[Slugman]

Seattle Times article on NW forest pass changes.

[polarbear]

[sarbar]

Well, it really doesn't bug me. We buy a yearly NP pass at REI for $40, and a $15 Golden Eagle sticker. If they change the rules, oh well, but otherwise I'll still pay the $ and not sweat it. I don't have an issue with the fees in NF's-after all, backpacking is free, and that is still a bargain in my eyes.

[Slugman]

PB, did you really read the article? The $65 pass is not the new version of the NW forest pass, but the current Golden Eagle pass which includes the National parks nationwide. This is not just a raising of the NW forest pass fee, which only covers the national forests and not the national parks, but a pass that covers nat forests and nat parks. We needed the nat parks pass even before the NW forest pass, and would continue to need it even if the nw forest pass was recinded, assuming we were frequent hikers in the nat parks. Don't confuse the two. If someone was an occasional hiker only, then having more places not subject to the fee would be great. It doesn't help me, though, since I would need the pass anyway to hike all the trails not removed from the pass. Do you actually hope that the national parks will also remove all fees? This is highly unlikely, since they have always had fees, at least for my entire lifetime. My parents had to pay to get us into Yosemite in the '60s. The nat park pass costs $50, with $15 more going to include the nat forests, a discount of $15 over separate purchase. If this new pass comes to be, it may also include a discounted state parks pass, which I refuse to buy at $50, but might if it was only $20 or so. Of course this is not as good as removing the fee entirely, but may be an improvement over what we have now. To get all the passes now would be very expensive: $65 for parks and forests, $50 for state parks, $20 for sno-park, totalling $135. I have spent $85 for golden eagle and sno-park. Short of removing all fees, a graduated fee for one pass, with optional levels of including/not including things like state parks and snoparks, would be significantly cheaper than what we have now, or at least I hope it would be. So, your two main examples, occasional hikers and the cash-strapped, are not valid. They could go to the four hundred free places, and pay nothing, much better than now. People like me who want to go everywhere might be better off as well, since the bundled pass would be cheaper than the piecemeal system we have now. The only down side I see is that this new system might reduce opposition to fees in general, making it less likely that all fees would be removed.

[jimmymac]

When you lump trail head parking and improved (Whinybago) sites into a single fee class, I'd be real surprised if hikers don't end up subsidizing the users of the improved sites -- especially if existing trail head fees don't change much.

[H. Hound]

[Slugman]

The artilcle never said you would pay more. There is some fee bundling now, the golden eagle, but the separate passes are still available. So if the nw forest pass is $30 now and $30 later, how is that more? You won't have to buy the bundled pass. PS, there are some truly top-notch places to go with no fees right now. Example: Snowgrass flat, hikers trailhead only, no fee or pass required, because no bathroom (says the sign at trailhead). The equestrian trailhead there still requires the pass. The option of road parking 1/4 mile away has always been available at most trails.

[Slugman]

No as to the ticketing. Parking at least 1/4 mile away and not paying is legal. The Forest Service says so. The pass fee will likely go up sooner or later, whether bundled or not. It's called inflation. You doubt that a trailhead-only option will remain, even though the article said they would "offer", not mandate, a bundled pass, and the current bundled pass didn't replace the single passes. What is your doubt based upon? If they made bundling mandatory, people would be much angrier than they are now, and the stated purpose of the new pass is to lessen anger. Everything in the article may be wrong, but my comments were based upon what the article says. If they are flat-out lying, then things will be different. I am assuming, for the sake of argument, that the article is truthful. If it doesn't mention whether or not the new pass would require a fee increase in the separate pass above and beyond the increase that is bound to happen anyway, then it is not logical to assume that it will. The headline of the article even mentions fee reductions. There is nothing there to cause me to believe that a trails-only pass will become unavailable or more expensive.

[polarbear]

I could be misreading it, but when I read that

[H. Hound]

So, want to put a bet on it? Say a NWtrails pass?

[Tom]

The 30% reduction in "fee required" areas sounds good until you realize everyone will inevitably go to at least one of the "fee required" areas and thus end up paying the big fee. It's just a way for them to charge more. This stinks.

[Camilia the Camel]

Dear Tent Owner, Remember when we first met? I was a poor shivering camel on the outside and there you were in your nice warm, toasty tent. I asked if I could just stick my nose in the tent door, since my nose is so sensitive. You were very reluctant, and even outraged at first, but I finally convinced you that it was just my little nosey wosey, and it would only take a few minutes to thaw and then I would leave. Well, as you remember, one thing led to another and pretty soon I was able to warm my nose in that tent the whole night long, not just a few minutes. Then one night it was even colder and I asked if I might just get my little humpy wumpy inside the tent as long as all my feet were outside. You were quite outraged at the thought , but when you saw the woeful look in my eyes, and me shivering so, you agreed, but only for a few minutes. Well, as you remember, one thing led to another and pretty soon my humpy wumpy and nosey wosey were in that tent the whole night long. Then...then one night it got even colder, and I asked if I might just climb inside that tent for just a few minutes, hoovesy woovesy, humpy wumpy, nosey wosey, and all. You were furious, and stamped your feet and shook your fists and used language that not even a camel driver uses , but when you saw how pitifully cold I was and I warned you my eyelids might freeze close, well, you agreed to let me in, but just for a few minutes. Well, as you remember, one thing led to another and pretty soon my hoovesy woovesy, humpy wumpy, and nosey wosey were in that tent the whole night long. And in short time, I finally knocked you to your senses that it was too cold to wander out when nature called and that camel dung might make a good pillow, and that it could be saved and used a week later for fire starter. Then came the day when I told you that you snored too loud. Could you please just stick your nosey wosey outside the tent for a few minutes? You whined and complained but reluctantly agreed. Then I mentioned that well, the tent didn't smell the best at certain times, and could you please stick your nosey wosey and your rumpy wumpy outside the tent. You cried and you pleaded until at last you came about. Then came the day when I complained that when your nosey wosey and rumpy wumpy were outside the tent, there was a wafty drafty getting in tent, and I was getting cold, and the reason I got in the tent in the first place was to get warm, so if you really believe in me staying warm, then you should sleep outside... Well, as you know, now the tent belongs to me and while you shiver throughtout the night, and rest on a bed of pebbles, you know in your heart that you have done the right thing. Yours truly, Camilia

[Slugman]

Yes HH, I will bet you $1,000,000 that the article doesn't say that a nw forest pass will go up because of this new pass. I do not contend that a nw forest pass will be the same price forever. I only refer to what the article said or didn't say. PB, yes you are misreading it. Your quote clearly states that the new pass will replace the present bundled pass, the golden eagle. Since the golden eagle didn't replace or eliminate the nw forest pass, then why would the new one, when it is a ploy to pacify us? Offering us a chance to buy all the available passes in one is not an attempt to eliminate the individual passes that make it up. It is an attempt to lessen hatred for the whole pass system, short of doing without the money altogether. One complaint people have is the plethora of passes needed if you want to go everywhere. Getting them in a group at less than the cost of them all separately will mollify some people. Camelia, good story, but it is not a parable of the future, but of the past. The camel evicted us from our tents long ago! I dislike the pass system, mainly because it costs me money. But if I have to have it, then cheaper is better. My nw forest pass cost me $15 for two years, so I'm not going to whine too much over $7.50 per year. How do you get a nw forest pass for $15 per year? Here's how, assuming you would be willing to buy a NP pass anyway.

[sarbar]

That's what we do. Get the sticker for $15. $15 for 13 months of use!! That is a freaking bargain. Quit growsing and take it like an adult. So we have to pay for a pass-it's better than not having NO trails to hike on. $15 a year is a bargain for entertainment and exercise.

[Slugman]

As far as our taxes not going down because of things like this pass, taxes would have to be higher if the fee was removed and the maintenance budget wasn't lowered. The money must come from somewhere. The fact that the savings from "fee-ing" us were given to people making $500,000 per year or more is not the fault of the Forest Service. We can thank the president, who also claimed, on the record, that "The majority of the tax break would go to those at the bottom." The bottom 50% got 20% of the break. Some "majority"!