Outrageous changes to permit fees for State Land entry

[azbackpackr]

This is outrageous, it really has me hopping. I am going to copy what I just read in the most recent Southern Arizona Hiking Club (SAHC) bulletin. Pay special attention to where I have used bold lettering:

"In the past SAHC purchased an annual State Trust Land club permit for $50 which covered all SAHC hikes and hikers for the year. The State Land Dept. has changed its permitting process and our club annual permit will not be renewed when it expires in April 2009. Last August the State Land Dept. initiated a new fee schedule for all recreational use of State Trust Land. The impact on SAHC of the new fee schedule is as follows:

To hike on State Trust Land:
1. All hikers will now have to have an individual permit good for one year and FOR A MAXIMUM OF 14 DAYS OF USE WITHIN THAT YEAR AT THE COST OF $50 PER PERMIT.

2. For a group event (defined as 12-50 hikers) an additional group permit will be required, at $50. THIS PERMIT CAN TAKE UP TO 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN. THIS MEANS THAT ON A HIKE WITH MORE THAN 12 HIKERS, EACH ONE WILL HAVE TO HAVE HIS/HER OWN INDIVIDUAL PERMIT AS WELL AS THE GUIDE OBTAINING A SEPARATE GROUP EVENT PERMIT.

SAHC and other hiking clubs have contacted the State Land Dept. asking for relief from the new fee schedule. No exceptions or changes to the fees are being allowed. These new fees affect all recreational users.

The Arizona State Land Dept. has implemented a Internet based mapping service. You can find it at land.state.az.us"

End of SAHC bulletin quote.

It beats me how they are going to afford to ENFORCE this new ruling. I mean, aren't cops and their vehicles kind of expensive? To actually enforce the ruling I would think the State would have to pay more than they are going to get back in fees.

I also think it's one example of how one group ruins it for everyone else. And of course I am talking about ATVers. Irresponsible ATVers have caused huge damage on State Lands, and it's understandable that the State is concerned about this. But to make us all pay equally, when we didn't cause equal damage is unfair.

I think they need to have an IQ and ethics test before anyone can use state lands. That would get rid of most of the off-roaders, because a lot of them still think it's ok to litter and shoot up saguaros, and ride on hiking trails, and ride off established routes.

[big_load]

Yes, I was pretty surprised when I read the charter for the AZ state trust. It was definitely intended to sell the lands off for development. I suppose it was in keeping with the will of AZ's electorate at the time it was formed, and perhaps it still is, much to my disappointment.

[Jeffshadows]

Like I said, I'd be happy to close a large part of it off permanently...

[writelots]

Yes, I was pretty surprised when I read the charter for the AZ state trust. It was definitely intended to sell the lands off for development. I suppose it was in keeping with the will of AZ's electorate at the time it was formed, and perhaps it still is, much to my disappointment.

Well, back in 1912 when the federal government gifted the land to the state, no one ever imagined that a) millions of people would want to live in the arid, unforgiving desert (who imagined air conditioning?) and b) that "development" would mean the kind of large-scale rape-and-scrape tactics we see today. Unfortunately, since modifying the State Land Trust involves essentially changing the state constitution - it's an extremely difficult proposition. Many groups have proposed reform bills, but getting the educators (who get the money), the ranchers (who use the land), the developers (who want the land), the conservationists (who don't want the developers to have the land) and the politicians (who change their minds with the support and money) on the same page has been next to impossible.

Keep your eyes out for another state land reform movement next year. Hopefully we can come up with a solution that at least makes the system responsive to the people it is supposed to serve...

[Jeffshadows]

Yea, we're going to have a heck of a time stopping the wacko legislation they are all trying to float now that Napolitano isn't there to contain the chaos any longer...let alone get them to touch state land reform

[Jim]

I would like to see the land reforms sell off certain areas, land trade with the Feds in others, establish state forest and range areas and others, and then maintain the current system in others. So, as you can see, even I, a great, "leveled headed voice of reason and sound judgment", have many differing views and on the subject. It would seem that in this case we should follow the federal model on such issues as border security and immigration reform: when a simply consensus can not be reached, pass the buck off on the the next generation. Maybe in 2112 they will know what they want .

[big_load]

On a happy note, NJ has been going in the other direction for years. Voters approved a series of referenda (from 1961 through 1998) with to buy up private land for preservation and even approved the additional spending for it. The Garden State Preservation Trust Act became law in 1999. I haven't been able to find the total acreage preserved so far, but it's substantial, especially for a small state with the highest population density in the US. Most of the preserved lands are working farms, wooded hills, wooded river valleys, and of course the pine barrens down south. Unfortunately, we're starting to see some of the same shenanigans with land swaps to developers or other undesirable use requests (such as building factories).

[Jim]

The Wharton-Lebanon-Bass River-Penn SF area is one of the nicest state owned areas I ever had the pleasure to live next to.

[big_load]

Yes, that's a great area in fall/winter/spring for hiking and paddling. I don't like it so much when the skeeters are out.