So what are we paying taxes for?

[mttgilbert]

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.

[ellehcim]

I dont agree with ignoring the fees but I will choose where I go based upon them...

[montezumawell]

Well, the bottom line is that fees are a way of life, like it or not.
we may grumble. We may complain. But we pay our fees and hike on.
That's the biggest issue of all. Don't get so caught up in the fee issue that
you spend more time trying to resolve it than you do hiking.
It's a minor annoyance in the bigger picture. HIKING is our main priority.
We're more than happy to whine and moan on this forum but when push comes
to shove--we're out the door hiking and not worrying about the fees.
As long as we can afford to pay them, we WILL pay them and HIKE ON!

J&S

[cactuscat]

What burns me up is when I dutifully pay my fee, then see someone else (who probably makes alot more money than me!) drive right in without paying! :twisted:

[mtoomeyaz]

Cactuscat, why be burned up? Do what you feel is right. If you feel it is your duty to pay then do so. If you feel the fee system is wrong, fight it, or don't pay, or protest. The guys that just drive by might be protesting or might be jerks. In any event, if you're happy with yourself and what you're doing, thats cool. Be happy!

[cactuscat]

Don't worry about me - I'm always happy when I'm hiking!

[azhiker96]

I pay the fee when the meter is there (Peralta TH) but do a lot of hiking in the summer when the fee stations are removed and the rangers are hiding in the air conditioning somewhere. I figure the fees support the parking lot, signage, trailhead pit toilets, and litter patrol. I have been tempted to stop on the way out to offer my fee receipt at half price to those just arriving. That would be another way to protest the fee, try to encourage fee receipt "recycling". It saves money and cuts down on paper waste.

[mttgilbert]

Montezumaswall said it best "hiking is our main priority". So in an effort to apease those of you who dissaprove of "jerks" not paying fees and parking anyway, I will discontinue my practice of not paying the fees. Since hiking is the priority I will happily walk the extra distance to avoid the fees altogether.
In response to Teva; The problem is not the fee program today. The problem is, once the legislature and forest service are convinced that we are able and willing to pay additional fees to use our own land. I for one would welcome a raise in my overall taxes in order to maintain our alleged 'public' lands. The problem with fee programs is that if they work, the powers that be are almost certain push the limit as high as they can. Once they realize how successful exploitation of "public" resources can be, where will they stop. Why not develop the trailheads with resorts, or better yet housing developments, like the ones encroaching on Peralta, Hieroglyphic Canyon, and Siphon Draw. We have to be vigilante today in order to avoid grievances in the future. What if they decide to regulate the fees based on demand. In the future when there are more people hiking they can just raise the fees to discourage use. Then the trails become usable only by those of us with plenty of money to spare. Imagine the wilderness the domain of the rich man. I hope my own, and your, children and grandchildren can enjoy these areas as we do today.

[ellehcim]

The problem with fee programs is that if they work, the powers that be are almost certain push the limit as high as they can. Once they realize how successful exploitation of "public" resources can be, where will they stop. Why not develop the trailheads with resorts, or better yet housing developments, like the ones encroaching on Peralta, Hieroglyphic Canyon, and Siphon Draw. We have to be vigilante today in order to avoid grievances in the future. What if they decide to regulate the fees based on demand. In the future when there are more people hiking they can just raise the fees to discourage use.

As bad as the fee system is now, I think it would be much worse if the federal government collected the fees and put them in the main budget and then the forest services had to fight to get them back to use. Then probably even less money would get back to the parks.

I see the private developments encroaching on these trails and I agree with that, but with funding maybe lands can be bought as corridors to slow if not outright prevent the cutting off of access points like to the hieroglyphic canyon trail....

[mtoomeyaz]

So in an effort to apease those of you who dissaprove of "jerks" not paying fees and parking anyway, I will discontinue my practice of not paying the fees. Since hiking is the priority I will happily walk the extra distance.

Matt, please don't interpret my "jerks" comment as directed at you. If you feel strongly about your position and wish to protest, I'm down with that. In fact, I'm contemplating joining you. I meant to describe people who know nothing of the Fee Program, are not protesting, and just think rules don't apply to them. They are out there. Please, follow your heart/conscience in this matter. I guess that is what I was trying to tell Cactuscat; that each person should do what they feel is right.

[montezumawell]

What if they decide to regulate the fees based on demand. In the future when there are more people hiking they can just raise the fees to discourage use. Then the trails become usable only by those of us with plenty of money to spare. Imagine the wilderness the domain of the rich man. I hope my own, and your, children and grandchildren can enjoy these areas as we do today.

The questions and statements above really strike at the heart of the emerging fee issues: i.e.--What's REALLY going on here?

Bear in mind that, from a historical perspective, the fee issues are quite new, relatively untested and, for that matter, not very well thought out.

The Forest Service is just now approaching its 100th Anniversary. The "big wigs" in Washington have ginned up a short term campaign called "The New Century of Service" to begin to look at how the Forest Service will function during the next 100 years. The fee demo program is only a few years old and even though that time frame seems long to us, it is but a fleeting moment in relationship to the total time the Forest Service has existed and coped with its ongoing portfolio of "issues, challenges and opportunities," as the bureau-o-crats like to say.

But, really, the true issues may be similar to the ones addressed in the quote excerpted above. We may indeed be coming face-to-face with the defacto privatization of public lands. We may not realize that this is happening because all of us have our own noses to close to the trees to see the Forest. We DO know that the Forest Service is, even as we write this, revising their Recreation Manual and Handbooks and that the "team" working on this project may be somewhat biased to think fee demo is the way to go.

What will all this mean? How will it affect us and our progeny? What's really going on here?

We'll be the first to say we hardly have a clue and perhaps our only "virtue" in this debate is that we can pose questions better than we can formulate answers. We wish we really knew more today about the things that future historians will look back upon and nod knowingly and say, "Ah, yes, THIS is what was REALLY going on back in the early 21st Century when the emergence of total fee-based recreational opportunities began." But, alas, we don't. We can only HIKE ON and ponder these and the many other great mysteries of the hikers' universe.

In the meantime, though, we thoroughly enjoy reading this topic. It is not only thought provoking but sometimes profound. How unique!

J&S

[jham]

Well, the bottom line is that fees are a way of life, like it or not.
we may grumble. We may complain. But we pay our fees and hike on.
That's the biggest issue of all. Don't get so caught up in the fee issue that
you spend more time trying to resolve it than you do hiking.
It's a minor annoyance in the bigger picture. HIKING is our main priority.
We're more than happy to whine and moan on this forum but when push comes
to shove--we're out the door hiking and not worrying about the fees.
As long as we can afford to pay them, we WILL pay them and HIKE ON!

J&S

I don't mean to be contrary, but why don't we do something about it as a group. The fee program WILL limit access of National Forest land to those who can't afford the fees. I would be willing to buy a National Forest pass...but not the nickle and dime garbage they are doing now. I think they (the forest service) ought to know what we (Forest land users and taxpayers) think of their fee demonstration program, so they can really see how it is doing. For the most part, they are just empting the collection boxes and doing who knows what with the funds. I have never had a ranger ask what I think about the fee demo program. I have never seen a "how do you like our fee program" questionaire at any of the TH. I have wrote different forest service offices and they don't really seem to care about my comments. I feel we should take a little time to write and complain so they know how we feel. At the very least, give them an opportunity to make an informed decision.

Just my thoughts,
Jay

[MaryPhyl]

This the letter the Grand Canyon Hikers and Backpackers (GCHBA) sent to our Federal Representatives not long ago. I did not write it but I signed and sent it.



February 17, 2003

Dear Senator or Representative ____________-

I am writing to ask you to vote against continuation of Section 315 of Title III-Public Law 104-134...which authorized the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program ("fee demo") which is in place presently on all Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service and BLM lands. I am president of the Grand Canyon Hikers and Backpackers Association, the largest outdoor hiking club in the nation devoted solely "to promote, encourage and advocate the interests of the hiking and backpacking community in the regions of the Grand Canyon." There are over 80,000 backpackers from every state in the union who use this "grand park". Our organization feels very strongly that "fee demo" is a bad program and needs to be ended. Our reasons are:

Our public lands are our heritage and our birthright. We own these lands. They are not a recreational commodity.

We already support the public lands agencies and our public lands through our federal taxes. Furthermore, hunters, fishermen and others pay licensing fees on top of access fees and taxes. This new fee amounts to nothing more than double -- or even triple -- taxation.

Fee Demo sets a precedent of classism where only those who can afford to recreate will be able to do so. Those who can't afford it will be barred from their own public lands.

The act of paying fundamentally alters the way one relates to the outdoors. People won't feel the responsibility of being on their own land. Rather, they will feel like they are visiting Disneyland where someone else is being paid to clean up after them.

Fee Demo has nothing to do with the stewardship of public lands. It is, in fact, the beginning of an attempt by corporate America to privatize and commercialize our public lands.

Businesses that sell passes are selling-off our freedoms. These vendors make a profit from the loss of one of our basic rights as American citizens: our right to access our public lands.

The Forest Service is basing the success of its fee projects on compliance. The threatened $100.00 fine is nothing less than extortion!

The Forest Service cannot justify sticking the public with a fee or a fine while it continues to lose millions of dollars a year due to its own mismanagement.

Making the public pay a fee to use its own public lands, while at the same time providing federal subsidies for timber, cattle, and mining interests on public lands, is not only illogical, but immoral.

Due to its cumbersome nature, Fee Demo is not generating anywhere near the needed funds for the Forest Service or the National Park Service, nor does it apply much of the funds that are raised to forest or park maintenance. In fact, many of the fee receipts do little more than pay for fee collection and enforcement.

Our priceless, God-given, wild country is being held hostage. Forest Service officials are threatening to close-off large portions of public lands if the fee program fails.

The American people should not have to pay again for wilderness areas where there are no man-made improvements, where they don't want any improvements, and where there shouldn't be any improvements.

People need a place to go -- relatively free and unfettered from society's pressures. Our public lands are the last of these places, and Fee Demo destroys this idea.

We are very thankful and appreciative for the Rangers and administration of GCNP. We do NOT want them "privatized" and under the direction of some for-profit recreational "Disneyland" corporation. Please do the right thing and vote against "fee demo". Please restore the needed General Funds for the NPS, FS, BLM so we don't short change our national treasures.

Thank you.




Mary Simpson, President

[Sredfield]

Another fallacy of fee's is that they augment appropriated funds. This is good in theory but in practice they replace appropriated money, and the administering agency must now rely on the fees for its existence and maintenance.

But come April 15, how many of us want "smaller government?"

[jeremy77777]

There is nothing I hate more than fees. HATE HATE HATE! I hate the fact that I can be charged to walk cross country. LAME! STUPID! IDIOTIC! but on the other side of things, I look at it this way. I spend $6.00 for a day pass. I hike all day. Say around 12 hours. What I payed for is 12 hours of entertainment. 50 Cents an hour. Not bad considering many of us pay $8.00 dollars at the movies to be entertained for 2-3 hours. Still, I wish I didn't have to pay it. Maybe they could make the Yearly passes cheaper. Say around $20. Regular hikers would buy that, and People that don't hike that often would pay the regular price. This way EVERYONE wins!

[mountain goat]

OHHH, This is a subject that just burns me too...Being the poor college student I am, I have to make every dollar stretch to the maximum. In my case, I cannot afford to pay $20 bucks here and 20 bucks there and 20 bucks overther...when my entire budget has a 20 doller hiking limit...and that goes for just getting there. Unfortunatly, It is bringing in money so its not likely to go away. You will see the fat big wigs (who never have to pay by the way) spewing what a success this progect is and start to expand it bigger and bigger. I would like the Idea of a single pass that gets you in EVEYWHERE!! and even better lets you get one in exchange for volenteer work....

[cactuscat]

and even better lets you get one in exchange for volenteer work....

Excellent idea!!

[montezumawell]

The basic flaw in the Forest Service's "Fee Demo" program is equity.
How do you create it? How do you deliver it? And more.

The National Park Service adequately addressed this issue with the "National Parks Pass."
It costs $50 (less for age-based criteria). It is good for every National Park Service fee area in America--ALL 50 states. It's actually a very good deal and we relish paying it every year. It makes us money on our third visit to the Grand Canyon where entry fees are $20 a pop.

Interestingly, a little known provision of the National Parks Pass is that the money you pay for the pass stays with the park where you bought your pass. Therefore, we always choose to buy our pass at our "local" park--Montezuma Well (aka Montezuma Castle & Tuzigoot). No problem.

The trouble with the National Forest "demo" program is the utter proliferation of hairball fee schemes. There are so many different fees in so many different places it would be virtually impossible to account for them all. After visiting 24 National Forests in Year 2002, we can tell you for a fact that the Fee Demo system is a totally bewildering arcane array of confusing inequities.

In the Pacific Northwest, you can buy a "Northwest Forest Pass" that gets you into every trailhead in TWO STATES for $30! Locally, you pay $20 just to get into the trails on ONE RANGER DISTRICT!

This is not equity.

Not only that but the administrators of the Northwest Forest Pass has made it insanely easy to volunteer to work on trails in return for a pass. Their published figures show they gave out TEN THOUSAND passes in the last year for which records are available in return for work on trails--where works actually COUNTS, we might add.

We availed ourselves of this program in Year 2002 along the Rogue River near Agness, Oregon.
There was no red tape. Nothing. We stopped in the Ranger District Office, picked up some spiffy tools and went out and worked for two days on the Lower Rogue River Trail. In return, we saved $60 and got two annual passes. No oversight. No nothing. Honor system all the way. Naturally, we knocked ourselves out and worked FAR longer than anyone would think to be reasonable. We took great pride in our sections of trail and worked hard to make them "presentable!"

Contrast this to the Sedona Ranger District. Yes, you actually CAN get a Red Rock Pass in return for volunteer work on a trail but NO they won't let you work on your own. You have to work under scheduled supervision and do work that "meets Forest Service specifications." Hello?

The Sedona system is probably the classic example of what is wrong with the system. How is it possible for two of America's premier hiking states, Oregon and Washington, to offer a carte blanche pass for $30 for two states while one lone Ranger District demands $20 and then throws roadblocks in the path of willing volunteers? Go figure!

We aren't about to protest these policies. We couldn't care less. We are hikers. We will pay our fees and HIKE ON.
J&S

[jham]

WOW!

I got heated up reading these posts and decided to write (e-mail) the Red Rock people and tell them what I think of this nickle and diming crap. They wrote me back, an achievement in itself, and informed me that my wish has been granted...sort of. Beginning April 18, 2003, a new program begins, where they will accept the upgraded National Parks pass (Golden Eagle) as entry into the Red Rocks fee area. Not only that, but by paying $15.00 more for the upgrade you will be able to get into other National Forest fee areas as well. He was unable to give me much detail about the new program because they are still trying to figure out the particulars. Now how's that for service, though I can't claim any credit.

Life is good...today.
Jay

[montezumawell]

We called the Sedona Ranger District offices at 8:01 a.m. this morning. The unidentified woman who answered the phone said, "Yes, you can upgrade a National Parks Pass with the $15 hologram after April 18 and it will be the same as a Red Rock Pass."

We have seen or heard no mention of this "news" prior to the above post. It hasn't been in the local press and it isn't on any of their official websites that we can find (see below.)

This morning's Arizona Republic notes the Tonto is selling their $40/$80 annual passes and they state clearly in the article that the Golden Eagle upgrade is NOT valid except at entry fee sites.

We would really like to see specific written authorization and proof of this change before getting too excited about it. And, furthermore, if one Forest does it, why don't the others? Once again, it is all about equity (or the lack thereof).


The excerpt below appears on this website:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coconino/redrockpass_home.shtml


"Golden Eagle Passports are not accepted. The Red Rock Pa"ss is a recreational “use” fee and not a fee for “entry” to the National Forest. The Golden Eagle Passport only applies to “entry” fee areas."

J&S

[BajaTaco]

Yea, I had heard back in October last year, that the Red Rock pass would be done away with, because of overwhelming opposition from the merchants, tourism trade, and city council of Sedona. They felt it was really impacting the local economy in a negative way so plans were put into effect to end the Red Rock Pass.

HOWEVER, check out this article:

http://www.redrocknews.com/redrockpass_3_7.htm