Ex. 38 and Index threatened

[Jens]

Warning: This thread is long and boring

After just getting back from exit 38 and also going to index a couple of days ago, I have some real concerns:

Please correct me if anyone has more knowledge of the pending situations.

Exit 38 situation:

A few years back I noticed that whenever I would head to the actual cave/amazonia/ or other high Mt. Washington crags, I would pass a secret clicker/ counter hidden in the bushes that had been installed by WA state parks. WA state parks was trying to measure the number of users entering the area. As result of the count, they decided to make the area a fee area in which you must purachse a WA state parks annual pass ($35 to use the area). As a result, climber usage of amazonia, the actual cave, and the high mt. WA crags fell drasitcally. Now, climbers are instead flocking to the trestle, deception., and amazonia areas because of not wanting to risk a very large ticket. Also many of the hikers are using the climber lot at the base of the trestle to access the hiking that they used to go to from the other area for the same reasons as the climbers.

The WA state park people are onto this parking loophole.

Well sure enough today, I noticed about 10 yards up the trail from the car at the trestle area, the WA state parks people have newly placed a counter with a note attached saying basically that anyone who tries to block this counter (stating specifically "rock climbers" are idiots.). This count will be used to justify making the trestle area a lot fee area soon. For those of you that say you will just park on the road a few yards down, I will guarantee you that no parking signs will be placed along the length of this road from off ramp to off ramp. For those of you that hate 38, (it is really a great place to blow of 90 minutes of steam after work when it gets dark early).

Now we all have sprayed about fees etc. plenty on this board and I have remained relatively quiet until today. Thinking back to the places I have climbed in the last 2 years, I can think of at least seven different types of passes, parking permits, bivy permits etc. that I was supposed to have purchased to access the areas. When will the madness stop? In a couple of years, we will be up to a dozen or so different types of parking permists, bivy permits,sno park permits, etc. It gets worse every year.

___________

Index situation:

I was at the index parking lot a couple of days ago and a WA state park truck pulled in and out jumped two rangers with a large box in their hand that looked like it could another clicker/counter. They headed for the woods.

They'll put in a shitter, garbage can, and slap a fee sign up, and put no parking signs along the river?

_______

Last but not least:

To put this into perspective, I live right by the WA state parks parking lot for squak mt. off may valley road. Now that they have made it a fee area, none of the locals that need the excerscise go their anymore. The place that once was popular is now a ghost town. It is kind of working class neighborhood. People just trying to pay the mortage each month can't afford the fee. I see a ranger drive all the way out just to right tickets and go home once a day.

Stop the insanity

 

I am torn.... Do we promote stewardship as advocated by the Access Fund or take other means? We need to be viewed as a responsible user group but you have to wonder...

[Alpinfox]

 

Someone who didn't want to put themselves on record as advocating "vandalism" might say,

 

"TEAR DOWN EVERY FUCKING SIGN YOU SEE AND BLOW UP THAT FUCKING COUNTER"

 

but I wouldn't do that because I don't advocate "vandalism"

 

 

[dbb]

Another threat to index:

Some hardman has taken a shit in the easy approach chimney to the GNS. All I can say is I wonder how funny they would think it was if someone filled Thin fingers with shit. Maybe they could change the name to "brown fingers" too.

 

But back to the topic, Jens is right, these are serious impairments to accessability for all users. Is there some higher authority in the parks dept. that can be harrassed? I suppose I wouldn't mind paying a fee to have a guy with a gun shoot at the x38 bandits...

[erik]

dbb said:

Another threat to index:

Some hardman has taken a shit in the easy approach chimney to the GNS. All I can say is I wonder how funny they would think it was if someone filled Thin fingers with shit. Maybe they could change the name to "brown fingers" too.

 

maybe not a hardman, but a dumb hick. seems about the mentality. is that huge encmapment accross the road still?

 

But back to the topic, Jens is right, these are serious impairments to accessability for all users. Is there some higher authority in the parks dept. that can be harrassed? I suppose I wouldn't mind paying a fee to have a guy with a gun shoot at the x38 bandits...

 

they dont have time to shoot bandits, there are fees to be collected and tickets to be written!

 

 

[catbirdseat]

All of you who voted for Tim Eyman's various initiatives can go look in the mirror to see who is to blame.

[erik]

cbs

 

that is a bullshit cop out. the issue comes down to the states fiscal repsonsibility, there is none. this state is like 5 or the 7th highest taxed state in the nation, yet we are being forced to pay again and again. where is the money going? motor pools? beauracies? or welfare systems which only create an ongoing cycle of greed and sloth.

 

the state needs to reprioritize its spending, i am not saying the parks system should be a priority, though it doe show us hw poorly the state in running things. soon we will be like california and there will be programs to help programs that assit programs, all at the cost of the individual.

 

dont blame one person, blame the system cbs, eynman was just giving the state a much needed wake up call.

 

 

 

 

[Rodchester]

All of you who voted for Tim Eyman's various initiatives can go look in the mirror to see who is to blame.

 

Yeah, and Eyman is reason for the Iraq situation too....

 

Get over it....

[Jim]

erik said:

cbs

 

that is a bullshit cop out. the issue comes down to the states fiscal repsonsibility, there is none. this state is like 5 or the 7th highest taxed state in the nation, yet we are being forced to pay again and again. where is the money going? motor pools? beauracies? or welfare systems which only create an ongoing cycle of greed and sloth.

 

Not quite correct. State tax burdens are calculated in a number of ways. Per capita (WA 16th), per $1,000 income (WA 26th), state and local taxes as % of income (WA 11th), or the Cato Institue (libertarian think tank) policy analysis (WA 42nd), or a combination of the 4 (WA 27th). So it would be more accurate to say we're in the middle of the pack.

 

As far as the Eyman thing - people were voting to significantly reduce discretionary spending. That combined with some earlier anti-tax votes is what has got us here. The agencies are scrambling for funding and it the people want pay as you go they will comply and add user fees. Wanna make a change - do the hard work and get political. Otherwise this is the wave of the future. Federal trails passes, snopark, DNR, Washington state parks, etc.

[erik]

thanks for the clarification jim.

 

still does not shirk the state for being more fiscally responsbile. there are many programs that should be reduced or removed.

 

because if we are going to attempt to force the user to pay, then i think the public transit should be funded solely by the user and not the tax payer. etc........

 

instead of making the taxpayer dig deeper why dont the politicians spend less?

[Rodchester]

because if we are going to attempt to force the user to pay, then i think the public transit should be funded solely by the user and not the tax payer. etc........

 

A CLASSIC EXAMPLE!!! You are correct Erik.

 

 

[Jim]

Rodchester said:

because if we are going to attempt to force the user to pay, then i think the public transit should be funded solely by the user and not the tax payer. etc........

A CLASSIC EXAMPLE!!! You are correct Erik.

 

Not to get the drift going too far - but there's lots of public services that are not funded by the user - police, fire, emergency medical, roads and bridges (more a dispersion issue). And there is the public good issue - but your point is well taken. As far as the land agencies - most of them are really down to bare bones right now - these are not lavishly spending agencies. I guess we could sell advertising space on the sides of the rocks, maybe that would help.

 

 

[erik]

or maybe we could reduce the services there. i dont remember ever requiring an artists impression of the local flora and fauana. i dont ever remember needing a spilt timber rest room with auto sensor lights and stalls. i dont ever remember requiring hands rails and pavement on mellow trails. i dont remember ever needing to be bothered by the police while being outside. i dont remember understanding the requirement of updating the motor pool every 2-3 years. i dont ever remember thinking park employees need a gun or fire arm training.

 

jim, those services you list are for the good of all people, they serve everyone with no cost to them.

 

public tranist does not serve everyone. and b4 you get into the if the buses were not there traffic would be worse. would it? sure during rush hour commute there would probably be an increase, but if one gets stuck in it they deserve it.

 

i dont use well fare. why should i pay? for the better of drub abusers and lazy people. and i do not need to hear the argument of the less fortunate. well kiddo i make jack shit, i dont have jack shit and i dont see myself requiring it. i do not go out and blame others for it.

 

this state is too big on making sure everyone is happy, wel fuck that. i will be happy when public services are reduced and i can spend MY MONEY the way i see fit.

 

 

[Jim]

Because I'm not clear on some of the specifics you're talking about, I can't reply. But on others - there are some specific mandates - right or wrong in your opinion - that federal and state land agencies have to comply with. These refer to sanitary facilities, public safety, and yes - handicap access. These have been mandated by the state and federal legislators. I guess you could lobby to have some of these changed. Otherwise the agencies do have to mange the parks and do some maintenance. The money has to come from somewhere - it ain't free. I have some problems with the trend of user's fees for public land also - but in the current anti-tax climate the agencies are caught between a rock and a hard place.

[erik]

my list are facilites. why create more, update them to justify the charge?

 

services should be reduced and not increased is my point. what service does the state provide at exit 38? certainly is not law enforcement, but it certainly is fee enforcement.

 

what service does the state provide at index? really nothing.

 

 

[Rodchester]

As far as the land agencies - most of them are really down to bare bones right now

 

I don't doubt that, that is is not the question. The question is how to fund them...historically the legislature has funded these services and agencies through the general fund, because it is preserving the resource for the good of all., not just those that use it.

 

The pay to play mentality/approach send lots of funds to certain high use areas, while the less used areas suffer. I am no socialist, but this is no way to fund a park system and preserve it at the same time. The less used and travelled parks are suffering.

Edited August 20, 2003 by Rodchester

[Jim]

But in the current anit-tax climate they have no room to maneuver. How would you suggest they raise the funds?

 

Generally I agree that public lands users should not be charged for access to minimally improved land - i.e. USFS, BLM, BOR, DNR, most state parks.

[Rodchester]

How would you suggest they raise the funds?

 

How do I...I don't. I cast my vote in our simgle-member district representative democracy. The elected individual then has a duty to handle these issues. Previously this has always been handled with the general fund.

 

They either need to increase the size of the fund, or decrease the amount of the fund being spent on other things.

 

Erik's point about opening new areas and adding new services is a classic example. If they can't fund what they have now, why are the looking to add services? Answer: Because of the play to pay system. Adding services becomes an excuse to charge more.

 

There needs to be a ground swell or grass roots effort t buck the pay to play system and we do need to be more active in telling our ligisl;ators that they need to fix the problem...not simply charge us more at the gate, by adding more gates.

[Jim]

I understand you're point - reduce the budget and don't charge us anything. And I agree with the general idea that they should be charging for these small parks. But I would still say they are doing the minimum right now. There's a long list of back-log maintenance for parks these days, even with a concerted effort to use volunteer organizations. The voters have spoken that they want less taxes - yet expect the same level of services (not you specifically). We're in the middle of the pack in the US tax structure, really not burdensome, and compared to other countries we spend little on our open space. Just seems to me that people want it both ways - don't want to pay taxes and want smaller government - but want everything to work the way it did before.

[scoe]

"public tranist does not serve everyone. and b4 you get into the if the buses were not there traffic would be worse. would it? sure during rush hour commute there would probably be an increase, but if one gets stuck in it they deserve it."

 

-Why do they deserve it? Does everyone have a choice of when they have to go to work? Take away mass transit and the options for avoiding traffic congestion are even more limited. Besides, you are wrong if you thing roads are not subsidized. Some of my tax dollars are going to road construction regardless of whether I use them or not.

 

[erik]

scoe

 

you choose to live far away from your work, you realize the consequences of this. traffic is one of them.

 

roads serve everyone! busses do not. also quit looking just on the west side of the state, seattle forces the rest of thstate to pay for all its bullshit. that seems fucked too!

 

down with professional sports!!

[Alpinfox]

erik said:

 

down with professional sports!!

 

Can I get a "WHOOP WHOOP!"?

[Szyjakowski]

Alpinfox said:

erik said:

 

down with professional sports!!

 

Can I get a "WHOOP WHOOP!"?

[scoe]

erik,

 

just for argument sake, lets look at roads as a commodity that can be consumed in certain quantities. Now if I am am on a bus that is full of people then my individual use of the road is much less than someone who is driving in a hummer by theirself. My use of the bus is actually benefiting the hummer driver because there is more space on the road to fit his oversized vehicle. Since I help pay for the road but am consuming less of it, shouldn't the hummer driver pay for using more of the road by subsidizing my use of the bus?

 

As for the west vs. east washington debate- I dont think this is true. From my understanding, there is a higher per capita tax expenditure in the eastern part of the state. However, I could not find the facts to back this up. Anyone?

[Jim]

Here's some park info, seems like they cuttin' back already:

 

 

Citizens pay for about 70 percent of the parks operating budget through taxes, but the budget isn’t keeping up with costs and needs. In a little more than a decade, while business costs have been rising, inflation grew 32 percent and park visitation increased 30 percent, while the State Parks budget increased by only 13 percent. To get by over the years, staff has put off doing repairs, consolidated operating units, eliminated lifeguard and interpretive programs and limited park and interpretive centers hours to seasonal-only. With the park system at risk, the commission feels it would be irresponsible not to do all we can to hold the system together, and it seems fairest to ask the people who use the parks to pay more

State Parks was required to take a $2.9 million budget cut in the current fiscal year and responded by turning back some maintenance money, making cuts from regions and headquarters and turning back leases on parks owned by other entities if they could not provide operating help. This resulted in four parks – Crow Butte, Chief Timothy, Lyons Ferry and Central Ferry state parks – being returned to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation taking over management of Summer Falls and Lake Cushman being returned to Tacoma Power.

The governor’s proposed budget for 2003-2005 calls for five park closures. The State Parks Commission will weigh the options to determine whether the final budget adopted by the legislature requires further closures. The governor’s budget will require reductions and does require State Parks to raise approximately $12.5 million in revenue through new fees and increases.

 

And yes, eastern WA generally gets more road building and maintenance funds than they contribute. Winers.

 

[okcjohn]

Is there a good source to figure out what permits are required for where? I see quite a bit of anti-permit messages, online and even scratched into the "permit required" signs at parking lots and trailheads. What's the attitudes of climbers around here for being "legal"? (Will my car get keyed for displaying a parking permit at exit 38? )

 

I moved here just less than two years ago, different attitudes than what I'm used to. (Throughout the Seattle area, not just climbers.) When I saw "Exit 38 threatened", I immediately thought that it meant climbing might be banned! When I lived in Oklahoma, and one of the climbing sites was threatened, the climbers donated money to the Access Fund, who purchased the land and donated it to a State Park, and in cooperation with the state, made sure climbing will always be permitted.

http://www.wichitamountains.org/quartzupdate.html

Separate cooperation with the fish and wildlife service protects the climbing access in a national wildlife refuge by self-restricting climbing areas and the unchecked addition of bolts. Access to both of these sites is free, and rangers chase away the parking lot theives.

 

And you thought Okies were just ignorant backwoods hicks!