Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 157
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Was UT, AK, now MT
    Posts
    13,494

    Tax on skiing the mighty "fourteeners"

    If it's a repost, excuse me, but this is another attempt to tax citizens to use their public lands.

    http://summitcountyvoice.com/2010/09...s-in-colorado/

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Minturn
    Posts
    732
    what a ripoff... as if $10 per hiker is going to grow back the "fragile alpine tundra" in anyone's lifetime
    o--/\
    --/(. \
    -/ .) ' \ go with respect, get to know your mountains
    /' (. ' |'\
    ' ' .) ' ,'

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Eagle County
    Posts
    12,612
    boooooooo....public lands should be free.

    I wouldn't have a problem with a daily limit for access for paying would do $hit
    ROLL TIDE ROLL

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,133
    This is not a fee for all 54 14ers. Its a fee for a popular group of 4 14ers where the impact of visitors has been high and the subsequent need for services from the NF has risen. People aren't behaving responsibly and cleaning up after themselves, they are leaving beer cans behind, the road gets trashed by jeepers and there is a need for additional resources to be devoted to this area. I have heard that the other alternative is to close the road down and increase the approach by a few miles. Not the end of the world, but not the best outcome either.
    Last edited by Edgnar; 10-04-2010 at 01:28 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Eagle County
    Posts
    12,612
    Edgnar.....wouldn't a better solution be to limit the # of users per day? Perhaps that is hard to manage.
    ROLL TIDE ROLL

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    the Low Sierra
    Posts
    17,818
    good website - thanks

    Here's another article on user fees you should check out.
    http://summitcountyvoice.com/2010/09...-play-program/

    I can't get too worked up about user fees. I've seen them work.

    Here's more fuel for the fire...

    http://www.wildsnow.com/3650/denali-climbing-fee/
    I didn't believe in reincarnation when I was your age either.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    173
    Gotta say as much as I believe in the idea of public lands being free to the people, that's operating in the "perfect world" where people show personal responsibility. Considering the "I can do whatever I want and someone else will clean up after me" attitude in this country, especially amongst younger people, usage fees are a necessary evil to provide this cleanup.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    east bay
    Posts
    354
    won't they have to employ someone to be there to collect said fees....
    which will cost about as much as they will be collecting....
    “83.2% of people make up their own statistics.”—Unknown

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    925
    A fee here a tax there ..FUCK that!!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Posts
    15,779
    Cue all the geniuses with no idea of how or what it takes to manage public lands so that they can all get what they want.

    Raise your hand if you're in favor of low taxes.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    50 miles E of Paradise
    Posts
    15,565
    In our neck of the woods we have a couple of fees for use of facilities on public land. One is the NW Forest Pass, required at trailheads in OR & WA with improvements like toilets, picnic tables etc. Costs $30 per year - don't know day rates. Funds are used to maintain the facilities at these sites, and IIRC, for trail maintenance.

    The other is a snowpark permit. Funds are used to clear snow at resorts on public land & the more popular ski/sled trailheads. Costs $20 for the season or $4 per day.

    I don't have a problem paying reasonable amounts for services like this...puts the cost on those who use the service. For me, these two fees work out to less than $0.50 per use overall.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Was UT, AK, now MT
    Posts
    13,494
    Quote Originally Posted by HiGrade1 View Post
    won't they have to employ someone to be there to collect said fees....
    which will cost about as much as they will be collecting....
    Many fee demo programs end up being exactly that, costing more than the fees collected due to administrative crap needed to implement the program in the first place.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Minturn
    Posts
    732
    public lands = for the people, by the people

    has no-one else packed-out trash that wasn't theirs, left from misguided noobs who haven't quite figured it out?
    ...or destroyed & dispersed a fire-ring that was too close to the water?
    if we, the public, can't do it, i guess we'll have to expand the bureaucracy.

    as for the jeep road... its a jeep road - let it go to shit! then only the best rock-crawlers can get up it... like the Como road on Blanca, or the road to Holy Cross City.
    these peaks could use a break from the easy access (unless of course it's winter and you can just BrAAaap up the nastiness)
    o--/\
    --/(. \
    -/ .) ' \ go with respect, get to know your mountains
    /' (. ' |'\
    ' ' .) ' ,'

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    11,132
    Posts
    445

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ventura Highway in the Sunshine
    Posts
    22,431
    It already costs extra to go above 10,000 on Mt Shasta.

    Many California NFs have user fees, and to my knowledge none have benefited. It is a bad trend, but the teabaggers should love it.

    I agree it is a constitutional right for Americans to be assholes...its just too bad that so many take the opportunity...
    iscariot

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    6,097
    Quote Originally Posted by HiGrade1 View Post
    won't they have to employ someone to be there to collect said fees....
    which will cost about as much as they will be collecting....
    I've seen this happen.

    All trail maintenance in Ventana Wilderness ceased the instant the "Adventure Pass" program was implemented, because all the rangers were out giving parking tickets instead.

    The great thing is that the sign near the trailhead showed the nearest place to get an "Adventure Pass"...the Berkeley REI, over three hours north!

    I have never been back since, nor has anyone that hiked with me that day. Nor have I ever paid for an "Adventure Pass."

    Fuck "access fees" to undeveloped public land.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    30
    Thanks for checking out the Fourteener fee story. For now, the fees are only proposed for summer, but it's still worth keeping an eye on this because if they get approval for summer fees, they's no doubt try winter fees at some point down the road.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    30
    But if you want some more climbing controversy, check out the news on this flame war about some bolts on a route on Mt. Royal in Frisco: http://summitcountyvoice.com/2010/09...c-controversy/

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Portland by way of Bozeman
    Posts
    4,279
    Quote Originally Posted by bberwyn View Post
    But if you want some more climbing controversy, check out the news on this flame war about some bolts on a route on Mt. Royal in Frisco: http://summitcountyvoice.com/2010/09...c-controversy/
    The author pretty much pegs it; self-righteous, ass-hole townies.

    Per the 14er fee, perhaps a joint agreement between those that use those areas and the NF. 'Round these parts, those that have adopted trails or areas have had much better success keeping said areas cleaned and maintained. The power of volunteerism; look into it.

    I/we don't need anymore bullshit taxes or more greenie dirtballs using this as yet another excuse to close lands and further their exclusionist agenda.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Not in the PRB
    Posts
    32,776
    Quote Originally Posted by Meadow Skipper View Post
    Cue all the geniuses with no idea of how or what it takes to manage public lands so that they can all get what they want.

    Raise your hand if you're in favor of low taxes.
    I am one of those weirdos who gets pleasure out of paying my taxes, and when asked, I usually vote in favor of increases.
    "fuck off you asshat gaper shit for brains fucktard wanker." - Jesus Christ
    "She was tossing her bean salad with the vigor of a Drunken Pop princess so I walked out of the corner and said.... "need a hand?"" - Odin
    "everybody's got their hooks into you, fuck em....forge on motherfuckers, drag all those bitches across the goal line with you." - (not so) ill-advised strategy

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Golden, CO
    Posts
    464
    Quote Originally Posted by Edgnar View Post
    I have heard that the other alternative is to close the road down and increase the approach by a few miles. Not the end of the world, but not the best outcome either.
    Again? Cause that already happened last year when they permanently closed a couple miles of the road.

    If you want to preserve the environment up there, discourage camping. The basin accesses 3 to 5 14ers, so people are going to go regardless of how long the hike in is. Making the approach a lot longer means more people spending the night up in the basin.

    They should have left the road open, paved it, built a big parking lot, and encouraged day use.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    11,132
    Posts
    445
    I'm with Danno. America is in the shitter because nobody wants to pay for anything besides a new air conditioner for their tract home, a motor boat and a douche bag truck to tow it around with, or a trip to the ER to get some free health care.

    Furthermore, open space is tremendously valuable to me. I do not mind paying a small price to use it. Although I know user fees are sometimes misdirected, I give the USFS the benefit of the doubt because it is an underfunded, overworked corner of the federal government and I am wary of what will happen long down the road when maintaining recreational access is seen as too much of a burden financially and the Forest Service has less of a reason to turn down offers by ski area developers to build more groomers and quad chairlifts, or more timber harvesting nearer to scenic corridors. What would you rather have, an access fee, or no access at all?

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Colyrady
    Posts
    3,781
    "For now, the proposal is only aimed at summer users."

    does not equal

    Quote Originally Posted by Trackhead View Post
    Tax on skiing the mighty "fourteeners"

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    jackson, wy
    Posts
    269
    America is in the shitter because our government and its agencies can't control their budgets and accomplish what they are supposed to with them. What happened to the outrageous amounts of money allocated to this sector of the forest service that should have been meant for projects like this?

    I also like the volunteer idea. Basically this comes down to someone not using their brain offering a solution that benefits everyone.

    Chalk another one up to corrupt and poorly planned forest management.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,382
    Now they have to tax something that shouldn't have anything to do with government? bullshit! That's why we have mountains, to escape all that. Oh well, I'll just go all grizzly adams and find my own way out there. roads? fuck roads.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •