14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

[kbmiller]

I won't pay a fee, and would seriously consider taking a dump in the fee-collecting station. This is fascism, pure and simple.

[coloradokevin]

2. If you are into more visits than just a few, or you just want to not worry about carrying cash, pay for an annual Trailhead Pass (good at any TH not already covered by other fees - i.e. RMNP). It's a windshield sticker or rear-window sticker. This could be $25, and of course - tax deductible.

Keep in mind that the USFS is already gutting the existing annual pass system, one recreation site at a time. I posted a thread recently about such a situation, which is currently occurring at Brainard Lake. In that particular instance the USFS has contracted with a new concessionaire, who is not willing to honor the $80 annual access pass that is specifically designed to cover access to these areas (and which has been accepted there for as long as there has been a fee at that site). Thanks to this change, users at Brainard Lake who hold annual passes (like me) will now have to buy a separate annual pass issued by the concessionaire, or be forced to pay the daily entry fee to that private company.

SEE THAT THREAD HERE:

http://14ers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=36532" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Personally, I think it's time for us to stop trying to compromise on this issue, and recognize that we simply shouldn't have to pay a fee to park our cars and walk up a mountain. Every time we give an inch, they take a mile.

To me it always seems that at first we pay a small nominal fee at a few select areas, then the fees are expanded to many more areas, and then fees are greatly increased. Often, the justification for a fee increase is a bit strange: more money is needed to pay to enforce the fee, or the increase is somehow deemed necessary because of an area's popularity, or perhaps they just increase the fees because the federal government has decided to give control of these areas to private vendors (as has happened at Brainard Lake, and many other areas).

I look back on the fee situation here in Colorado, and can't help but realize how different things were out here in the mid-90's. I remember when USFS campgrounds were still very cheap (if not free in some instances), and virtually no trailheads had fees. These days it can cost $20/night or more to camp at the same USFS campground, and some of those sites even require reservations (which often involve paying another fee). Since those sites are developed, no one seems to really challenge those fees (which I partially understand, save for the fact that control of these areas has been given to for-profit companies).

Personally, I just camp elsewhere at dispersed sites (for free), and enjoy a bit more space and freedom. But, as times change it seems that it is getting harder and harder to find free dispersed camping, too. Add to that the fact that more and more areas are becoming fee-laden, and it is getting to become something of a bureaucratic process to go out for a hike.

[bonehead]

Gobble de ge goop.

We be boiling the Frog here people!

[coloradokevin]

I just went back and added a quick and unscientific informal poll to the start of this thread, for those who were asking for such an addition. It's basic in nature, but feel free to respond to it.

[ThuChad]

Can someone inform me how these fees would go to Leadville, Alma or XYZ town? Based off of what county the 14er is in? If so, would the county be in charge of collecting the fee? Why would Leadville or Alma have any more right to the fee than Fairplay?

Like I posted earlier in this thread, if it went to the upkeep of 14ers I'd be for it but as others have pointed out this doesn't happen when government gets involved.

[coloradokevin]

Two more points to consider, both of which were brought up by my girlfriend during a discussion that we just had about this issue:


1) "I think people have just become too accustomed to paying for everything in life, and now people are willing to pay for things that they shouldn't have to."

2) "Why not just add a box where people can leave an optional donation if they are so inclined? It wouldn't have to be collected on a daily basis, and they could raise some money that way from the people who are willing to pay."


The second idea may actually have far more merit than one might think. There's a large dog park near my house that has one of these donation boxes, and that park has been funded entirely by donations that have been made by the community/users. These donations have covered fencing, outhouses, and trash removal (we wouldn't even need fences at trailheads, which is a huge expense).

Another example of effective donation use is at a FAR more established venue: The NYC Metropolitan Museum of Art. We were there earlier this year while visiting some family members in NYC. This venue asks for an optional donation from users, and suggests a donation of $20/each. Most locals probably don't pay that fee, though I know some of them still donate a lesser amount. Despite my aversion to user fees, we paid the suggested donation when we visited. That venue is highly developed, and it was a one-time fee for us while we were on an out-of-town vacation. So, even fee-averse folks like myself will throw some money in the box to donate to a decent cause under the right circumstances. As such, the USFS might be able to produce some decent revenue at popular trailheads, without adding needless user fees for everyone who walks in the mountains.

[pseudoghost]

2) "Why not just add a box where people can leave an optional donation if they are so inclined? It wouldn't have to be collected on a daily basis, and they could raise some money that way from the people who are willing to pay."

There's a donation box at the trailhead for Bel/Ox/Missouri, anyone know how much that brings in on an annual basis? There's almost no way it can bring in more than a minimal parking fee would.

Honestly, if we do nothing then we're headed for a permit system on many 14ers and/or their corresponding trailheads. There are simply too many people in many of these areas to contain the ecological damage, muchless provide the level of service that most people expect (decent roads, pit toilets at trailheads, signage, etc.). That doesn't mean that I like the idea of a permit system or a fee system but these things don't pay for themselves, and the USFS budget is not getting significantly bigger in the future.

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.

[Hungry Jack]

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. Precisely.

Pay for what you use (ie roads and trailheads).

[coloradokevin]

2) "Why not just add a box where people can leave an optional donation if they are so inclined? It wouldn't have to be collected on a daily basis, and they could raise some money that way from the people who are willing to pay."

There's a donation box at the trailhead for Bel/Ox/Missouri, anyone know how much that brings in on an annual basis? There's almost no way it can bring in more than a minimal parking fee would.

Honestly, if we do nothing then we're headed for a permit system on many 14ers and/or their corresponding trailheads. There are simply too many people in many of these areas to contain the ecological damage, muchless provide the level of service that most people expect (decent roads, pit toilets at trailheads, signage, etc.). That doesn't mean that I like the idea of a permit system or a fee system but these things don't pay for themselves, and the USFS budget is not getting significantly bigger in the future.

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.

1) The USFS does receive taxpayer money. We're already paying for these things, albeit indirectly.

2) I think the idea of ecological impact may be somewhat overblown. A lot of the modern 14'er trails can handle the impact of many feet. Paying a fee isn't going to change how these feet impact the mountain. If I pay $20/climb, what difference is it going to make on the 14'er itself? These fees rarely cover more than trailhead maintenance anyway, if they even get allocated for that use.

3) The annual pass system is already failing (see my post on Brainard Lake).

[pseudoghost]

1) The USFS does receive taxpayer money. We're already paying for these things, albeit indirectly.

2) I think the idea of ecological impact may be somewhat overblown. A lot of the modern 14'er trails can handle the impact of many feet. Paying a fee isn't going to change how these feet impact the mountain. If I pay $20/climb, what difference is it going to make on the 14'er itself? These fees rarely cover more than trailhead maintenance anyway, if they even get allocated for that use.

3) The annual pass system is already failing (see my post on Brainard Lake).

1 - The USFS is woefully underfunded to adequately provide what most people would consider a reasonable level of service. Even then, the USFS has to disproportionately allocate resources to many of these super high use areas which leaves other areas resource starved. Ever wonder why there's no TP in the outhouse? It's because the rangers are busy running back and forth between trailheads elsewhere.

2 - My point was that the trailhead facilities and roads do not maintain themselves. If you want to drive your vehicle to the trailhead instead of parking down on the county road and hoofing it in for 10 miles, then you may want to rethink your aversion to fees. The USFS cannot afford to regrade most roads every year, and before the hordes of hikers started entering some of these areas the USFS would regrade the road once every 5 - 10 years. Now, (think Grays and Torreys) they need to regrade the road every 1-2 years. It just means that somewhere else a road that needs to be maintained is not getting the maintenance it needs.

3 - I don't agree with a private concessionaire being able to ignore the pass system. But... This is a taste of what is to come. The USFS is under immense political pressure to turn over many of these functions to private concessionaires because the forest service can provide it's services elsewhere whereas the private groups can provide "better" service (at less cost?!?!). It's just another form of corporate welfare, but this is what has happened to most of the national parks over the last few decades, and it's creeping into the forest service now.

[pudgy]

Charge $20/year for a '14er pass' that can be hung from your rearview mirror. The problem with all of this is, who is going to 'police' the trailhead parking lots to make sure everyone has a pass?? This issue has a nightmare full of logistics. I do agree that Long's should be by 'permit only' like Mt. Whitney. They can handle that at the entrance kiosks to the park and 'drive-by's' at the parking lot.

[jmanner]

I won't pay a fee, and would seriously consider taking a dump in the fee-collecting station. This is fascism, pure and simple.

Your use of fascism in this way shows that you have no concept of what facism is...