Forum Index > Trail Talk > Baker-Snoqualmie New Fee Areas?
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
kiliki
Member
Member


Joined: 07 Apr 2003
Posts: 2062 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
kiliki
Member
PostThu Sep 01, 2022 9:03 am 
I've heard it's pretty common for those to be vandalized. Who can forget these guys, that thought fire was the solution? https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1563/mora-request-for-information.htm Certainly there are other solutions to collect a fee from those that don't have an annual pass, though.

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


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 903 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
Member
PostThu Sep 01, 2022 5:09 pm 
Schroder wrote:
Yeah, I wouldn't write my credit card info on a piece of paper and drop it in a box in the woods. I was recently at a National Parks Campground (Heart O' the Hills) and they wanted you to do the same thing to pay for a campsite. Fortunately they had the option of paying online & there was a cell signal there.
The only way to pay to camp at Deer Park and Graves Creek Campgrounds in Olympic National Park is via writing your cc or debit card info on a piece of paper and dropping it in a box in the woods. There is no internet at either camps so instant pay doesn't work. You cannot pay via cash or check. Maybe the National Park Service is violating the credit card industries' own rules on fraud prevention. But I highly doubt it. The payment only requires cc or debit card number and expiration date. It does not ask for CVC code or billing address. It doesn't even ask for your name. So if a thief did steal all the little pieces of paper in the lock box, I am not sure what they would be able to do with it. And getting your cc number stolen is really not that big of a deal (if you are looking at your statement for unusual transaction). You get the fraudulent transaction canceled and refunded, get a new cc number, and that's that.

Chief Joseph
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 8840 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostThu Sep 01, 2022 7:56 pm 
FWIW: After showing my America the beautiful pass at the Lake Kachess boat launch I was charged $4 at the entrance booth.

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


Joined: 07 Apr 2003
Posts: 2062 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
kiliki
Member
PostThu Sep 01, 2022 8:00 pm 
What is NOT covered by the Annual Pass? The Annual Pass does not cover Expanded Amenity fees such as camping, boat launching, parking, special tours, special permits or ferries. https://store.usgs.gov/faq#Annual-Pass

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 8840 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostThu Sep 01, 2022 8:11 pm 
kiliki wrote:
What is NOT covered by the Annual Pass? The Annual Pass does not cover Expanded Amenity fees such as camping, boat launching, parking, special tours, special permits or ferries. https://store.usgs.gov/faq#Annual-Pass
Sure , what it interesting was that prior to showing my pass the booth attendant was going to charge me $8. At least I got the senior discount. But why this rate wasn't offer 1st to folks sporting a lot of gray hair....

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


Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 286 | TRs | Pics
Location: seattle
philfort
Member
PostTue Sep 06, 2022 2:09 pm 
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 8840 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostTue Sep 06, 2022 2:20 pm 
Personally I'm OK with paying the extra fees for parking in a place where there is a booth and a ticket seller. Seems like such locations would not be the happy hunting ground for thieves and vandals. OTH , extra fee areas that collect day use fees via an "iron ranger" seems like it will simply encourage thieves to steal a dewalt angle grinder to cut into the "iron ranger"

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


Joined: 15 Jun 2017
Posts: 173 | TRs | Pics
catsp
Member
PostTue Sep 06, 2022 5:40 pm 
I realize the poorly written sign attached to that WTA trip report isn't at all clear on the point, but does anyone who has read the least little bit about this still believe that the sites noted for going from "$0" to a "$5" day use fee means anything other than they are being added to the many other sites that require a day use fee? Nothing more than being made into Standard Amenity Fee sites. That's it. It's not a separate, additional $5. A NW Forest Pass (among other passes) will suffice, and like the numerous existing trailheads already designated as Standard Amenity Fee sites, there will be a $5 daily charge if you don't have pass. As noted previously:
kiliki wrote:
Just looked at the proposal and it seems like a non-event, IMO. You'll need to show a pass at some spots where you don't now ...
Notwithstanding the foregoing, please let me go ahead and start the next post for someone: "I can't believe we are going to have to pay an extra $5 for parking at these sites when we have already bought passes!!!!!!"

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


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 6522 | TRs | Pics
Kim Brown
Member
PostWed Sep 07, 2022 9:16 am 
catsp wrote:
but does anyone who has read the least little bit about this still believe that the sites noted for going from "$0" to a "$5" day use fee means anything other than they are being added to the many other sites that require a day use fee?
Apparently a lot of people including me. And maybe it's because the words, "Northwest Forest Pass" isn't even mentioned in the proposal. AND BECAUSE of Philfort's observation on the Old Sauk trailhead.
catsp wrote:
A NW Forest Pass (among other passes) will suffice,.
The proposal doesn't say that. Some of the lousiest communication efforts are in public process documents - BASIC issues and regulations being unclear to the public. 1. NPS didn't include current NPS regulations in their documents for public review in ONP's wilderness management overhaul several years ago, they uploaded the old one that skewed it in their favor - to not preserve shelters and other historical structures. A person reading their documents would think structures were not acceptable in wilderness. The current documentation has an entire chapter on the preservation of historical structure. I made a formal request that the old document be removed and replaced with the current documentation - and - they did nothing. The superceded document was presented to the public for their decision-making process. 2. One reason we still have the Illabot Road is that the proposal to close it was misleading - in their favor to close it. Perhaps it wasn't meant to be that way, but it was. One (of several) glaring issues is that the description of road damage and a photo of the damage repeated throughout the proposal to close the road - was a description and photo of a portion of the road they were keeping OPEN. I (with the help of NWHiker donors to hire a lawyer to review my work) was one of 5 people who wrote a formal appeal on the decision. The road is still open. This proposal for the $5 fee doesn't say that the NWFP will cover it. It most certainly might; it probably does - but a thoughtful reading of the proposal should raise the question about it, and I understand the confusion. Displaying the NWFP is not an option in the proposal. Assume nothing. Therefore, each trail listed on the MBS page will get the same comment from me; that so long as the fee is included in the daily or annual NWFP , I'm OK with the fee; but if it is separate from the NWFP, then no.

"..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

ejain
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
philfort
Member
Member


Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 286 | TRs | Pics
Location: seattle
philfort
Member
PostWed Sep 07, 2022 9:37 am 
Adding to the confusion is that some of the proposed new fee sites (e.g. Garfield Ledges) apparently already require the NWFP (at least per WTA). And the sign in the WTA trip report I linked mentioned the fee will only be collected from Apr 1 to Nov 1. Never heard of the NWFP only being needed at certain times of year...

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 15645 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostWed Sep 07, 2022 9:38 am 
Simple solution, if you are a hiker just get the damn pass huh.gif

"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
JimmyBob
Member
Member


Joined: 22 Jun 2018
Posts: 51 | TRs | Pics
Location: Maple Valley, WA
JimmyBob
Member
PostWed Sep 07, 2022 10:50 am 
Malachai Constant wrote:
Simple solution, if you are a hiker just get the damn pass huh.gif
This is the issue, which pass? People don't know until they get to a trailhead. Which is why I see discover passes displayed in Mount Rainier. Get rid of all passes!

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


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 6522 | TRs | Pics
Kim Brown
Member
PostWed Sep 07, 2022 12:05 pm 
philfort wrote:
Adding to the confusion is that some of the proposed new fee sites (e.g. Garfield Ledges) apparently already require the NWFP (at least per WTA). And the sign in the WTA trip report I linked mentioned the fee will only be collected from Apr 1 to Nov 1. Never heard of the NWFP only being needed at certain times of year...
Oh, wow! I missed that! Thanks for reposting. (I had thought Jennifer Dunn and Beaver Lake trailheads already required it, and the new Old Sauk trail head, but wasn't sure). What a ball of confusion.

"..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
catsp
Member
Member


Joined: 15 Jun 2017
Posts: 173 | TRs | Pics
catsp
Member
PostWed Sep 07, 2022 1:13 pm 
Kim Brown wrote:
Some of the lousiest communication efforts are in public process documents - BASIC issues and regulations being unclear to the public.
Completely agree that the USFS or Dept. of Agriculture or whoever have done a terrible job regarding not just the clarity of the information, but the providing the information itself.
Kim Brown wrote:
catsp wrote:
but does anyone who has read the least little bit about this still believe that the sites noted for going from "$0" to a "$5" day use fee means anything other than they are being added to the many other sites that require a day use fee?
Apparently a lot of people including me. And maybe it's because the words, "Northwest Forest Pass" isn't even mentioned in the proposal. AND BECAUSE of Philfort's observation on the Old Sauk trailhead.
Ok, I sort of meant read a little bit about this stuff in the broader sense, not just the proposal, and applying a little bit of reasoning. (I don't mean offense by that.) Along with the fact that it has been explained a few times already in this thread. Also, part of this goes back to a thread on here from 2017 or so on the issue of what fees can be charged after a then recent court case.
Kim Brown wrote:
catsp wrote:
A NW Forest Pass (among other passes) will suffice,.
The proposal doesn't say that.
Ask and you shall receive:
Quote:
As part of this proposal, the Evans Creek, Lower Sandy, and Ranger Creek Campgrounds are proposed at $20 per night. The Evans Creek and Ranger Creek group campgrounds are proposed at $75 per night with group sizes of 40 and 70 people respectively. A $5 day-use fee per vehicle is proposed at Beaver Lake, Cable Drop, Camp Brown, Deception Falls, Dingford Creek, Frog Mountain, Garfield Ledges, Government Meadows Horse Camp, Jennifer Dunn, Lonesome Lake, Pratt Bar, Sauk Mountain, and White Chuck Overlook Day use areas. Lower Sauk, Marblemount, Old Sauk Universal Access, and White Chuck boat launches would be added to improve services and facilities. The Northwest Forest Pass and the full suite of Interagency passes would be honored. [Emphasis added.]
Notice of Proposed New Fee Sites, Supplementary Information (Federal Register, Sept. 6, 2022).

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


Joined: 15 Jun 2017
Posts: 173 | TRs | Pics
catsp
Member
PostWed Sep 07, 2022 1:19 pm 
Kim Brown wrote:
philfort wrote:
Adding to the confusion ... the WTA trip report I linked mentioned the fee will only be collected from Apr 1 to Nov 1. Never heard of the NWFP only being needed at certain times of year...
Oh, wow! I missed that! Thanks for reposting. ... What a ball of confusion.
To quote Tom Jones, It's Not Unusual. And I believe nearly everyone here has seen it. Happens all the time in places where one of the required amenities (for a Standard Amenity Fee site) will not be provided for a period of time. Like during winter in places where they close the toilets (one of the 6 required amenities).

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 > Baker-Snoqualmie New Fee Areas?
  Happy Birthday Eric Hansen, cburton103!
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