So what are we paying taxes for?

mttgilbert · Post by **mttgilbert** » Dec 10 2002 4:17 pm

You and I pay taxes for the maintenance, upkeep and access to public lands. The taxes we pay to the state and federal governments are supposed to be used to develop rescources in a fitting fashion so that they may be used by the public at large. Why then do we have to pay a nominal fee at the trailheads to park our vehicles? Is this not what the taxes we pay are for?
I recently read in the sierra club's newsletter that the fees are actually a program set up by the forest service to prove to the legislators that people are willing to pay extra to use their own land. Neither the forest service nor the legislature has the right to charge us for what we already paid for. I urge all of you out there to contact your representatives regarding this unfair practice. Please help keep our public lands free.

montezumawell · Post by **montezumawell** » Dec 10 2002 5:45 pm

Well, well, well. Finally a well spoken post on a most deep subject--the infamous Fee Demostration Program. This topic is certain to generate a lot of all those qualities that make a HAZ post hot, Hot, HOT: sparks, heat and FIRE!

We, for two, believe the Fee Demo is only the beginning of the privatization of public lands.
Trust us, if a TH generates enough money, it will soon be up for bids with those same contractors who run the campgrounds and can and WILL charge up to $25 for a one-night-stand tent site.
Basically, the Forest wants to wash its hands of high maintenance things like TH's and campgrounds. If someone bids on a contract to take over such a facility, so much the better.

To paraphrase a famous Naval Officer, "Damn the Public, Full Speed Ahead!"

J&S

PS--This note was added after reviewing how the post "actually" looks on HAZ. Good Ol' Teva Joe has this magical "bad word" eraser that auto-converts certain words to other "not-so-randomly-selected" words. In this case, we were trying to use a word that is also associated with a large concrete plug in the Colorado River, commonly called, Glen Canyon Damn. Note that the insertion of a common orange squash/vegetable was not "our doing."

ellehcim · Post by **ellehcim** » Dec 10 2002 7:24 pm

I find a few things irritating...The County and other municiple governments are trying to make money off of federal lands. Typical example is the usery mountain park, butted up to the Tonto national forest... They are charging $5.00 for the use of federal trails, just like Lost Dutchman park which charges $6.00...

And the annual fee for the Tonto Natnl Reserve is 90.00.... You would have to go every other week to make that worth it...

Now if all that extra $$ actually went into the parks then I might not be too upset about it, but I am not sure where it is all going.

ck_1 · Post by **ck_1** » Dec 10 2002 7:36 pm

$75 bucks for a Maricopa county parks pass really bugs me. As I do Wind Cave about once a week, it's cheaper to buy the pass, but come on, a National Parks Pass is only $50.

So each year, I buy

$50 National Parks Pass
$20 Red Rocks/Sedona Pass
$75 Maricopa County Parks Pass

It seems like so much cash, but I'd end up paying more if I just paid on an "as you go" basis.

Lizard · Post by **Lizard** » Dec 10 2002 9:11 pm

It has always seemed strange to me that hikers and equestrians must pay out of their pocket to use the forest, while extractive industries like logging and mining are subsidized. Personally I think it should be the other way around. Users should pay according to the amount of impact their activities have on the land.

If we charged just half of market value for the timber that logging companies take from National Forest, this Fee Demo thing would no longer be an issue. The USFS would actually start bringing in a rather handsome profit.

ellehcim · Post by **ellehcim** » Dec 10 2002 10:20 pm

ck1 wrote:$75 bucks for a Maricopa county parks pass really bugs me. As I do Wind Cave about once a week, it's cheaper to buy the pass, but come on, a National Parks Pass is only $50.

So each year, I buy

$50 National Parks Pass
$20 Red Rocks/Sedona Pass
$75 Maricopa County Parks Pass

It seems like so much cash, but I'd end up paying more if I just paid on an "as you go" basis.

Next time you choose to do that trail I would like to tag along if you will put up with me...

ck_1 · Post by **ck_1** » Dec 10 2002 10:40 pm

ellehcim wrote:
ck1 wrote:$75 bucks for a Maricopa county parks pass really bugs me. As I do Wind Cave about once a week, it's cheaper to buy the pass, but come on, a National Parks Pass is only $50.

So each year, I buy

$50 National Parks Pass
$20 Red Rocks/Sedona Pass
$75 Maricopa County Parks Pass

It seems like so much cash, but I'd end up paying more if I just paid on an "as you go" basis.
Next time you choose to do that trail I would like to tag along if you will put up with me...

I can put up with anybody for a 3 mile hike

you are welcome to come along any time...my "tentative" plan is to do it Friday after work, but I'll let you know for sure asap...

ellehcim · Post by **ellehcim** » Dec 10 2002 11:25 pm

Send me a PM if you wanna go... I am very interested ;]

Wiz · Post by **Wiz** » Dec 11 2002 6:21 am

This is a topic that pisses me off in a big way - don't get me started! Grr!

Daryl · Post by **Daryl** » Dec 11 2002 6:58 am

I'm going to play Devil's advocate here.

Many tax payers do not frequently, or never, use national forest, county parks, state parks... I'd bet they make up the majority of tax payers. From their point of view, why should their tax dollars go to something they don't use. They are the majority, they will win.

From my experience, I've noticed that generally areas and trails that require a fee are less frequented by the yahoomulletheadedcigarettetossingtrashdumpingtreechopping menace to society types. Anyone that uses the rec areas on the salt river should be able to attest to the before fees and after fees condition of the areas. Also, anyone that has driven through oak creek canyon on a warm summer day, before and after the red rock pass, should have noticed a difference. For this reason, I don't mind the fees.

Now before I get a million people flaming me on this (has HAZ reached a million yet?), I hate having to pay to hike, and when I rule the world no one will have to pay to hike (and the yahoomulletheadedcigarettetossingtrashdumpingtreechopping menace to society types will no longer be a problem).

scottmackey · Post by **scottmackey** » Dec 11 2002 8:09 am

I think our taxes are going towards building logging roads so the logging industry can clear-cut our forests. Oops!

plz:

tracker · Post by **tracker** » Dec 11 2002 9:30 am

Clear-cutting?.. Don't get me started! :twisted:

Wiz · Post by **Wiz** » Dec 11 2002 9:39 am

Daryl wrote:... the yahoomulletheadedcigarettetossingtrashdumpingtreechopping menace to society types.

My vocabulary has really increased since I found this site! There's another new word on a thread about what to call "hiking".

montezumawell · Post by **montezumawell** » Dec 11 2002 9:51 am

One of the big issues not many people understand is fairness and reasonable equity within the federal fee system. This year, we visited 24 National Forests from West Virginia to Oregon.
You simply wouldn't believe the incredible number of fees charged in those forests. One could easily spend hundreds of dollars simply visiting and using things that were formerly free.
There appears to be no rhyme or reason, let alone fairness and reasonable equity to the system.

Here's a classic example:

Your Red Rock Pass costs $20 and let's you "park" at the TH's only in the Sedona Ranger District of the Coconino National Forest. For that price, you get to "enjoy" the trails there. However, that does not let you into other fee demo sites in other National Forests in Region 3, Arizona and New Mexico.

Now, let's go up to the Pacific Northwest. There, they have a Northwest Forest Pass for $30. But guess what? Thirty bucks gets you access to ALL of the TH's TWO STATES!!!! Incredible!
Not only that, but you can do trailwork in exchange for the pass. Work two days on a trail and get an annual pass for free. During the last year for which records are available, the National Forests in Oregon and Washington gave away more than TEN THOUSAND PASSES IN RETURN FOR TRAIL WORK.

Do you call that fair and equitable?

We could go on and on and on about the specific examples we noted this year. Their dazzling array of diversity and complexity would take an encyclopedia to list.

In Sedona's case, even the Forest Service will admit that very little of the money gets back out on the ground, something like 11 percent last time we checked. The bulk of it appears to go to collecting the fee itself or taking on the role that the Chamer of Commerce should play--i.e., giving out tourist information to visitors. If you don't believe it, spend some time in one of the so-called "info centers" up in the Sedona area. It would appear from such casual observations that the desk staff spends the bulk of their time answering typical tourist questions and not discussing trail o resource specific information. Is that fair? Is that what we should be paying for? Uh, uh, we don't think so.

If there was such a thing as a fifty dollar National Forest Pass similar to the National Parks Pass, we believe that would be a giant step toward fairness and reasonable equity. We fail to understand how the NPS can get by with a $50 pass for admission to the world's most amazing natural wonders, while the Forest Service supports a veritable JUNGLE of differing fees. How is that fair and equitable?

Hope some devil's advocate explains it to us soon.

J&S

Wiz · Post by **Wiz** » Dec 11 2002 10:31 am

Easy: They do it because they can.

Daryl · Post by **Daryl** » Dec 11 2002 11:17 am

economics 101

if enough people are willing to pay for it, the price is right

Example, the indians (can't remember the tribe) charged $17 to get into Antelope Canyon last time I was there. If you've never been there before I'd say it's worth the price. Having been there before, I wouldn't pay over $10 to go in again.
Side note, at Antelope canyon the price is negotiable, I usually get them down to 2 for 1.

olesma · Post by **olesma** » Dec 11 2002 4:22 pm

I will have more to say on this matter when I run for state senate in 4 years.

mttgilbert · Post by **mttgilbert** » Dec 12 2002 6:28 pm

The indians have had enough taken from them that we owe them something to use the land we "gave" them. I don't have a problem reimburseng them for the use of their land. I have a problem paying to use the land that we all supposedly own already. Don't get me wrong I am in favor of some taxes for public amenities however I cannot agree with paying a maintanence fee for a place I would rather not see "maintained". It is my position that any time a "maintenance" project is undertaken, it often results in improvements. Once the improvements start, we're only a short step away from paving over all those wonderful trails we enjoy.
Because this is simply a fee program and not federaly mandated, there is no real autority with the jurisdiction to ticket a transgressor. I would suggest that all those that agree that these lands are ours stop paying the fees. This is the only way to show congress that fee programs simply WILL NOT work. Civil disobedience is often the simplest means to an ends. (If it makes would make it easier not to pay I have disregarded paying the fees the last several times I have been out, and I have not received a ticket or even notification that I should pay).
Thanks to everyone who read and considered the problem, and more thanks to those of you taking the time to respond (positively or negatively).

ck_1 · Post by **ck_1** » Dec 12 2002 7:39 pm

I can't agree with willfully breaking the rules. I know I sound like a goody-goody, but I look at it this way...we all make the world the way it is...good...or...bad....I don't think that congress/land managers/anybody else is going to discontinue the fee programs because there are people who don't pay the fee...I'd rather work positively toward a solution...just my opinion....

joebartels · Post by **joebartels** » Dec 12 2002 9:36 pm

matt gilbert wrote:You and I pay taxes for the maintenance, upkeep and access to public lands. The taxes we pay to the state and federal governments are supposed to be used to develop rescources in a fitting fashion so that they may be used by the public at large. Why then do we have to pay a nominal fee at the trailheads to park our vehicles? Is this not what the taxes we pay are for?
I recently read in the sierra club's newsletter that the fees are actually a program set up by the forest service to prove to the legislators that people are willing to pay extra to use their own land. Neither the forest service nor the legislature has the right to charge us for what we already paid for. I urge all of you out there to contact your representatives regarding this unfair practice. Please help keep our public lands free.

Maybe think on a wider basis, this isn't just related to hiking trailheads. Think parking in general. Get into the dense city and you have parking meters. Go into a super dense city like Frisco and you pay a weekly fee in the $50-$200 range. It generally seems to be a convenience fee. You can get around in the east slowly or you can pay for the toll roads. Okay so maybe this isn't right... but in order to alleviate the minor usage fees we'd all have to pay even higher taxes. Or shuffle the spending, which I'm sure there's more view points then anybody cares to hear about

I guess when I look at the big picture I just don't feel like I'm being cheated or taken advantage of... at this point anyhow.

What burns me are those waiting in-line at Squaw Peak for the first lot when the adjacent lots are empty. Or bitchin' about the Peralta TH fee. There's plenty of free parking within a 10-30 minute walk. Of course this theory doesn't hold squat in Sedona where the whole forest is zoned. Worse yet the word is a majority of the fee goes to paying for the litature and station fees, not actual trail maintance. But is it really that bad? Sedona trails in the zone are clean and maintained. Bell crossing just outside the zone, popular and a dump. Red Rock Crossing in the zone, popular and clean. I guess if I was paying and it wasn't working I'd be concerned.

I suppose most spit at my opinions above & WIZ's computer probably doesn't work after he kicked it in my honor

So what are we paying taxes for?

So what are we paying taxes for?

Much larger issue involved

Equity

indians deserve the money