Previous :: Next Topic |
Author |
Message |
polarbear Member
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 3680 | TRs | Pics Location: Snow Lake hide-away |
I was reading the following thread in cascadeclimbers.com. Does anyone know what the counters look like?
|
Back to top |
|
|
ActionBetty Im a dirty hippie!
Joined: 06 Jul 2003 Posts: 4807 | TRs | Pics Location: kennewick, wa |
|
ActionBetty
Im a dirty hippie!
|
Tue Aug 19, 2003 9:04 pm
|
|
|
I've never seen them myself...
but that other board you posted is wild...thanks for the link
"If you're not living good, you gotta travel wide"...Bob Marley
"If you're not living good, you gotta travel wide"...Bob Marley
|
Back to top |
|
|
jenjen Moderatrix
Joined: 30 Jun 2003 Posts: 7617 | TRs | Pics Location: Sierra stylin |
|
jenjen
Moderatrix
|
Tue Aug 19, 2003 9:11 pm
|
|
|
There was a guy stationed at the Yellow Aster Butte trailhead (near Mt. Baker) last month handing survey forms to every person who walked out. they were asking things like where you went, how long, how the trail was, how many in the party, etc. I didn't think much of it at the time. Now I wonder..........
If life gives you melons - you might be dyslexic
If life gives you melons - you might be dyslexic
|
Back to top |
|
|
catwoman Member
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 888 | TRs | Pics Location: somewhere near Tacoma |
|
catwoman
Member
|
Tue Aug 19, 2003 9:25 pm
|
|
|
The fees are really getting out of hand. It just feels so wrong to have to pay a fee to access nature. I think something needs to be done -- I don't know what, but something definitely needs to be done, and it's gonna take at least a lot of people to do it. I am really disturbed by this. What can we do?!
|
Back to top |
|
|
Steve Phlogiston Purveyor
Joined: 29 Jan 2002 Posts: 769 | TRs | Pics Location: Bothell |
|
Steve
Phlogiston Purveyor
|
Wed Aug 20, 2003 7:07 am
|
|
|
We could vote for an income tax to cover all the gov't costs for recreation
Despair is only for those who see the end beyond all doubt.
Despair is only for those who see the end beyond all doubt.
|
Back to top |
|
|
catwoman Member
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 888 | TRs | Pics Location: somewhere near Tacoma |
|
catwoman
Member
|
Wed Aug 20, 2003 8:12 am
|
|
|
Could all these fees be perhaps unconstitutional? What about setting up some sort of campaign thing, like Proposition #821 (just an example, pick a number) and collect signatures, thus collecting enough to bring it to vote, and then having it voted on to disallow these fees? Can we do something like that?
|
Back to top |
|
|
Cynic Guest
|
|
Cynic
Guest
|
Wed Aug 20, 2003 8:54 am
|
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
catwoman Member
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 888 | TRs | Pics Location: somewhere near Tacoma |
|
catwoman
Member
|
Wed Aug 20, 2003 9:27 am
|
|
|
No cynics allowed. This problem isn't going to stop by just sitting around and watching. People who complain about a problem without even trying to work on the problem are every much a bit of the problem as the problem is! Kapiche?!
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dante Member
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 2815 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Dante
Member
|
Wed Aug 20, 2003 2:22 pm
|
|
|
I just Googled "counts" and "recreation fees" to get these results . . . interesting reading.
"It is unclear whether recreation fees have affected overall forest visitor
numbers, because even Forest Service officials acknowledge that their
recreation counts are inconsistent and unreliable...."
|
Back to top |
|
|
treewalker Member
Joined: 20 May 2003 Posts: 269 | TRs | Pics Location: Atlanta |
the issue here seems to boil down to this...
basically, public wild lands are a valuable shared resource which benefits everyone, whether they choose to visit or not.
They need to be protected which means there needs to be funding to protect them.
Should this funding come from user fees, or should it come from taxes?
Those who use the wilderness more would prefer it to come from taxes. Those who don't visit the wilderness would prefer that it came from user fees.
Basically people are always of the opinion that most benefits themselves.
In my opinion, I don't really give a flying flip... as long as the lands get taken care of I am glad to give my money towards this end, whether it be from taxes or fees.
user fees have the added benefit, from my perspective of reducing crowds and minimizing impact. I went hiking in the lowland olympics last weekend and all the ferns next to the trail had trample marks on them. That is a shame in my opinion...
Ideally here's how wilderness conservation would be funded if I ruled the world:
user fees to repair user impact, reservations to keep crowds down, taxes to pay for protection of the wilderness status and the opportunity cost of keeping the lands out of private hands.
I understand some of you are very poor and want to make sure that wilderness is available for poor people to recreate. I truly don't know what the answer is here, because I think going into the wilderness should be a privilage, not a right, and you should have to pay for that privilage in some way. Maybe if poor people who wanted to use the wilderness would volunteer to help protect it their fees could be waived... something like that.
If human population goes up even higher, we may one day need to seal off the wilderness from human activites alltogether. Someday wood products will be seen as relics from another era. If individuals want that sense of feeling that only the wilderness can provide, we'll need to be hooked up to some really good virtual reality wilderness simulations, with some empathetic designer drugs to make it seem more real.
I'd prefer that to allowing millions to trample wilderness and destroy it.
|
Back to top |
|
|
catwoman Member
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 888 | TRs | Pics Location: somewhere near Tacoma |
|
catwoman
Member
|
Wed Aug 20, 2003 3:33 pm
|
|
|
Whoa.
|
Back to top |
|
|
catwoman Member
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 888 | TRs | Pics Location: somewhere near Tacoma |
|
catwoman
Member
|
Wed Aug 20, 2003 7:16 pm
|
|
|
the lykkens wrote: | And then when we're through wondering how going to a movie costs more than buying the movie for your home, we invest in a forest pass and go hide from our poorness in the mountains. |
But you can't go to the mountains if you're poor anymore!
|
Back to top |
|
|
poorbear- Member
|
I carry my fee protest sign in my car and display it at the trailhead. It's hard to get funding for trails but there is loads of money anytime someone wants to do a study to implement a fee system or install counter equipment, or figure out ways to privatize FS jobs. Is this the 5th or 6th year of the "fee demo". What a misnomer. Using the wilderness is definitely becoming a priviledge the way things are going.
|
Back to top |
|
|
JimK Member
Joined: 07 Feb 2002 Posts: 5606 | TRs | Pics Location: Ballard |
|
JimK
Member
|
Wed Aug 20, 2003 10:45 pm
|
|
|
While I have some problems with the trail park system there was a much bigger problem in the recent past. When I hear about counters this is what I really fear.
Back in 1993 the forest service proposed severe restrictions on the Alpine Lakes Wilderness. There were 10 options with varying degrees of severity. I attended a public hearing on this matter. The FS favored one of the more restrictive options. It would have put day use limits on 19 of 47 trailheads. These included most all the I-90 and US-2 trailheads west of the crest plus many on the east side. Imagine the Enchantments entended to most of the Alpine Lakes. The talk was $5.00 per day and 10 groups per trailhead. 70% locked up ahead of time and 3 permits available the day of the hike. At the public hearing I asked the head of the MBS National Forest how I could plan trips and he said he would have no problem getting the several trips he did each year many months in advance. I don't know about you people but I get out more than a few time a year. I often choose a destination the night before.
The reason give for this plan was that the Wilderness Act mandates solitude in the wilderness. This was the rationale for severely limiting daily usage. This part of the act still exists. Even Lowell Skoog who was involved in the passage of the Wilderness Act admitted that including this provision was a mistake: Lowell Skoog
Due to public outrage this plan was "delayed". It was never dropped entirely. The first step was the implementation of ulimited use day passes. This plan is not yet dead. It may come back. I think it is a much greated worry than paying $30/year or doing trail maintenance in lieu. For those interested I have posted the most severe and the enacted options from the original environmental assessment booklet.
Most Restrictive Option
Implemented Option
Treewalkeer wants (day use?) reservations. Someday he may get them.
|
Back to top |
|
|
catwoman Member
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 888 | TRs | Pics Location: somewhere near Tacoma |
|
catwoman
Member
|
Wed Aug 20, 2003 11:10 pm
|
|
|
polarbear - Have you ever been ticketed? I would do that, too, but I also can't afford the citation or the hassles that may be associated with it. I'm just curious as to what you've encountered.
|
Back to top |
|
|
|