[Slugman]

How is this "taxation with poor representation"? We are fully represented, just by people who were elected mainly by non-hikers. This is fair, since most people don't hike. And these are fees, not taxes. Taxes are assessed on everyone, even those who never go to our National Forests at all. Only people who use the fee areas have to pay the fees. And as far as paying once with our taxes and again with the fees, this is false on it's very face. The fee demo money would have to be REPLACED with tax money if the fee was canceled, or else the things done with the money would be left undone. So, why should hikers who use the trails NOT have to pay the fee, but everyone else SHOULD have to pay taxes? That's unfair. And the money is so trivial, it's hard to believe that people get so worked up about it. I paid $30 this year, and parked at fee area lots a total of 60 days. That's 50 cents per day. It costs more than that to own hiking boots. I paid $150 for my boots, and they probably won't last for three hundred hikes. And I am one of the people on this board least able to afford this fee. I have only $100 per month for all my spending money, and 1/2 of that goes for gasoline to get to trailheads. The $30 fee is a major bite out of the month's money that I buy it. I think the government needs to do a better job of showing us what the fees pay for, specifically. I don't want less trail maintenance, I don't want trailhead bathrooms closed, I don't want to park on the side of the road at Smithbrook instead of the new parking lot, etc, etc. But that's what will happen, since the majority of Americans cry for lower taxes, and we are under-funding education and a million other things, and you think Congress will raise taxes on everyone to replace the fee demo money? Dream on! You can't convince the average American to pay taxes for police, firemen, schools, roads, etc, how are you going to convince them to subsidize hikers? Please don't fall into the trap of thinking that everything you like is fair and anything you don't like is unfair. I don't like the fees, because I have to pay them, and I'd rather not. But they are PERFECTLY FAIR! Society as whole, meaning non-hikers, gets no benefit whatsoever from the fee demo money. Our general tax money still pays for the FS roads, fire-fighting and other expenses involved in just managing the National Forests. The fee demo money is supposed to go to things that are used only by the people who pay the fees. If they put up some bear wires in the Cascades, and maybe a few more backcountry toilets, then I'd be happy to pay the fee. I never mind it when I pay the National Park fees to backpack in the Olympics, because I get the benefits of the money, in usefull amenities like the bear wires. Before condemning something, please examine the alternatives to see if they are worse. Taxing everyone for things only hikers use, or not doing the things at all that the fee demo pays for, would both be worse than the fees, IMO. I refuse to compromise the principles of fairness to save myself a lousy $30 a year.

[Sore Feet]

[kleet]

[Stefan]

How about a trial of NO FEES. Let's see what happens to the trails then. Not being sarcastic. Just seeing if things are really that dire. Horse people would probably pick up some slack--for which I am always greatful for. What would happen with WTA? Don't know.

[Slugman]

[Quark]

[polarbear]

From the article:

[Slugman]

No one represents "you". This is a myth. We have hundreds of reprensentatives, from all over, each representing hundreds of thousands of people. If Congress passed a law putting general tax revenues towards trail maintenance against the overall will of the people, that would be bad representation. Face it, we're the minority. It's an unpleasant truth. Who can afford a boat has nothing to do with it. People without cars can't get to trailheads, either. And if they do somehow, then they don't need a pass. So there. I agree with your vision of "free" recreation at many levels. Now, in a democracy, just get 51% of the country to agree with us, and we're home free. (Free is in quotes because it isn't free, it just doesn't cost the actual user directly).

[Chief Paulina]

I'm not convinced that we ARE the minority. I am convinced that this has been a long range plan of the govt since it started. They invested in this program by having volunteers pass out propaganda and nicely explain to us why it was so important. This has been an 8 year campaign (twice as long as the presidential one). This seemed to be the perfect time (after the election) to drop the hammer.

[Slugman]

He who owns the hammer may drop it at will. I don't like it any more than you do, but we're stuck for at least two, and maybe four, more years, and maybe longer, who knows? Until a change occurs, it's a GOP tax-cutting hammer all the way. And even if the forces of good overtake the forces of not-so-good, they will be loath to immediately raise general taxes to let hikers save $30 per year. I don't see anyone spending political capital anytime soon for that "crucial" hiker vote. Resisting the fee demo is a nice hobby, but it's like stamp collecting: a never-ending quest doomed to fall short of completeness. We should be telling our reps to strike a deal. Maybe we drop all opposition to the fee, and they agree to index the fee to inflation but have no other increases. Otherwise it will be $10 per day, $75 per year within five years or so, I predict.

[polarbear]

I don't consider fee demo a republican or democrat issue. I believe it would pass with either republican or democrat in the president's seat. It is rather a sign of a strict accounting mentality that has crept into our institutions.

[Slugman]

I didn't say it was a partisan issue. It's a tax-cutting issue, and the tax-cutting party is in charge. And I didn't mention the president at all. It's the Congress that controls this issue, barring a presidential veto. But to eliminate the fee, but keep overall funding levels for the forests the same, then there would have to be a tax increase. Which party is going to push THAT through anytime soon? The republicans don't want to, and the democrats can't. And I pointed out that the dems probably wouldn't try even if they could, for fear of getting taxpayers mad at them. So, since it's a done deal, and the money being sucked out of your wallet is at least going to help something you like, then I think the anger at this issue is misplaced. You should get mad about things you're paying for and NOT using, not the things you do use.

[polarbear]

Hmmm....$27 million in fee-tax revenues after they pay off collection costs (not to mention the opportunity cost of those collecting the fees). This works out to maybe $.20 tax increase per person? Half the price of a postage stamp.

[Sore Feet]

[Slugman]

Now I see your problem: you're trying to apply logic to politics! Silly bear, there's no logic to politics. Anyone who votes for any tax increase is a dead man in America today (politically). There are legions of angry voters, seething that they are paying for things that they don't use. You can read the posts of several of them just a few forums to the right on this very website. So unless you can get about fifty million people riled up to the point of apoplexy about the fee thing, then it ain't gonna change. I still say let's bargain a solution of sorts. We agree the fee stays, and that's no great concession, since it's here anyway. But we stop fighting it. In return, we get a "fee freeze" except for inflation. And the right to designate how our money is spent. You would have a menu of options to fund, and your fee would go there. If nobody wants something, it wouldn't get done. Maybe fewer trailhead bathrooms, but more washed-out bridges replaced, eh? I'll p*ss in the woods sooner than wade a river. At least you would control your money and its use for your benefit. Edit: wow, that was a long compose time. I started before sore feet's post! OK, SF, let's talk libraries. In Snohomish county, some unincorporated areas have no libraries of their own. Their residents must use a nearby library, paid for out of local property taxes. These out of towners pay a fee instead of a general tax. We could do that with our libraries for everyone if we wanted to, but we don't want to. But Congress does want to finance trail related expenses through fees rather than taxes. And we don't pay twice. Our taxes would go up if the fee demo was cancelled and no budget cuts were made.