Previous :: Next Topic |
When I buy a Northwest Forest Pass, I expect this part of the fee supports trails: |
Over half |
|
42% |
[ 12 ] |
More than half |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
Over 25% |
|
21% |
[ 6 ] |
More than 1/4 |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
Over 10% |
|
7% |
[ 2 ] |
More than 10% |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
Over 5% |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
More than 5% |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
Over 2% |
|
3% |
[ 1 ] |
More than 2% |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
At least 1% |
|
14% |
[ 4 ] |
Less than 2% |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
Less than 1% |
|
10% |
[ 3 ] |
|
Total Votes : 28 |
|
Author |
Message |
RodF Member
Joined: 01 Sep 2007 Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics Location: Sequim WA |
|
RodF
Member
|
Tue Nov 27, 2018 7:31 pm
|
|
|
Hikers, when you buy a $30 annual or $5 day-use Northwest Forest Pass or $80 interagency pass before parking at USFS trailheads, what fraction of your fee is actually spent on trails?
Although the local forests summarize the projects paid for by fees here, they don't actually spell out separately how much is spent on maintaining trails, trailheads, campgrounds, roads or other facilities. It appears to vary greatly from forest to forest. Regionally, about half of fee revenue ($5.5 of $10.9 million) is spent on maintenance, and most of that on campgrounds and trailheads.
Olympic National Forest
A recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to Olympic National Forest revealed:
FY2017 $24,652 of $639,569 = 4% on trails
FY2016 $0 of $651,075 = 0% on trails
for an average of less than 2% of fee revenue going to trails (all of that for staff planning and compliance overhead, none for actual trail work).
Olympic NF's Fee Program Accomplishment Highlights of past years list these trail projects:
FY2015 <1% paid for gravel which volunteers spread on two trails
FY2014 paid WTA crew leader $26,600 of $382,376 = 7%
FS2013 <1% paid for gravel volunteers spread on one trail
FY2012 ?% "supported volunteers"
FY2011 ditto
FY2010 ?% materials and tools for WCC trail crew
So although it has varied from 0% to 7%, it appears on average less than 1% goes to actual trail projects on the ground, and less than 2% including staff office overhead goes to trails.
Does this match your expectations when you buy a Northwest Forest Pass?
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pahoehoe Member
Joined: 12 Oct 2017 Posts: 563 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Pahoehoe
Member
|
Tue Nov 27, 2018 7:41 pm
|
|
|
I thought the forest pass was to pay for frontcountry services... pit toilets, garbage cans and picnic tables?
That's why you don't need a forest pass at trailheads that don't have 2 of those 3 things?
Something along those lines, I'm pretty sure.
|
Back to top |
|
|
olderthanIusedtobe Member
Joined: 05 Sep 2011 Posts: 7692 | TRs | Pics Location: Shoreline |
Is it the percentage you want to go towards trail maintenance, or the percentage you think goes towards trail maintenance? Unfortunately I believe the difference between what I want and the reality of the situation is vastly different.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bernardo Member
Joined: 08 Feb 2010 Posts: 2174 | TRs | Pics Location: out and about in the world |
|
Bernardo
Member
|
Tue Nov 27, 2018 7:57 pm
|
|
|
I think the choices are confusing.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Brushwork Food truck
Joined: 18 Aug 2018 Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics Location: Washington |
|
Brushwork
Food truck
|
Tue Nov 27, 2018 9:53 pm
|
|
|
So, when the forest pass was first proposed, where was the money intended toward? Wasn't it in part, to support trails? ( not just trailheads...) I don't actually remember.
In answer to the question, no it doesn't fit my expectation.
When I grow up I wanna play.
When I grow up I wanna play.
|
Back to top |
|
|
schifferj Member
Joined: 07 Mar 2015 Posts: 224 | TRs | Pics Location: 509 |
I'm not educated enough to make a guess on the poll but I did do a little on line research and came up with the following article which makes for some interesting reading.
https://www.wta.org/go-outside/passes/federal-land-fees-where-does-my-money-go
What I CAN attest to is what it costs should you forget to hang your tag. The "fine" was $24 the "processing fee" was $50. The whole cost was mailed to some company back east which I assumed kept the entire $50.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Cyclopath Faster than light
Joined: 20 Mar 2012 Posts: 7697 | TRs | Pics Location: Seattle |
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
|
Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:33 pm
|
|
|
What's the difference between over half and more than half?
Do fire expenses count as trail maintenance? Probably not but a big fire can shut trails down for years.
|
Back to top |
|
|
vibramhead Member
Joined: 16 Mar 2010 Posts: 175 | TRs | Pics Location: Olympic Peninsula |
Under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, a forest pass can't be required at a trailhead unless it contains certain amenities, including developed parking, permanent toilet, information kiosk, picnic table, trash receptacle, and site security. But the fees collected may be used for a broad range of activities that enhance the visitor experience, including trail maintenance.
The Act provides that fees may be used only for:
Quote: | (A) repair, maintenance, and facility enhancement related directly to visitor enjoyment, visitor access, and health and safety;
(B) interpretation, visitor information, visitor service, visitor needs assessments, and signs;
(C) habitat restoration directly related to wildlife-dependent recreation that is limited to hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, or photography;
(D) law enforcement related to public use and recreation;
(E) direct operating or capital costs associated with the recreation fee program; and
(F) a fee management agreement established under section 6805(a) of this title or a visitor reservation service. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sculpin Member
Joined: 23 Apr 2015 Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Sculpin
Member
|
Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:56 am
|
|
|
When the pay-to-play forest passes were first proposed, an opposition group formed. (It was long enough ago now that my memory is fuzzy.) That group stated that it doubted that the revenue would be used as claimed, and if it was not used as claimed, the group would sue. Some years later, there was a brief article in the Seattle Times (IIRC) stating that the group had found that indeed the money was going to general forest service revenue and that there would be a lawsuit. Then I never heard another word about it. Can anyone fill in any details?
Between every two pines is a doorway to the new world. - John Muir
Between every two pines is a doorway to the new world. - John Muir
|
Back to top |
|
|
vibramhead Member
Joined: 16 Mar 2010 Posts: 175 | TRs | Pics Location: Olympic Peninsula |
Sculpin wrote: | When the pay-to-play forest passes were first proposed, an opposition group formed. (It was long enough ago now that my memory is fuzzy.) That group stated that it doubted that the revenue would be used as claimed, and if it was not used as claimed, the group would sue. |
You might be thinking of the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition. I don't know whether they ever sued about diversion of fees to general funds.
I don't oppose a fee that actually goes to trail maintenance. I think one of the problems with how the money's being used now is that USFS isn't allowed to charge a fee for trailheads that lack amenities like toilets and picnic tables. So, to enable them to charge a fee, USFS builds toilets and installs picnic tables, which hikers don't really need. But those trailhead amenities must eat up a lot of the available money.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Navy salad Member
Joined: 09 Sep 2008 Posts: 1864 | TRs | Pics Location: Woodinville |
Bernardo wrote: | I think the choices are confusing. |
Me too! Even though I admire the intent here, the poll choices need some clarification ("At least 1%" vs "Under 2%"?) and elimination of equivalent options.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kim Brown Member
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 Posts: 6900 | TRs | Pics
|
Sculpin wrote: | Some years later, there was a brief article in the Seattle Times (IIRC) stating that the group had found that indeed the money was going to general forest service revenue and that there would be a lawsuit. Then I never heard another word about it. Can anyone fill in any details? |
Not sure if this is what you're talking about, but Oregon's Biscuit Fire prompted taking NWFP money for fire fighting (not General Funds). It was paid back later (I don't recall how much later).
"..living on the east side of the Sierra world be ideal - except for harsher winters and the chance of apocalyptic fires burning the whole area."
Bosterson, NWHiker's marketing expert
"..living on the east side of the Sierra world be ideal - except for harsher winters and the chance of apocalyptic fires burning the whole area."
Bosterson, NWHiker's marketing expert
|
Back to top |
|
|
iron Member
Joined: 10 Aug 2008 Posts: 6391 | TRs | Pics Location: southeast kootenays |
|
iron
Member
|
Wed Nov 28, 2018 12:42 pm
|
|
|
no surprises here. it's just like the good2go program wsdot farms out.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Randito Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008 Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:05 pm
|
|
|
Seems like a bit of a "Loaded" poll question.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Brushwork Food truck
Joined: 18 Aug 2018 Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics Location: Washington |
|
Brushwork
Food truck
|
Wed Nov 28, 2018 5:02 pm
|
|
|
Thank you for the info Vibramhead.
When I grow up I wanna play.
When I grow up I wanna play.
|
Back to top |
|
|
|