Jump to content

thanks


iain

Recommended Posts

You guys ready to lay out $85-$100 annual for access to your national forests? Because that's what you'll be doing in 2005! Thanks Regula! Maybe I'll take my next vacation in Ohio, WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR THESE FEES. madgo_ron.gifmadgo_ron.gifmadgo_ron.gif

 

Thank Bush for signing that pork madgo_ron.gifmadgo_ron.gifmadgo_ron.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 16
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't know about that, but the national inter-agency pass ("America, the Beautiful" pass) they set forth in the rider is expected to cost at least $85. Who knows if the forest-pass-only concept will be around.

 

The rider also encourages contracting with private companies to manage public lands. This is a disaster in my opinion.

 

Actually I have not verified that Bush signed this yet, just heard that he had. I might be speaking way too soon. I should not have posted that yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether this bullshit pass costs $25, $85, $100, whatever is beside the point.

 

These are public lands, and we shouldn't need to pay a fee to access them. That's all there is to it.

 

Whether or not the money will end up going toward private companies contracted to "manage" our public lands is also beside the point, though it would add insult to injury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree the pass is bullshit whatever the cost. I'm just saying people who ordinarily would pay for a $25 pass won't (necessarily) pay for a $100 one. The government could charge whatever they wanted for the pass but if they don't make the price fair and reasonable to those who would pay it, they will instigate more rebellious problems than if they did.

 

Where the money collected goes is an accountability issue. It is not beside the point in my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree the pass is bullshit whatever the cost. I'm just saying people who ordinarily would pay for a $25 pass won't (necessarily) pay for a $100 one. The government could charge whatever they wanted for the pass but if they don't make the price fair and reasonable to those who would pay it, they will instigate more rebellious problems than if they did.

 

Where the money collected goes is an accountability issue. It is not beside the point in my mind.

 

Where the money from the fees goes is important, but it's not the crux of the problem, which is that we're being charged fees to access land that should be open to everyone. I don't think any fee is "fair and reasonable." In fact, if there's going to be a fee, I think it'd be great if they did raise it to $100, or even better, $200. Make it a thousand bucks! Then folks who don't think a $25 fee is worth protesting would maybe get some backbone and take a stand against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where the money from the fees goes is important, but it's not the crux of the problem...

 

The new law stipulates that 80% of the money collected at a site goes to improving the site. This regulation, combined with the "spend it or lose it" budget mentality common throughout government, will ensure that public lands get overdeveloped. RV hookups at the Stuart Lake Trailhead, here we come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...