| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joseph
Joseph
Joined: 13 Jun 2018
Posts: 260 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle |
|
Joseph
Joseph
|
 Sun Oct 27, 2019 7:18 pm |
|
|
| Pahoehoe wrote: | | I dont want more fees. I really dont. I also do not want more taxes, but something needs to give.
High use places need toilets, clean up, rangers patrolling enough that it's possible someone who can give a fine for an illegal fire or unsecured food might show up..
Increased population and increased popularity of outdoor activities means we need more access points, and existing access points need improvements for higher use.
More use and more people should equal more funding.
Tax outdoor equipment 1 percent? to go to public lands?
Lobby for a bigger piece of the current pie for public lands?
More permits, passes, entry fees?
A little of all of the above?
I think high use places that are higher cost should maybe require a permit fee to cover those costs... ie, toilets that need moved/maintained.
I also think that with the number of people recreating on our public lands... all those cars parked on 8 mile, etc we should be able to fund our public lands. |
Of course there needs to be more funding, but why does it have to come at my (and others') expense? I use my money wisely and scrimp and save for gear and means to get to the Trailheads. If I don't have the money, I don't make the trip or I cut. expenses. elsewhere. There is already enough $$ going to govt. what is needed is prioritization of funds. Way too much money is wasted already on useless programs.
So no, I am against this proposal totally. Let the govt. use the tons of tax $$ it already gets from taxing us. No new fees.
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 7733 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle |
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
|
Sun Oct 27, 2019 7:31 pm |
|
|
| Pahoehoe wrote: | | Tax outdoor equipment 1 percent? to go to public lands? |
When Connecticut (where I grew up) voted in a state lottery, it was with the promise that all of the money would go directly to education. Years later, the law was changed to put the money into the general fund instead.
If what you mentioned came to pass, it would only be a matter of time until your next down jacket cost 2% more to pay for construction of a new jail. 
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pahoehoe
Member
Joined: 12 Oct 2017
Posts: 563 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Pahoehoe
Member
|
Sun Oct 27, 2019 7:52 pm |
|
|
As posted above, something needs to give.
Public land needs more funding.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NorthwestWanderer
Member
Joined: 28 May 2016
Posts: 113 | TRs | Pics
Location: Montana |
It would be nice electing administrations that don't slash their budget all the time.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pahoehoe
Member
Joined: 12 Oct 2017
Posts: 563 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Pahoehoe
Member
|
Sun Oct 27, 2019 8:36 pm |
|
|
| Cyclopath wrote: | | Pahoehoe wrote: | | Tax outdoor equipment 1 percent? to go to public lands? |
When Connecticut (where I grew up) voted in a state lottery, it was with the promise that all of the money would go directly to education. Years later, the law was changed to put the money into the general fund instead.
If what you mentioned came to pass, it would only be a matter of time until your next down jacket cost 2% more to pay for construction of a new jail. |
A lottery to benefit public lands is a great idea!
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brian R
Member
Joined: 10 Feb 2018
Posts: 501 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Brian R
Member
|
Sun Oct 27, 2019 9:14 pm |
|
|
| kiliki wrote: | | I'm a big fan of charging extra fees for high use areas. . . . I don't have to reiterate how understaffed these areas are; there isn't enough of anything, from law-enforcement to pit toilets to money to fix washed out trails and roads. I agree it does suck for low income people that live near these areas. I would support folks being able to get passes through their congressperson with a tax return proving income. |
I would respectfully ask you to reconsider all of this. A very, very slippery slope--as we've already seen. BTW, low income folks, generally speaking, don't itemize at tax time.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brian R
Member
Joined: 10 Feb 2018
Posts: 501 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Brian R
Member
|
Sun Oct 27, 2019 9:17 pm |
|
|
| Cyclopath wrote: | | When Connecticut (where I grew up) voted in a state lottery, it was with the promise that all of the money would go directly to education. Years later, the law was changed to put the money into the general fund instead. |
Same thing happened here in Washington. Meanwhile, since 2001, the state biennial budget has gone from $18bn to $54bn. For the record, it will never be enough.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 7733 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle |
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
|
Sun Oct 27, 2019 9:49 pm |
|
|
If we changed the way we paid for firefighting, the Forest Service's budget problem would be a thing of the past.
We'll have to do this in the next decade or two regardless. Unless wildfires become rare and small, which isn't going to happen.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
water
Member
Joined: 07 Aug 2008
Posts: 121 | TRs | Pics
|
|
water
Member
|
Sun Oct 27, 2019 10:38 pm |
|
|
Re: FS budget over the years. Its always like they're this benevolent org victim to the vagaries of politics. And if they'd only be funded a bit better, they'd do what's needed to properly accommodate recreation.
The reality is the FS has always had logging interests a tier above recreation. Recreation has in almost every case been a secondary function or resultant of some logging venture.
The organization that road built, and clear-cut for decades and decades, destroying water quality, forest habitat, fire resiliency, and robbing future generations, is who I trust has recreation interests at heart?
And why does the FS have such a wild fire problem?
Largely because they suppressed them for generations because it would harm their cash crop.
It bothers me to no end that the FS always acts like a victim of circumstance but never once even gives lip service to their culpability in the position they find themselves.
I would love to see a chart that shows FS budget, broken down by administration costs vs field costs, and admin personnel vs field personnel over time.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ski
><((((°>
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12831 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma |
|
Ski
><((((°>
|
Sun Oct 27, 2019 10:55 pm |
|
|
| water wrote: | | Largely because they suppressed them for generations because it would harm their cash crop. |
This is a rather specious remark, stated without anything to back it up.
The "total suppression" policy was instituted by the US Forest Service due to public pressure to "do something' after "The Big Burn" of 1910.
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brian R
Member
Joined: 10 Feb 2018
Posts: 501 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Brian R
Member
|
Sun Oct 27, 2019 11:12 pm |
|
|
| water wrote: | | Re: FS budget over the years. Its always like they're this benevolent org victim to the vagaries of politics. And if they'd only be funded a bit better, they'd do what's needed to properly accommodate recreation.
The reality is the FS has always had logging interests a tier above recreation. Recreation has in almost every case been a secondary function or resultant of some logging venture.
The organization that road built, and clear-cut for decades and decades, destroying water quality, forest habitat, fire resiliency, and robbing future generations, is who I trust has recreation interests at heart?
And why does the FS have such a wild fire problem?
Largely because they suppressed them for generations because it would harm their cash crop.
It bothers me to no end that the FS always acts like a victim of circumstance but never once even gives lip service to their culpability in the position they find themselves.
I would love to see a chart that shows FS budget, broken down by administration costs vs field costs, and admin personnel vs field personnel over time. |
Well said. Truth be told, USFS's hundred years of "public-private" timber sales have largely dried up--so they've turned to recreationalists as a cash-cow to uphold their purpose. In this regard, USFS and its employees are no different than any other profit center. If only they had held timber companies to the same standards they now wish to impose on us.
“We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect”
― Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cunningkeith
Member
Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 14 | TRs | Pics
Location: Portland |
| Cyclopath wrote: | | Other than emailing our representatives, how do we comment? |
The main thing is to write your representatives and tell them to change "Recreation Not Red Tape" so that it does not cover "individual" use of "special areas."
Aside from that, the comment period for the Central Cascades fees is now and runs through November 25, 2019. Although they take comments from everybody nationally, this is especially relevant to folks in Washington and Oregon b/c the "Regional Forester for the Pacific Northwest, Region 6, will make the final decision." I would suggest saying something like "the fee should be $0 because the proposal violates the FLREA, which prohibits the Forest Service from charging people for hiking."
The Oregon example is a cautionary tale for what will happen if "Recreation Not Red Tape" passes in Congress. What the FS is doing illegally in Oregon will become legal across the country.
For those of you who don't think this will affect you personally, remember that quotas go hand-in-hand with fees. Think about what would happen if the wilderness areas of Oregon and Washington turn into the Enchantments--book your permit months in advance, watch others gobble up the permits, and pay your fees if you're lucky enough to win the lottery.
Do some areas need special protection with managed use? Sure. But doing this to 79 trailheads across three entire wilderness areas is way overkill.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kim Brown
Member
Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 6899 | TRs | Pics
|
| water wrote: | | It bothers me to no end that the FS always acts like a victim of circumstance but never once even gives lip service to their culpability in the position they find themselves. |
Would an apology make it all go away? The Forest Service was created to protect the crop from private logging. They were supposed to suppress fires, and with the public’s approval because the public would have eventually benefitted by the eventual logging once private land was tapped out. They were doing what they were supposed to do, and with our approval.
Yes, it backfired. Yes, we’re all sorry. Would apologetic words change anything?
Now we’re dealing with the conservation movement – wilderness. Roadless. Blocking logging. Will that backfire someday as well? Is it already backfiring? Will an apologetic word fix it?
Focus on the impacts of over-recreation in sensitive areas. Fire suppression in the past has nothing to do with that. Logging has nothing to do with it, since these are primarily wilderness areas.
If you want to blame in industry, toss the recreation industry in there as well. Selling plastic jackets, GPS, selfie sticks, boots, pee towels (what’s up with those things, anyway), social media hiking and conservation organizations, the “forest breathing” and yoga industry, all using photos of these places or places like them, to promote their products or their causes.
It’s likely that many of us (any recreationist) in one way or another has contributed to the over-use of some areas.
This issue today is: what should we do about it going forward? The USFS in Washington state have been asking for volunteers to help out with limited authority patrol to teach LNT and simply be present. The only response is crickets. With a few exceptions, none of us has stepped up.
I don’t have any answers. I don’t want more fees. If fees are to be implemented, they should cover the cost of the administration of the fee system only. The money for on-the-ground staff is already in the government coffers – probably within the USDA as well as NPS and general funds - it’s just not allocated accordingly. In the long run, that’s where the reform is. But in the meantime….more fees is imminent.
"..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 |
|
|
water
Member
Joined: 07 Aug 2008
Posts: 121 | TRs | Pics
|
|
water
Member
|
Mon Oct 28, 2019 9:06 am |
|
|
| Quote: | | Comments on the special recreation permit fee be mailed to the Willamette National Forest, ATTN: Recreation Fees, 3106 Pierce Parkway, Suite D, Springfield, OR, 97477. Comments can also be submitted by email to WillametteRecFeeComments@usda.gov or dropped off at any Willamette or Deschutes National Forest office during business hours. |
As Cunningkeith said, the best challenge to this is to pointedly on FLREA grounds. Does hiking and camping in undeveloped Wilderness really sound like what the below section of FLREA is talking about or what you think Congress had in mind when passing FLREA? Again this will fee will be required for 79 trailheads for all overnight stays from the Friday before Memorial Day to the last Friday in September, for ~430,000 acres of Wilderness.
| Quote: | | 16 U.S.C. 6802(h)
"(h)Special recreation permit fee
The Secretary may issue a special recreation permit, and charge a special recreation permit fee in connection with the issuance of the permit, for specialized recreation uses of Federal recreational lands and waters, such as group activities, recreation events, motorized recreational vehicle use." |
It is legally dubious that they interpret the law to their liking and in an application "without precedent" (exact quote from Matt Peterson, Willamette National Forest, Project co-Lead) that will be challenged in court. Therefore Fees (specifically) should be set at 0. That's the best avenue to respond to this. Don't complain about permits or suggest some different fee structure or amounts. Only challenge the validity of the grounds on which they claim to have authority to charge. If you're wholly against this Central Cascades Wilderness debacle, like I am.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 7733 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle |
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
|
Mon Oct 28, 2019 10:08 am |
|
|
| cunningkeith wrote: | | Aside from that, the comment period for the Central Cascades fees is now and runs through November 25, 2019. Although they take comments from everybody nationally, this is especially relevant to folks in Washington and Oregon b/c the "Regional Forester for the Pacific Northwest, Region 6, will make the final decision." I would suggest saying something like "the fee should be $0 because the proposal violates the FLREA, which prohibits the Forest Service from charging people for hiking." |
Done, thanks for the link. When do emails need to get to our representatives by?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate NWHikers.net earns from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s). |
