honestly pay $50 to climb Grays/Torreys again sans idiots. I would absolutely love to see less than 50 people on that trail. I've done Grays twice and Torrey once. My GF has done neither. I am very firm on this: I am NOT going back to that basin unless it's a Tuesday or the apocalypse has left the earth bare of humans. Kelso is so high on my list of coveted routes, but I don't want anything to do with Stephens Gulch and the complete BS that the uncaring bring to that area. Call me a "14er hipster" all you want, but I don't want to share the trail with the asshat populace that frequents the popular trails these days.

Charge the S*IT out of Grays/Torreys. Please!

There's nothing stopping you from climbing there in October, or better yet, winter. I skied up that basin 3 times last winter. I didn't see a single person above the summer trailhead on any of those trips. Not one. Saw a few on the road between the summer trailhead and Bakerville, but not many. Please don't take this as an insult, but what makes you, me, or anyone else on this site any different than the other people who want to enjoy that mountain? Sure, some of them are inexperienced, but we were all inexperienced when we started in this sport.

Also, while many people do indeed visit this area, I still haven't noticed any significant trail/resource damage in that area. Yeah, you'll see people in the valley during the warm months, but they aren't really causing much damage so far as I can tell. I've probably climbed those peaks a total of 20 times or more, going back as far as about 15 years ago. The area is more popular now than it once was, but the area doesn't appear more damaged because of it. The trail is a bit beefier and more sustainable now, but that doesn't ruin the overall aesthetic value of that valley.

You also bring me into another issue when you talk of G&T via Steven's Gulch:

Someone mentioned that they were concerned about the costs of regrading that road annually, rather than once every 5 years. The road is one thing that I think has been needlessly improved in recent years, which may have led to more crowds. It used to be that I'd consider that road to be one that I'd only visit with my 4wd vehicle. In more recent years I've driven my Hyundai Accent up there without issues. Maybe we could save money AND reduce crowds if we went back to a pattern of maintaining that road on a 5-year basis? Wasn't the road improvement situation also involved in the fee-due-to-crowds argument at S. Colony Lakes?

I find the complaints of overuse on this forum to be a bit laughable. We are probably the single largest group of 14'ers users out there, and yet we cry that the peaks are too crowded. If we're talking about "fair share" here, we've certainly had our slice of the pie, and then some. Personally, I expect crowds on popular trails to well-known mountains. When I seek to avoid these crowds I go elsewhere. I don't think fees will substantially change the crowd situation for the better, even at the cost of $20/climb. It will be a needless expense for all of us to endure every time we climb, but people will still show up out there (have fees stopped the crowds in Yellowstone? RMNP? Anywhere? -- Must we even stop the crowds to enjoy ourselves, or should we just visit lesser known areas when we want solitude?).

[coloradokevin]

I'd prefer to see a parking fee associated with 14er trailheads of a few bucks per trailhead with the option for an annual pass (say $30 / year) with the explicit agreement that the funds can only be used for trailhead and/or road maintenance. If this is going into the USFS general fund, then I say no.

This is another issue that ought to be addressed.

A parking fee, entrance fee, usage fee, climber tax, environmental offset fee, or anything else you want to call it all have the same effect: they levy a monetary charge against us for use of the area for the purpose of hiking on a mountain. None of us are walking to these trailheads, and whether the USFS tells me that I'm paying to park or paying to hike is an argument of semantics. It makes no difference what the fee is called, it makes a difference that I have to pay it at all! I first ran into this concern probably more than ten years ago, when some fees were first added for an area I was visiting out here. I remember telling the ranger that I wasn't a fan of usage fees, to which they responded: "it isn't a fee to use the area, it's a fee to park". Whatever, it's a fee.

As for the folks who have been saying that such a fee system couldn't be enforced, I wouldn't bet on it. First, the USFS can easily require people to place permits on their vehicles at the trailhead (from self-pay kiosks), then stroll on by the fee site any time they darn well please to cite vehicles that haven't paid the fee. There's your enforcement right there. Now, some would argue that the USFS doesn't have the resources available to send people up to check who has paid. But, they'll be sending someone up to collect the fee money, so there's no reason they couldn't also do ticketing while they are there (to generate more revenue). Guess where the money will come from to pay for the person who collects the fees...

Honestly, the most likely scenario in my mind is that the USFS will simply outsource the management of these trailheads to private companies, who will then in turn aggressively enforce the user fee for the sake of their profit (this is already being done in hundreds -- if not thousands -- of areas on public land in this country).

[shaunster_co]

I agree totally with what Keven said. One that chaps my ass right now is the Brainard Lake area. I am pulling the information on the company that is leasing it and refusing to honor any type of park pass [as of next year]... what a bunch of b.s. About the only way to stop that crap is a class action lawsuit. I can assure you things will head in that direction very soon.

If one wants fees to park in an assigned stall, perhaps disneyland should be their appropriate venue. I fought the Mt Evans 'usage fees' for the past few years (and I hold an Interagency Access Pass, so I had nothing to gain by seeing it over turned) - the fact is it's just not right.

Off my potato stand now, sorry the whole fee issue is a sore point with me.

[talamo71]

If it keeps Texans off our mountains, I'm for it!!!!!!

In fact, they are not your mountains. They are federally owned and managed, and those federal activities are funded by all US citizens who pay federal income taxes. The interstate highways used to access much of Colorado are also federally funded.

[Mtn Geek]

As for the folks who have been saying that such a fee system couldn't be enforced, I wouldn't bet on it. First, the USFS can easily require people to place permits on their vehicles at the trailhead (from self-pay kiosks), then stroll on by the fee site any time they darn well please to cite vehicles that haven't paid the fee. There's your enforcement right there. Now, some would argue that the USFS doesn't have the resources available to send people up to check who has paid. But, they'll be sending someone up to collect the fee money, so there's no reason they couldn't also do ticketing while they are there (to generate more revenue). Guess where the money will come from to pay for the person who collects the fees...

A fee system could only be enforced at a popular trailhead. With this sort of enforcement they could not enforce you to pay a fee to hike a 14er if you chose a less popular route. This sort of fee could not really be called a 14er fee either. It affects anybody hiking any mountain or valley in that area. It's more of a parking/usage fee. If you do your research, most 14ers would still be free to hike, you just have to think outside the box.

[talamo71]

The thread is veering off on what would be done with the money. Seems to me that that has already been determined:

Colorado towns of Alma and Leadville. The meetings combined government officials and citizens in order to gather information from all individuals regarding the transition from a mining economy to a recreational economy.


The money (appears to me) to be a source of revenue generation for the "towns". Plain and simple, a recreation tax.

And as Jim D. pointed out earlier, if you are a towns member and presented with:

Would you rather receive money from those evil polluting mining companies or hikers who have unlimited disposable income by virtue of what they do (hyperbole intended)?

Which option would you choose?

Waggs

If that is the case, the towns would be charging access to federally owned, managed, and funded lands. They have no authority to do so. I believe that there is established precedent of the illegality of this.

[talamo71]

You people who are saying you might support it "as long as the money is spent on 14ers" are a special kind of naïve.

I bet you support lotteries because the funds go toward education, and that it warms your heart knowing that the government is setting aside the dedicated revenue from the social security tax to help people live a decent life when they retire.

Oh, please. Don't interrupt their intellectual discussion of how they're willing to pay more for something they are already paying for. When half of US citizens aren't paying income taxes that are supposed to fund the management of the lands already, what's another few bucks out of somebody else's pocket?

[talamo71]

To add to my above post, I would honestly pay $50 to climb Grays/Torreys again sans idiots. I would absolutely love to see less than 50 people on that trail. I've done Grays twice and Torrey once. My GF has done neither. I am very firm on this: I am NOT going back to that basin unless it's a Tuesday or the apocalypse has left the earth bare of humans. Kelso is so high on my list of coveted routes, but I don't want anything to do with Stephens Gulch and the complete BS that the uncaring bring to that area. Call me a "14er hipster" all you want, but I don't want to share the trail with the asshat populace that frequents the popular trails these days.

Charge the S*IT out of Grays/Torreys. Please!

Where to start with such selfishness?

Take away others' freedoms. Take away what we've already paid for as US taxpayers. And let's not forget hypocrisy: Rules for thee, but not for me.

Give this a shot. Stop climbing and give someone else a shot if you're so worried about impact. You've climbed enough. Give someone else their fair share. Put up or shut up.