14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Items that do not fit the categories above.
Forum rules
  • This is a mountaineering forum, so please keep your posts on-topic. Posts do not all have to be related to the 14ers but should at least be mountaineering-related.
  • Personal attacks and confrontational behavior will result in removal from the forum at the discretion of the administrators.
  • Do not use this forum to advertise, sell photos or other products or promote a commercial website.
  • Posts will be removed at the discretion of the site administrator or moderator(s), including: Troll posts, posts pushing political views or religious beliefs, and posts with the purpose of instigating conflict within the forum.
For more details, please see the Terms of Use you agreed to when joining the forum.
Post Reply

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

Yes, for all 14'ers.
24
8%
Maybe, for certain areas.
43
15%
Maybe, but only if the fees were small.
34
12%
No, fees should generally not be charged to access these areas.
191
65%
 
Total votes: 292
User avatar
CHWitte
Posts: 281
Joined: 8/6/2008
14ers: 58 
13ers: 26
Trip Reports (13)
 

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Post by CHWitte »

Chicago Transplant wrote:I am not one to make things political, but all the political responses have been one sided, so the post below is meant to act as a summary of people's opinions of each other views... and a question related to those one sided views.


Liberal agenda: You want to use your public lands? Okay, we'll just charge you a use fee.

Conservative agenda: We can't afford to keep the lands open to the public, let's sell them.
Nobody has argued that we can't afford to keep the lands open so there we should sell them... :?:

The conservative approach I've advocated for all along (go back and check please) has been to re-apportion current operating funds to cover the needed expenses of trail maintenance, etc. instead of raising a new tax.
David R. Witte
CO 14er Finisher: July 2015
SteveBonowski
Posts: 226
Joined: 2/9/2010
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Post by SteveBonowski »

Congratulations also from me to Chicago Transplant for your volunteer work. You asked about a 14ers oriented group to walk the trails and do educational contacts. That's what CFI's peak steward program is all about.

LtWitte: old school czar is right about politics being shades of gray. As an example, I can provide a whole list of bills introduced in the US House of Representatives during the past two years by so-called "conservatives;" bills that would affect our public lands; that are decidedly non-conservative in nature. Many would make energy production the primary function of our public lands. Here's a partial list: HR 4480, HR 2578, HR 1505 (would overrule all environmental laws on federal lands within 100 miles of the borders with Canada & Mexico), HR 4089, HR 1581.

There is also a bill that would open up wilderness areas to ATVs and dirt bikes if the user was engaged in hunting or fishing. Would you like to share your trail to the base of Mt. Massive; in the Mount Massive Wilderness; with an ATV?

For more info about 1581, visit: http://www.sportsmen4responsibleenergy.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You might also visit this web site for information about the economic value of outdoor recreation in the West. Makes energy look like small change. http://www.westgov.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; then click on reports.

My point is simple. The old style labels of "conservative" and "liberal" that you're using don't really apply to lands issues in the West.
User avatar
coloradokevin
Posts: 1457
Joined: 6/13/2007
14ers: 15 
Trip Reports (5)
 

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Post by coloradokevin »

LtWitte wrote:
coloradokevin wrote:THIS THREAD WAS NOT STARTED TO BE A LIBERAL VERSUS CONSERVATIVE BOXING MATCH!!! CAN WE PLEASE TRY TO NOT LOSE THIS VALUABLE THREAD TO THE OFF-ROUTE SECTION?

I have friends in both political camps (liberal and conservative) and I have friends from both camps on either side of this issue (for or against fees). Instead of blaming the person's political party on here, perhaps we should stick to a discussion of the issue we are currently trying to address (fees or no fees; why and how). THANKS!!!
Why are people so afraid to talk politics? Are we afraid someone will be offended? The issue of trailhead fees is a serious political matter. We are all influenced by the different ideologies which drive the way we think. My point from the beginning has always been that the Liberal platform that we must typically raise taxes to address new needs (which I consider the deteriorating and crowded trails to be new needs to address), is not the answer. We don't need NEW FEES to address new problems. We need to take part of the $2.9 trillion and move it to where the needs are. ARE YOU NOT TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY?? Most people pay 20% income tax, 6.2% social security, 1.45% medicare, 6-9% sales tax, 3-5% property tax, and about 5% in other governmental fees (DMV, County Taxes, State Taxes, etc.) So in the end, you pay almost 50% of your income to the government! Why does the Federal Government deserve MORE OF YOUR HARD EARNED MONEY beyond what they already get? Fees are a very bad idea because as one individual already mentioned, once they are implemented they will never go away and they will always go up!



My opinion on the tax situation was clearly stated in my other posts. Yes, I feel the government has enough money to operate the USFS without additional fees for users who want to hike in the mountains. That's why I started this thread.

Regardless, we gain nothing in this discussion by throwing the term "liberal" or "conservative" on someone in this thread, and claiming that such a label will determine where they stand on this issue. Rather, we'd be better off focusing on THIS issue itself, instead of derailing this thread into a soon-to-be-off-route argument about whether Mitt Romney or Barack Obama should be the one who gets to screw up the country for the next four years.

You can't categorically state on this forum that liberals are for/against trail use fees, nor can you say that conservatives are categorically for/against these fees. This is an issue that crosses political lines, and when we start pointing the finger at people on the basis of liberal or conservative voting preferences, we tend to lose track of the issue at hand.

The one thing that unites everyone on this forum is the fact that we all value our time in the mountains. As such, we are also a group of people who probably have far more expertise on this subject than any presidential candidate (past or present), or any other Washington politician. Yes, there's obviously some politics involved in discussing any issue that involves government regulation, or taxation. But, we break down an effective discussion of the issue when we start making sweeping generalizations about how people feel on this issue because of their voting history.

Ultimately I feel justified in saying that such fees are unnecessary, and I also feel justified in saying that I shouldn't rightfully have to pay to hike on a mountain in the middle of nowhere. I can defend this argument with opinions and facts, and I can even go as far as discussing the issue of USFS funding. But, I won't help anyone address this situation by turning it into a sharply divided debate over who is liberal, who is conservative, and why.
Chicago Transplant wrote:
Liberal agenda: You want to use your public lands? Okay, we'll just charge you a use fee.

Conservative agenda: We can't afford to keep the lands open to the public, let's sell them.

Again, another statement which will merely cause people to defend their political party, rather than discussing THIS issue. There's no black-and-white one sentence statement that defines either political ideology, and plenty of liberal forum members don't want fees, and I don't think any conservative forum members are okay with selling off our national forests. Back to the topic, please.
Last edited by coloradokevin on Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
CHWitte
Posts: 281
Joined: 8/6/2008
14ers: 58 
13ers: 26
Trip Reports (13)
 

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Post by CHWitte »

TheF79 wrote:
Each person in the US pays about $10 annually for the non-fire USFS. So your platform is that charging 14er users for their use of USFS resources is an abomination, and instead we need to allocate more of our existing funds to USFS, effectively increasing the per capita payment for the USFS from each person in the US, most of whom will never see, much less climb, a 14er. Hell, or even see a tree for that matter. I'm not certain if a fee is needed or not (without knowing what the annual cost of maintaining the 14er "system" is, I'm not sure how anyone could say whether it's needed), but the idea that users shouldn't pay, but non-users should, is... interesting.
This argument doesn't hold water. This is kind of like arguing that if you don't utilize the police force or the fire department within a given year, you shouldn't have to pay for their services. :-s
David R. Witte
CO 14er Finisher: July 2015
User avatar
CHWitte
Posts: 281
Joined: 8/6/2008
14ers: 58 
13ers: 26
Trip Reports (13)
 

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Post by CHWitte »

coloradokevin wrote:Ultimately I feel justified in saying that such fees are unnecessary, and I also feel justified in saying that I shouldn't rightfully have to pay to hike on a mountain in the middle of nowhere. I can defend this argument with opinions and facts, and I can even go as far as discussing the issue of USFS funding. But, I won't help anyone address this situation by turning it into a sharply divided debate over who is liberal, who is conservative, and why.
I agree with most of what you said except for one thing. If one's beliefs are going to best be put into practice, then well quite frankly one side has to win over the other. If we just talk fluff and theoretical ideas, then nothing is advanced. I don't want to see trailhead fees and therefore I'm arguing against yet another Liberal idea, platform, notion, tax, or whatever you want to call it. Now, by attaching Liberal to the trailhead fee, hopefully people will see what often times happens when you elect Liberal politicians into office. This is why it is so important to bring the labels into this debate. Would a conservative be in favor of such fees? Possibly, but highly unlikely. You gotta vote one way or another come November. If you don't vote, well, then you have little legitimacy in debating anything.
David R. Witte
CO 14er Finisher: July 2015
User avatar
BillMiddlebrook
Site Administrator
Posts: 6913
Joined: 7/25/2004
14ers: 58  46  19 
13ers: 172 44 37
Trip Reports (2)
 
Contact:

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Post by BillMiddlebrook »

LtWitte wrote:Why are people so afraid to talk politics?
We're not afraid of the subject, just sick of constantly seeing it on this mountaineering forum. It almost always turns into useless, garbage discussions.
"When I go out, I become more alive. I just love skiing. The gravitational pull. When you ski steep terrain... you can almost get a feeling of flying." -Doug Coombs
User avatar
CHWitte
Posts: 281
Joined: 8/6/2008
14ers: 58 
13ers: 26
Trip Reports (13)
 

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Post by CHWitte »

SteveBonowski wrote:LtWitte: old school czar is right about politics being shades of gray. As an example, I can provide a whole list of bills introduced in the US House of Representatives during the past two years by so-called "conservatives;" bills that would affect our public lands; that are decidedly non-conservative in nature. Many would make energy production the primary function of our public lands. Here's a partial list: HR 4480, HR 2578, HR 1505 (would overrule all environmental laws on federal lands within 100 miles of the borders with Canada & Mexico), HR 4089, HR 1581.
The issue of whether to implement trailhead fees or not is pretty clearly a more tax issue (Liberal) or no new tax issue (conservative). If you want to discuss anything beyond this, then yes we need to be careful in apply conservative and liberal labels.
David R. Witte
CO 14er Finisher: July 2015
User avatar
coloradokevin
Posts: 1457
Joined: 6/13/2007
14ers: 15 
Trip Reports (5)
 

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Post by coloradokevin »

LtWitte wrote:
TheF79 wrote:
Each person in the US pays about $10 annually for the non-fire USFS. So your platform is that charging 14er users for their use of USFS resources is an abomination, and instead we need to allocate more of our existing funds to USFS, effectively increasing the per capita payment for the USFS from each person in the US, most of whom will never see, much less climb, a 14er. Hell, or even see a tree for that matter. I'm not certain if a fee is needed or not (without knowing what the annual cost of maintaining the 14er "system" is, I'm not sure how anyone could say whether it's needed), but the idea that users shouldn't pay, but non-users should, is... interesting.
This argument doesn't hold water. This is kind of like arguing that if you don't utilize the police force or the fire department within a given year, you shouldn't have to pay for their services. :-s

That is a good point, LtWitte.

We all pay for certain government services, even if we don't utilize them. Honestly, I think most members of this forum would be happy to see more money go to the USFS each year, for the sake of forever ending this argument. Most of us can name plenty of projects/agencies we'd be glad to take the funding from, but that doesn't mean we'd all name the same ones.

Regardless, everyone pays for certain services, even if we don't use them. My younger brother has been living in NYC for about 8 years now, and does not own a car. His taxes still help to pay for the interstate highway system. I have an uncle who doesn't ever fly, and his taxes still pay for the TSA, and certain airport related developments. Similarly, non-hikers are also in a position to pay for a national forest system that they may or may not use (but have just as much right to use).

Another way of looking at the funding issue for the USFS is like this:

$5 Billion/year over 193 Million acres = $25.91/acre in funding. Now, that doesn't sound like a great deal of money, but how many of these acres actually need funds each year? For starters, 36 Million of those acres are designated wilderness areas, which really shouldn't require any funding under normal circumstances. Then we have all of the areas that aren't designated wilderness, but also aren't developed. Those areas also require little funding. Suddenly the USFS may have a lot more money to spend (per acre) on areas that actually need development.

The USFS isn't really building roads at this point, though they do have the cost of maintaining existing roads to some degree. On the other hand, some roads that pass through forest land aren't actually forest roads at all (Mt Evans Road, for example), and cost the USFS nothing to maintain.
Last edited by coloradokevin on Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
CHWitte
Posts: 281
Joined: 8/6/2008
14ers: 58 
13ers: 26
Trip Reports (13)
 

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Post by CHWitte »

BillMiddlebrook wrote:
LtWitte wrote:Why are people so afraid to talk politics?
We're not afraid of the subject, just sick of constantly seeing it on this mountaineering forum. It almost always turns into useless, garbage discussions.
Bill, how do you have a discussion about 14er trailhead fees without it becoming political? One side will win in the end. You either have them or you don't based up the politicians we have in Congress and the way they vote. I don't see a discussion about increasing taxes for hiking purposes a useless discussion about garbage since I'll be one who would have to pay these extra taxes when I hike.
David R. Witte
CO 14er Finisher: July 2015
User avatar
nfire
Posts: 256
Joined: 8/23/2008
14ers: 33 
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Post by nfire »

BillMiddlebrook wrote:
LtWitte wrote:Why are people so afraid to talk politics?
We're not afraid of the subject, just sick of constantly seeing it on this mountaineering forum. It almost always turns into useless, garbage discussions.
its awful. this thread is terrible.
User avatar
Shawnee Bob
Posts: 527
Joined: 6/23/2008
14ers: 22 
13ers: 6
Trip Reports (6)
 
Contact:

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Post by Shawnee Bob »

LtWitte wrote:
BillMiddlebrook wrote:
LtWitte wrote:Why are people so afraid to talk politics?
We're not afraid of the subject, just sick of constantly seeing it on this mountaineering forum. It almost always turns into useless, garbage discussions.
Bill, how do you have a discussion about 14er trailhead fees without it becoming political? One side will win in the end. You either have them or you don't based up the politicians we have in Congress and the way they vote. I don't see a discussion about increasing taxes for hiking purposes a useless discussion about garbage since I'll be one who would have to pay these extra taxes when I hike.
You can have a discussion about fees, a POLICY issue, without going into red/blue, liberal/conservative GOP/Dem crap. People are just tempted to run back to that framework because EVERYTHING is being politicized. And it's tiring.
Because life's too short to be an indoor cat.

http://proactiveoutside.wordpress.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
CHWitte
Posts: 281
Joined: 8/6/2008
14ers: 58 
13ers: 26
Trip Reports (13)
 

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Post by CHWitte »

Shawnee Bob wrote:You can have a discussion about fees, a POLICY issue, without going into red/blue, liberal/conservative GOP/Dem crap. People are just tempted to run back to that framework because EVERYTHING is being politicized. And it's tiring.
What good is a POLICY discussion if you can't do anything about the policy? Who makes policy?...Congress

Therefore, any policy discussion must be of a political nature or what's the point?
David R. Witte
CO 14er Finisher: July 2015
Post Reply