The $85 Pass is Here, Be Afraid, Be VERY AFRAID!

[blue_morph]

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/feedemo/worp/index.shtml

 

This REALLY SUCKS!!

[catbirdseat]

You soon won't need it for FS land, hopefully. You could still use it for BLM, National Park and Wildlife areas. It's a bit over priced for that, I'd say.

[Billygoat]

Hey, pay to play. Better than giving it to extractive industries and grazing. It's a vote for keeping it beautiful. This is America. Our lands are up for sale to the highest bidder.

 

If we are going to have to cut social security then we are probably going to have to start selling off our assets to stay solvent.

[blue_morph]

I see a lot of conflicting information here and I guess I would like to stir it up a bit. Last week there is the post about how the bill didn't get renewed, and today I find out that the price has gone up to $85!

Its getting to the point where you need to bring a lawyer to the th with you.

[Billygoat]

Who knows but enforcement costs are going to go up and these agencies are going to have to spend more time and money getting the word out about situation. Until then, I would do whatever because in a vacuum there is wiggle room...

[Rodchester]

Read the other post/thread.

 

The bill does not include extending the Fee Demo to the Forest Service and BLM lands. That means it continues in its present incarnation until it laspes, which is this fall (October I believe?).

 

So this pass appears to be designed to get you into all fee areas, Parks, Forests, etc. for this season. After that the pass may still exist, but you won't need it (or any other pass) to get into / use Forest Service areas.

 

It is crazy. I agree it is hard to understand all of the Fees and where and when they apply. Hopefully after this October things will be easier.

[catbirdseat]

The $85 pass is not required. It's an option available to those who don't want to hassle with the pay as you go routine. One pass for everything. If you are a heavy user of National Parks like Olympic or Rainier, AND FS, BLM and State lands, you might use this pass and come out ahead, but I'd doubt it. It's more a matter of convenience. You could also buy a pass specific to the National Parks for $50 if I am not mistaken.

[cluck]

Would that $85 pass be good in place of NW Forest and Sno Park passes as well?

[ken4ord]

the system!!! You buy that pass (or any other for that matter) and you are supporting the future of more pass and fees. It's not going to stop until we stop sheepishly buying the damn things. Resist before it is too late and the only people that can get outside are the ones that can afford, the parking pass, backcountry permit, camping fees, and soon hiking use fee, climbing use fee, daytime use fee, night time use fee, and on and on. My point is, it is going to keep getting worse. Just think it has been just a few years and now they are up to $85, what is going to happen over the next couple years. Are they really public lands anymore if part of the population can't afford these use fees???

 

 

This thread is definitely appropiately titled.

[catbirdseat]

Would that $85 pass be good in place of NW Forest and Sno Park passes as well?

I don't think Sno Parks are included. It would be great if they were.

[max]

Which is:

 

1. $85 pass?

2. Mt. Cashmere lab?

 

Your choice.

[cman]

This is just another way to screw us. It is guaranteed that if you buy this thing you will go somewhere that is will not work and you will have still have to pay for parking. just park down the road. fight the power.

[nonanon]

Which is:

 

1. $85 pass?

2. Mt. Cashmere lab?

 

Your choice.

 

 

Either way we'll probably end up with both...

[Mark_Husbands]

relax. this is not a conspiracy. it is a way to save money if you anticipate using the fee areas included in the plan. it's a package deal for fee areas, that's all. most forest service wilderness areas are not fee areas. most national park areas are. most state parks are. so if you go to washington or oregon state parks alot, and enough national parks at 10 bucks a pop, this could save you some money. i almost never go to state parks. hence, i will not buy this pass. i often go to national parks, namely rainier. hence, I will buy a $50 national parks pass, assuming that i will get more than 5 entries with my pass and save money. see how easy that was?

we should be concerned about fees, especially when climbers are asked to pay for services provided for free to other recreation groups.

but blanket opposition to fees seems like a weak argument to me. basically you are saying that other taxpayers who don't use federal recreation areas should share an equal burden of the costs of recreation. that's not looking out for others (e.g. low income people), that's looking out for #1.

protecting lands is expensive, and society benefits in a variety of ways aside from recreation (e.g. clean water storage). so general funds should continue to be a major source of funding for protected areas.

but it also makes sense that costs of services provided to recreationists should be borne by recreationists. guess who's opposed to this plan? The RV lobby, who depend on high cost facilites in state and federal recreation areas. if all fees were tied directly to the cost of providing specific services, we might even see a shift towards less development intensive forms of recreation.

honestly, if you had to pay $5 bucks every time you went on a wilderness climb, and you knew it went to maintain the parking lot, keep it clear of snow when necessary, handle litter and waste, deal with backcountry impacts...wouldn't it be worth it? it would cost far less than the gas, food, gear, car, and beer expenses associated with every trip. we just need better accountability for the fees we pay.

 

also, being cheap isnt "fighting the power".

[burgersling]

Mark, I completely disagree with your position on fees.

[Mark_Husbands]

what's your take?

[catbirdseat]

They don't have a reasoned argument. They just don't like to pay. That's it. Let someone else pay. As far as they are concerned it is free land and it's already paid for, and it doesn't cost anything to maintain.

 

The reality is it does cost money to maintain and the question is should taxpayers pay for 100% of the cost even though they may not derive any benefit from it? Formerly, FS lands were essentially all regarded as uncut lumber. The public in general benefited from its stewardship because affordable lumber benefits everyone. Now that many stands have been set aside for recreation, this is no longer the case. The cost benefit equation is now skewed in favor of those who actually use the land for recreation and against the vast majority who pay taxes, but don't use the land to recreate.

 

Mark mentioned the RV industry. They have demonstrated an ability to get owners to pay license fees to raise money for the high cost facilities that are needed for their activities. It gives them a lot of clout that non-motorized users don't have.

 

I don't like user fees any more than most of you do, but I realize that it is a lot more complicated than just saying NO!

[Mark_Husbands]

Agreed. We should accept the reality that fees will be one (but not the only) mechanism to pay for recreation costs, and concentrate on 1) transparent use of funds and clear links to costs, 2) low transaction cost, 3) equitable application of fees across users types.

[burgersling]

My take is that we already pay for the land with our taxes. You don't feel that all should share the burden but we don't get to choose where our taxes go. We all pay for services we don't use. For example, there are no fees for the boater to take his boat through the ship canal opening up bridges and going through the locks. Until Eyman came along, our taxes were subsidizing the ferry runs. There are countless other examples of our taxes going to benefit a specific group.

 

And honestly, no, I wouldn't pay $5 per visit to a trailhead even if I did think they were doing $5 worth of work there. I already pay the salaries of the people doing the work.

[catbirdseat]

Okay, so you are saying that as a tax payer, it all balances out. You pay for some other guy's use of the locks in Ballard, even though you don't use that service, so when some of his tax money goes to trails maintenance, it's even steven.

[Mark_Husbands]

there are lots of cases of tax revenues going to benefit specific groups. and where the transaction cost for isolating and charging that group is high, there is no justifiable reason to do so. but with many recreation cases, the cost of identifying users and the services they receive is low. it might be a better solution than to let our services and infrastructure deteriorate because the general funds just arent being delivered.

many other recreation groups do pay fees for their services and when they come to the bargaining table, they are entitled to expectations for services.

ina any case, this thread was opened on the premise that the $85 golden eagle upgrade was an insidious plot to deprive us of our money. in fact all it is is a multi-site pass for areas that have long used fees, e.g. state and national parks. in fact most national park visitors claim high satisfaction with their experience in the parks and say the fee is worth it. people pony up for this stuff all the time, but for some reason climbers and wilderness users refuse to pony up for forest service land access and claim it is on principle. the only principle i see is wallet protection.

i'll mention again that i dont think fees can or should be the sole source of funding for public land management. but it is an appropriate way to fund services clearly linked to an identifiable user group.

[Mark_Husbands]

burgersling, just be clear, i think your argument has merit. it would be impossible to create a fee system for all public services.

in the case of recreation i think you often can, and it is a good way to insure we get the services we want.

[catbirdseat]

I just like it when I see people using their heads and expressing their views with logic and reason.

[blue_morph]

I got this in an email response today!

 

"Although the bill passed, I share the concerns of several other members

who believe that the Energy and Natural Resources Committee should

consider a more comprehensive recreational fee program that would cover all

federal land agencies."

 

I know that you people who are supporting this thing have good intentions but you should really consider the ramifications of starting a system where you need to pay for something you have never had to pay before.

You mention maintenance, and I say what maintenance? Volunteers already do almost all the trailwork currently. This thing will barely cover the cost of enforcement. If you have a popular trailhead on a weekend day in the Summer, and have say 50 cars parked, revenue at best will be $5 (daily fee) x 50 = $250. How much money do you think it costs to hire the FS Ranger, pay for signs, provide the Ranger with a Good Vehicle, provide the Ranger with all the other benefits associated with the job (health / life / disability insurance, retirement plan, etc), not to mention the cost of following up on citations, etc. The cost could easily = $250 if not more. Keep in mind that that revenue would be for a BUSY WEEKEND DAY!

I think we really need to look hard at this and see it for what it is, a scam. I know that many of you get a warm and fuzzy feeling when you get the pass and feel like you are somehow "helping" your favorite resource, but I would encourage you to take another close look.

[Rodchester]

I disagree with you Mark. Respectfully, yes.

 

We have been paying taxes and funding the FOREST SERVICE through the general fund and the Dept. of Agriculture for years and years and years. The idea has always been to make the Forest Service land open and available for recreation. This is a great idea.

 

However, we are still paying taxes, but now its not free. If there is a shortfall in funding it is up to the legislature to gather taxes. (Recall that when this was set up, the fee demo, we had a surplus, that's right a surplus ). Agreeing with user fees for what has historically been funded by the general fund provides a pass to politicians, right, left, and middle to not do their jobs. Again, we still pay taxes, the politicians have just used the same money that would support the FS and put it toward PORK, because the “users” will pay. In effect the “users” are be taxed double.

 

This is BAD.

 

Further, and just as bad, is that it is slowly creeping up to the point where “public lands” (parks are another issue) are becoming for those that can afford the fees. This is beginning to leave out a good portion of the public and is only getting worse. We still pay taxes and now they want user fees also. This is not like a “sin tax.” This is historically non-fee public land with a long history of public use for recreation.

 

Paying to get into, and use, the Parks is different. You are paying for the facilities. The Parks are financed differently through the Dept. of Interior. This has been the long standing tradition. If you can’t afford the parks you can go to the Forests. Oh, no you can’t, not anymore.

 

And what are we getting for our money anyway? A trailhead that already existed? Bullshit. A new Crapper? Bullshit. Sure the funds are going toward the maintenance and upkeep of these, but the FS has always done this. . .through general fund tax revenue flowing through the Dept of Agriculture. . ..not through user fees.

 

The Forests need to stay forests, open free to the public.

 

The politicians need to do their jobs. Your position lets the politicians off the hook and double taxes me and other users.