Forum
Buying gear? Please use these links to help 14ers.com:

More info...

Other ways to help...

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
9%
Maybe, for certain areas.
40
14%
Maybe, but only if the fees were small.
30
11%
No, fees should generally not be charged to access these areas.
182
66%
 
Total votes : 276
User avatar
Posts: 7349
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:23 pm
Location: Colorado Springs

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Postby Jim Davies » Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:30 pm

Hungry Jack wrote:


LOL. "Where is Hayduke when you need him?"

Pretty much says it all.

Hayduke would probably slash everybody's tires at the Stevens Gulch trailhead, then dynamite the bridge at the Bakerville offramp. Probably not what most of us want.
Some people are afraid of heights. Not me, I'm afraid of white blood cells.

Online
User avatar
Posts: 826
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:12 am

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Postby Hungry Jack » Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:34 pm

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.
I need more dehydrogenase.

User avatar
Posts: 139
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:15 pm
Location: Little Rock, Arkansas

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Postby CHWitte » Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:36 pm

Scott P wrote:Very seldom would I ever make a post like this about a person and I like 99.999% of people I've talked with/met regardless of their different politcal views.

In this case though, I think it appropriate. I'd just suggest to everyone to just not responding to any of LtWitte's posts. Some people aren't worth arguing or even talking with. If the moderators feel I'm out of line, they can delete my post.


Yeah, this is the American thing to do. Shun those you disagree with. =D> Are you kidding me? :lol:

User avatar
Posts: 770
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 10:30 am
Location: Fort Collins

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Postby 12ersRule » Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:37 pm

Jim Davies wrote:
Hungry Jack wrote:


LOL. "Where is Hayduke when you need him?"

Pretty much says it all.

Hayduke would probably slash everybody's tires at the Stevens Gulch trailhead, then dynamite the bridge at the Bakerville offramp. Probably not what most of us want.


Yeah, I don't have as much free time as Hayduke.

User avatar
Posts: 1070
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 10:32 am
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Postby Derek » Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:41 pm

**edit

Since this is turning into a political pi$$ match, I'm going to remove my 2 cents.
Last edited by Derek on Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"All dolled up in gabardine..."

User avatar
Posts: 139
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:15 pm
Location: Little Rock, Arkansas

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Postby CHWitte » Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:41 pm

Hungry Jack wrote: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.

User avatar
Posts: 108
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Denver

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Postby MrFrumpylane » Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:43 pm

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! 8)

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

User avatar
Posts: 793
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 3:34 pm
Location: Thornton (CO Blvd & 136th Ave)

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Postby SilverLynx » Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:47 pm

MrFrumpylane wrote: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! 8)

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.
"I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear."
~Nelson Mandela

"Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma - which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition."
~Steve Jobs

User avatar
Posts: 7349
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:23 pm
Location: Colorado Springs

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Postby Jim Davies » Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:48 pm

Catherine Keske.
Here's a summary of her previous 14er economic study:
http://www.agsci.colostate.edu/news/e-connection_summer10/14ner.html
Last edited by Jim Davies on Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Some people are afraid of heights. Not me, I'm afraid of white blood cells.

User avatar
Posts: 1437
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:58 pm
Location: Colorado Springs

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

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

nfire wrote:
coloradokevin wrote:
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.

=D>

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.
Life is a mountain, not a beach.
Exploring and Wine, my personal blog

Online
User avatar
Posts: 826
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:12 am

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Postby Hungry Jack » Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:51 pm

LtWitte wrote:
Hungry Jack wrote: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.
I need more dehydrogenase.

User avatar
Posts: 139
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:15 pm
Location: Little Rock, Arkansas

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Postby CHWitte » Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:59 pm

Hungry Jack wrote: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.

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests