Forum Index > Trail Talk > More Fees Coming to a Trail Near You
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
water
Member
Member


Joined: 07 Aug 2008
Posts: 121 | TRs | Pics
water
Member
PostWed Oct 30, 2019 7:13 am 
Keith, Try looking into the SOAR act that was merged it's legislation with the RNR. Someone posted this link earlier on the thread: https://medium.com/american-whitewater/legislation-to-prioritize-outdoor-recreation-on-public-lands-6bc17a9ebec8 If you look up the SOAR act I think you can find that language in it. Not sure if you can find a revision 1/first draft of the RNR, but that's a way to trace back. I don't necessarily share a super cynical view that there's someone/group at the top pushing this in order to make money. But that may be an influence. I feel like that is the sorta thing that would come about through more informal channels, like higher ups in the FS chatting with legislators. You hear the way they curate a narrative about how they manage wilderness... I can totally hear a district supervisor or regional Forester saying 'oh yeah, sometimes these are for individual instances, but it's very limited and is an excellent tool to help us manage really special places from being loved to death'. All speculative but the above link may be a way to learn more via SOAR act.

feel free to feel free
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Canyon1
Member
Member


Joined: 22 Jul 2019
Posts: 33 | TRs | Pics
Location: East Side Paradise
Canyon1
Member
PostWed Oct 30, 2019 7:35 am 
Having been exposed to the FS I can tell you the organization is a lost bureaucratic cause. How do you go bankrupt managing the billion dollar natural resources of our nation's forests? Do not sit there FS and tell me you do not have the funds to promote recreation. It is simple, just call it mismanagement. The FS culture can not or accept the fact that way to much money goes into hands off-sitting behind a desk overhead. Reckless internal spending with no after thought of the negative impact to the public and nation's lands. I have seen this and experienced it first hand. If you gave FS management over to the hands of a Dell, Gates, Bozos, etc. they would turn a profit and get the job done the right way. Tell this to a FS employee and they will refuse to comprehend and promote their dysfunctional agency.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 6900 | TRs | Pics
Kim Brown
Member
PostWed Oct 30, 2019 8:57 am 
Canyon1 wrote:
Tell this to a FS employee and they will refuse to comprehend and promote their dysfunctional agency.
Depends on the context. If USFS staff is at an event promoting a project then of course, as any employee would, they promote their employer regardless of internal knowledge or feelings. But I’ve had the opposite interaction with USFS staff. They know the agency and it’s various purse-strings are a bureaucratic mess and money isn’t allocated well. This is true with all government agencies, not solely the USFS. The thing about fees is – without fees, where is the money going to come from? Is money the thing necessary – will it fix the problem? Implementing a fee is low-hanging fruit – it can be done within a lifetime, and with relatively little work compared to decades of lobbying Congress to allocate funds correctly, getting the public on board, and various levels of voting to correct the budget (this is where voting would actually make a difference). So while I don’t like fees, and I know the money is there, and I know it’s not allocated appropriately – what else can be done? They have partnered with various organizations for messaging, developed volunteer programs, etc. the Leave No Trace people have held workshops, other events, and have touched on an 8th principle addressing social media in an effort to ask forest users, organizations, and industry to be more thoughtful in rampant promotion of these places (which is largely met with mocking, on NWHikers). These efforts may have had some positive impact, but apparently not enough and not soon enough. Who is going to take on Congress to allocate the budget? How long will that take?

"..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 Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Cyclopath
Faster than light



Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 7697 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Cyclopath
Faster than light
PostWed Oct 30, 2019 9:36 am 
What can be done? When it comes to recreation, USFS benefits from more volunteer labor (including mine) than possibly any other government agency, surely more than any private company. My neighbor's home got broken into. She called the police, they came to her home. Nobody has ever suggested they should charge her a fee. They weren't volunteers, like many or most of the people who maintain the trails we're talking about having to pay to hike on.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
water
Member
Member


Joined: 07 Aug 2008
Posts: 121 | TRs | Pics
water
Member
PostWed Oct 30, 2019 10:05 am 
Kim Brown wrote:
what else can be done?
If only there was an organization that advocated for hikers and helped mobilize recreationalists to demand (via elected officials at local, state, and federal levels) that the FS be more accountable and properly allocate monies. They could even make a 10, 15, or 20 year plan...But woe, such does not exist. I only know of a hiker organization that basically stands behind the FS and will do their old jobs for them when the FS shrugs and says they don't want to spend the money and effort to address recreation demands. Then the org supports legislation like FLREA that monetizes the outdoors and privatizes profits from public lands. What was the response of your elected representatives regarding the individual fees and special areas clause trying to be inserted into an update to FLREA? Would money make a difference? In Oregon 4-5 rangers who could have a presence 15-25 nights a year (basically fri-sat popular weekends-July 1 thru 1st week sept) at the most popular places (South Sister, Jeff Park, Green Lakes, Broken Top, and the 5th could float to wherever/backup) along with actual enforcement (fines) of existing regs about camping near water, fires, etc would make a really significant impact in those areas which get hammered with folks. I know, it would cost billions.

feel free to feel free
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Bosterson
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Sep 2019
Posts: 291 | TRs | Pics
Location: Portland
Bosterson
Member
PostWed Oct 30, 2019 10:50 am 
Someone I know said the following:
Quote:
In the National Wilderness Stewardship Alliance conference I attended last week, it seems that the trend nationwide is to enact pay to play permit systems. It was basically the only strategy various land management agencies were talking about. Unfortunately this will become the new norm unless we do something about it now.
This is the real issue. "Pay to play" inherently creates a burden on public access based on socioeconomic status. I know that entrance fees are the norm for National Parks, however those generally have substantial federal investments in infrastructure. (Think of the difference between Yosemite or Yellowstone vs North Cascades, which does not have much development, and also does not have an entrance fee.) In contrast, most general federally-held lands are also undeveloped. FLREA explicitly prohibited general entrance fees for undeveloped lands, or for simple access to hike, camp, etc on those lands. Again, I sympathize with the FS's reduced budget in an era of Congressional budget slashing and increased spending on wildfires. However, an overarching requirement for payment for any access to public lands is a huge change and runs counter to the historical ideal of publicly held lands being held in trust for the people of this country, which, being our lands, we are able to access freely. Saying that the FS's budget is not likely to be fixed any time soon, and so this justifies allowing Congress to authorize broad entrance fees, is to reject free and open access to public lands, and to support a de facto class system for public access. (For those of you who hike every weekend, or maybe twice a weekend, think how quickly that will add up when every hike will cost $5-10 in entrance fees. Then think about how burdensome this would be for people who don't have much or any spare money.) Just because we haven't achieved the best solution, it doesn't follow that we have to accept the worst solution...

Go! Take a gun! And a dog! Without a leash! Chop down a tree! Start a fire! Piss wherever you want! Build a cairn! A HUGE ONE! BE A REBEL! YOU ONLY LIVE ONCE! (-bootpathguy)
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Cyclopath
Faster than light



Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 7697 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Cyclopath
Faster than light
PostWed Oct 30, 2019 11:10 am 
Bosterson wrote:
Have any of the Washingtonians here contacted the other (Washington) co-sponsor about this? If so, what was the response?
I wrote my representative and both senators. Do not expect a response. I hope one of their staffers reads my emails and tells them they're getting feedback about the bill and the importance of not creating (financial) hurdles to keep citizens away from our collective birthright.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Schenk
Off Leash Man



Joined: 16 Apr 2012
Posts: 2372 | TRs | Pics
Location: Traveling, with the bear, to the other side of the Mountain
Schenk
Off Leash Man
PostWed Oct 30, 2019 11:39 am 
Canyon1 wrote:
If you gave FS management over to the hands of a Dell, Gates, Bozos, etc. they would turn a profit and get the job done the right way.
This is one of the scariest comments I have read...are you seriously suggesting that Federal (read: PUBLIC) Land should be managed to turn a profit, and profit for a public company with stockholders no less? Charging people to enjoy public land so a profit can be made is a regressive form of taxation. Am I required to be ambitious so I can afford the extra cost to enjoy some company's "Public" land?

Nature exists with a stark indifference to humans' situation.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
neek
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Sep 2011
Posts: 2329 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle, WA
neek
Member
PostWed Oct 30, 2019 11:49 am 
Schenk wrote:
This is one of the scariest comments I have read
There's a good article about Bezos in the latest Atlantic. His sole purpose in life is to get humans off earth and into space. He's mind-bogglingly crazy. (But well-intentioned, so it doesn't matter, right?) Saw you altered your post a bit which is too bad because I was recently at a park in France where you did indeed have to pay for the swingset.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 6900 | TRs | Pics
Kim Brown
Member
PostWed Oct 30, 2019 11:55 am 
water wrote:
privatizes profits from public lands.
Can you explain this, please? What is the private profit and what organizations support it?

"..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 Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
water
Member
Member


Joined: 07 Aug 2008
Posts: 121 | TRs | Pics
water
Member
PostWed Oct 30, 2019 12:17 pm 
Kim Brown wrote:
water wrote:
privatizes profits from public lands.
Can you explain this, please? What is the private profit and what organizations support it?
FLREA, the grounds under which fees are charged, and outsourced (read: privatized profits) to recreation.gov which is owned by Booz Allen Hamilton and on up. For instance the proposed day-hike permit for the Oregon wilderness areas will have a fee of $1 and for overnight $6, because processing an overnight permit vs a day-permit certainly would incur 6 times the cost for this contractor. This organization supports it! https://www.wta.org/news/signpost/nw-forest-pass-authorizing-law-up-for-renewal And the modifications they supported would just let the FS put more places under fee.. by only requiring 3 amenities instead of all of them. I guess they'd spend less by just putting a picnic table, kiosk and developed parking area, but they'd do that and charge at every single TH. Thankfully FLREMA, HR 5204 appears to have been DOA in 2014. WTA acknowledges very little money from NWFP goes to trails, the vast majority goes to a the maintenance and service of bathrooms and trash services apparently. Deschutes National Forest spends some of theirs on a puppet show called 'Critters in the Cracks'.. NWFP was originally presented to the public as being to support trails. These days it seems like an amenities fee only. FS units don't even really highlight miles of trail maintained on their yearly NWFP summary flyers. In the early years of the program trail miles was front and center.

feel free to feel free
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 11272 | TRs | Pics
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostWed Oct 30, 2019 12:26 pm 
Trails may be YOUR priority. There are other priorities needing funding also. Forest Health is a biggie. Then, there is the elephant in the room--fire. To other people it is road maintenance. Other folks want to have logs put in streams. The list goes on. The budget varies each year. That makes planning difficult. I doubt that Dell has to put up with that. Also, the mission of the FS is not to "make a profit".

What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
water
Member
Member


Joined: 07 Aug 2008
Posts: 121 | TRs | Pics
water
Member
PostWed Oct 30, 2019 12:43 pm 
Fire isn't an elephant in the room. I clearly stated early in this thread that at least in 2018 they had a budget of 2.5 billion for fire and 1.72 billion for everything else. Everyone knows the FS spends boat loads on fire. Of everything you mentioned, trail work is probably the very cheapest thing you mentioned, shy of million dollar bridges.. americorp crews can brush out and work on miles and miles of trails for mere pittance in the scope of FS budget.

feel free to feel free
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 6900 | TRs | Pics
Kim Brown
Member
PostWed Oct 30, 2019 2:11 pm 
It's not necessary to have all amenities at all trail heads. If the NWFP isn't generating a lot of money it's because it's not required in a lot of places. But according to the USFS site on fees and expenditure of those fees, they are being used appropriately. $1 -$6 fees are hardly monetization. I don't think anyone is raking in the dough here. WTA supported the NWFP after successfully advocating the opportunity for volunteers to receive a free pass, from volunteer stewardship directly through the USFS in their Wilderness Ranger program, to fire lookout host, invasive weed mapping, trail work, habitat restoration, writing articles, participating in research, and lots of other opportunities. I am not finding where WTA says very little money goes to trails. They want more of it to go to trails, sure; that's what WTA does. A lot of money for trails comes from state RCO grants. NWFP money goes to a host of other purposes. So is the argument about the NWFP, or other fees discussed at the beginning of the thread?

"..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 Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Schenk
Off Leash Man



Joined: 16 Apr 2012
Posts: 2372 | TRs | Pics
Location: Traveling, with the bear, to the other side of the Mountain
Schenk
Off Leash Man
PostWed Oct 30, 2019 2:50 pm 
neek wrote:
Saw you altered your post a bit which is too bad because I was recently at a park in France where you did indeed have to pay for the swingset.
Yeah, I figured it was beginning to look like a rant and nobody takes rants seriously...but privatization is definitely worth ranting about. Pay to Play on Public Land is the segueway to privatization and the sell off of Public Land. I have been watching this trend for 20 years and it is alarming. If you want a good scare, check out the ARC in depth...and pay particular attention to the members. They are NOT about making Public lands friendly to human powered users who want to use Public Land for no additional charge beyond the taxes we pay. The ARC (American Recreation Coalition) is DROOLING over Public Land and the money they can make from motorized and industrial strength use of Public lands.

Nature exists with a stark indifference to humans' situation.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Trail Talk > More Fees Coming to a Trail Near You
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum