Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
billcoe

Regressive Tax at Skull Hollow Campground

Recommended Posts

This is bullshit. You think the gov't can make money charging $5 here? I have never camped at grasslands and don't plan on starting. I won't be personally bothered by this and will most likely never ever pay this fee myself. Furthermore, I don't worry about $5 as I often pay more for a beer than that and I would bet I paid more money in taxes for the year than your car costs. $5 is less change than behind my seat cushions as far as that goes. The fact that I am more affected in no way diminishes the bullshit nature of this bullshit.

 

For me, there are several layers of wrongness about this bullshit that almost calls out for a new Robin Hood to show up and fix this crap.

 

1st) I suspect they will be losing money trying to administer this new tax. The Bush admin lost plenty of money on stupid things, most of us were hoping that this new Obama one would reverse that trend. During the Reagan years, they started this add a fee thing, it was wrong then ad it's still wrong now, especially as everytime a new tax is added, which is what this is - the fixed administrative costs goes up.

 

2nd) It's regressive, unlike the income tax, and poor people will be getting shit on hard. Not idiots with more money than brains like me. Just because the government chooses to continue to f* the poor because they can in no way makes it right or honorable.

 

3rd) As far as many people choosing to go camping down the road or stealing the space by leaving before the govenment gets there to collect, by starting something unnecessary which is unfair and most likely money losing which is going to make people compete, lie and disrespect our government - it adds to the total wrongness of this $5 fee. Lets start something unfair which gets otherwise normal and honest people to try and cheat the government? Bad idea. Bad.

 

They want to take a piece of undeveloped land and make a campsite and charge a fee and add services where it is needed. Uhhh, OK. I'm fine with that. IF IT IS NEEDED. They did that very thing and Smith Rocks very effectively. This is just more counterproductive government bullshit in my eyes for at least the 3 huge reasons I outlined and I hope they reconsider and drop it.

 

We should not have to pay AGAIN to use our own land. IT'S JUST WRONG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like an alright way to keep the Meth Heads out of there.

 

Isn't it just $1 more to camp at the bivy when you have to pay $3 to park anyhow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems like an alright way to keep the Meth Heads out of there.

 

It may be true that Meth heads are usually poor, but all poor people are NOT meth heads. Many are honest and good people.

 

This fee will not prevent the meth heads from camping miles away and showing up during the day to steal your things. It will also NOT prevent them from just camping for free there and breaking the law by not paying as some otherwise honest folks will choose to do as noted above?

 

Walking a mile in our less fortunate brothers shoes would be a thing to start with here IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no good and easy answer to this problem. Hopefully the $5 will result in a cleaner out-house. The meth heads and innocent homeless rural poor will merely move on to non-regulated federal lands

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said all poor folks were methies. I'm just saying the fee is a tool so the po po has a objectively reasonable basis for a meet and greet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup.

 

Crowd control.

There is no money in it for anybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to the $5, they should switch the name to reflect the litterbugs attitude:

 

Hollow Skull Campground! :mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is bullshit. I won't be personally bothered by this and will most likely never ever pay this fee myself. Furthermore, I don't worry about $5 as I often pay more for a beer than that. The fact that I am more affected in no way diminishes the bullshit nature of this bullshit.

 

For me, there are several layers of wrongness about this bullshit that almost calls out for a new BillCoe WarriorPolitician to show up and fix this crap.

 

1st) I am sure they will lose money trying to administer this new tax. Over the years, they started this "add a fee thing", it was wrong then and it's still wrong now. Especially galling is knowing that every time a new tax is added the fixed administrative costs goes up.

 

2nd) It's regressive, and poor people will be getting shit on hard. Just because the government chooses to continue to f* the poor because they can in no way makes it right or honorable.

 

3rd) As far as many people choosing to go camping down the road or stealing the space by leaving before the govenment gets there to collect, by starting something unnecessary which is unfair and most likely money losing which is going to make people compete, lie and disrespect our government - it adds to the total wrongness of this $5 fee. Lets start something unfair which gets otherwise normal and honest people to try and cheat the government? Bad idea. Bad.

 

They want to take a piece of undeveloped land and make a campsite and charge a fee and add services where it is needed. Uhhh, OK. I'm fine with that. IF IT IS NEEDED. They did that very thing and Smith Rocks very effectively. This is just more counterproductive government bullshit in my eyes for at least the 3 huge reasons I outlined and I hope they reconsider and drop it.

 

We should not have to pay AGAIN to use our own land. IT'S JUST WRONG.

 

Couldn't agree more, even if I did have to edit the text just a bit...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never understood it when the public can not sleep on public lands without paying. The BLM and Forest Service lands are mostly the only pieces of public lands which remain for the people.

 

I understand charging fees for campgrounds with major improvements such as usually on duty host, bathrooms with running water, thrash collection, etc. But there also needs to be places where the public can go to "rough it" and avoid these fees so long as they keep their impact minimal.

 

I was talking to the only climbing ranger (I think Julian is his name) at Smith Rock in early April. He was lamenting about how he is incredibly bogged down by his duties. This guy has lots of administrative paperwork like fee collection at the climbers bivy and parking lots, police the entire park and deal with YEAHOOS, and lots more.

 

Essentially, the park is grossly understaffed. The only help he gets are the people that clean the bathrooms and remove trash. I'm not sure if they are even paid. The problem is that Smith Rock State Park does not receive enough state funds. I don't understand this as it is a fairly crowded park relative to its footprint. Oregon legislators needs to get its act together and recognize this.

 

On the other hand, Skull Hollow is on federally owned lands. The fed has much deeper pockets than Oregon State. I dont think its too much to ask for the BLM to pay for trash removal and human waste from the pit toilets. This is a drop in the bucket compared to up keeping a mile of interstate road, approx $240,000 dollars per year!

 

I dont know what the man hours are involved to "upkeep" the grounds in its present state, but I'm guessing maybe its no more than 20 hours per week. Someone correct me if I am way of. If you pay someone $20 per hour, which is pretty good for fairly unskilled labor, that breaks down to $20,000 per year. I dont see how the salary would be higher. Add in another $10,000 for fuel and dumping costs. I dont know how many "sites" are at Skullhollow, they arent that well-defined unless you only count picnic tables and firepits. I am guessing from 25-30. Lets assume an average of 15 are occupied per night over the course of a year. If you charge $5 per site, then you raise $27,000 per year in fees. Well, that's less than the overhead.

 

But wait, if you impose a fee, than you need someone to spend additional time collecting the fees, writing tickets, policing the campgrounds to enforce rules, etc. Now you added in a lot more man-hours. At least 4 per day x 7 days per week = 28 hours

28 hours x $20 = $480

$480 per week x 52 weeks per year = $25,000

 

Well, thats roughly equal to the amount that the fees cover. There is no net gain into reducing the overhead and it is likely to only increase.

 

I believe my assumed numbers lean to the conservative side as well. Whenever I am there, during the climbing season, the campground is at or near capacity. I am guessing it is less in the summer and winter, but there are always some of the trailer types in the summer, and hunters in the winter.

 

So what does this mean? For the user, there is no real benefit to a $5 fee. For the state, there is no less burden on the budget. This only means one thing, a $5 fee makes no sense. Therefore, shortly after someone does the accounting, they will realize that the fees will have to be increased.

 

Sorry for the bad news. The only way I would even consider paying a fee is if they banned the damned generators. Or at least they should allow public beatings for those who run them after 11PM.

 

 

 

 

Edited by SemoreJugs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL. Not me. To lazy. Lol. I'm in a car heading to yos right now and surfing CC.com! Love technology!

 

Ps if they want to charge marylou double, I'm fine with that :lmao:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Focking wee-tod-did.

 

Let me kick that soapbox out from under your precious little feet.

 

Homeless are one thing. Fine, go to a homeless shelter and volunteer or throw a power bar to your bretheren at a exit ramp where someone is in destitute need of food, water, whatever.

 

The point is that you're defending squatters from having to clean up their shit. Garbage left everywhere, mattresses laying around abandoned, glass broken at the campsites.

 

Sure, the homeless living in campers there aren't responsible for all of it but they're contributing to disrepair of the area.

 

I'd pay 5 bucks every time to have a cleaner area and to keep the shit cleaned up.

 

What the f....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fees will cause more dispersed camping up the road. From a managers standpoint, this is undesirable because it makes enforcement of rules much more difficult, and increases disturbance to the relatively fragile desert environment. Plus it is a far greater fire hazard during the summer. It is easy enough to start a wildfire with fire rings placed in a hardened, bare ground campground (take a look at 1/3 of the area inside the loop from last summer). If people are having fires up in the juniper, there is little time or access to escape if one gets started in those high evening winds. Unfortunately I put $$$ on a serious fire on up the road in the next two years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Focking wee-tod-did.

 

Let me kick that soapbox out from under your precious little feet.

 

Homeless are one thing. Fine, go to a homeless shelter and volunteer or throw a power bar to your bretheren at a exit ramp where someone is in destitute need of food, water, whatever.

 

The point is that you're defending squatters from having to clean up their shit. Garbage left everywhere, mattresses laying around abandoned, glass broken at the campsites.

 

Sure, the homeless living in campers there aren't responsible for all of it but they're contributing to disrepair of the area.

 

I'd pay 5 bucks every time to have a cleaner area and to keep the shit cleaned up.

 

What the f....

captain-james-t-kirk-awesome1-1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tyler-

I haven't been fucked like that since grad school.

Thanks,

Hugh

ah, the original line was so much better...

 

"i think i love you...i wanna have your abortion"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to move up the road on other BLM land, they can't put up no camping signs unless there are additional special land use designation, which there are not. They also can't charge for camping further up the road until they install facilities (aka picnic tables and crappers).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tyler-

I haven't been fucked like that since grad school.

Thanks,

Hugh

ah, the original line was so much better...

 

"i think i love you...i wanna have your abortion"

 

tyler, i heart lilly allen, go back to SOCAL u pussy ass bitch....

 

http://www.wwtdd.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Senate bill to repeal the fee program authorization is S. 868 sponsored by Baucus. Although it was introduced a while ago there are still only two co-sponsors. It also is still in the Energy and Natural Resources committee. Once government fees are introduced it seems pretty much impossible to reverse them, but it's worth a few minutes of your time to contact your senator and ask them to support, or even co-sponsor, this bill. Wyden and Cantwell are both on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

 

New fees, and fee hikes, are supposedly approved by committees that represent the public. But it's probably not worth your time to try to contact members of these committees since they are indebted to the Forest Service or BLM. They are put on the committee for that reason.

 

Here is an interesting article with some insight on the fee approval committee system, from a snail-mail newsletter from a group called "Keep the Sespe Wild":

 

RECREATION FEE COMMITTEES

 

The FLREA fee law, enacted a few years ago to replace the initial Recreation Fee Demo program, is supposed to rely on public input to authorize all new fee proposals, as well as cost increases at current fee sites. The public input comes from committees known as RecRACs, whose composition is spelled out clearly in the FLREA law.

 

The most fundamental problem with the process, according to Western Slope No-Fee Coalition President Kitty Benzar, is the committee selection process. "Members are supposed to represent the public, but they are hand-picked by the Forest Service and the BLM. They are from groups that are beholden to the agencies for their particular activity, and are likely to want to do the agencies' bidding," she explained.

 

To date, the RecRACs have approved at least 523 fee increases and 228 new fee sites in under two years. Only 27 fee proposals have been turned down.

 

The Western Slope No-Fee Coalition has produced a report on the status of RecRACs nationwide, called "The Fix Is In." It is available on their web site at www.westernslopenofee.org.

 

Kitty Benzar has also undertaken a series of trips to attend various RecRAC meetings (Colorado, California, and Nevada). These meetings are important for a number of reasons, including educating the RecRAC members, (who vote on new and/or increased fees), on the specific requirements spelled out in the FLREA fee law governing the RecRACs' activities. Of course, the US Forest Service (who pick the RecRAC members, propose new fees and want the RecRACs to support them) have not educated their committee members as to the legal restrictions on new or increased fees - namely that fees can only be legally levied or increased where general public support for each proposal has been documented. Forest Service documentation of public support for fees is often sketchy, nonexistent or downright made up.

 

For instance, a Washington state fee proposal was approved, for which RecRAC members were told that half the 36 comment cards were in opposition. In fact, it turned out that 28 of the 36 cards were strongly or somewhat opposed to the fees - hardly qualifying as "general public support."

 

The Colorado RecRAC approved new fee sites in June 2008 for which no public comments had been sought. Nor were the proposals posted on their web site. The Forest Service merely announced them in the press and received no opposition. Again, far from the documentation of "general public support."

 

Beyond this, RecRAC meeting are often closed to the public, meeting minutes can be delayed and ambiguous, and public comments have even been filtered and withheld by the Forest Service.

 

The October 2008 California RecRAC meeting in Sacramento was attended by Kitty Benzar and by Peter Weichers, a Kern River kayaker. (Both of them had testified against the FLREA law in Washington DC in June 2009.) The California RecRAC members had received a number of comments from the public opposing the Klamath National Forest fee proposals on the agenda for their October meeting, since the required documentation of general public support was lacking.

 

During the all day meeting, Kitty Benzar and Peter Weichers, were able to critique the RecRAC fee approval process, and to discuss RecRAC procedures at length with some committee members. At the end of the day, the Klamath National Forest fee proposals were still voted forward by the RecRAC members, notwithstanding the complete lack of documentation of general public support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I agree. I has gotten worse. My question is...

 

None of us wanted to point that out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never said all poor folks were methies. I'm just saying the fee is a tool so the po po has a objectively reasonable basis for a meet and greet.

Either way you look at, all this garbage its just another way for the gov't to impose its will on the peaceful climbing community, and make money from a group that traditionally had less than the druggies did anyway!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy crap snowman! Thats some dense political / civic info.

 

I started doing the head nod about 1/3 of the way down the post, however. Its complicated (and rigged) crap like that keeps the public at bay from participating in our "democracy".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rocky, the hollow gets abused by the redneck bastards with their cheap beer and three-wolf t-shirts WAY more than somewhere you'd pay a couple bucks. My firend has pics to prove it.

 

battery with bullet holes

 

Executive summary: We woke up in the morning with a leaking car battery riddled with bullet holes lying feet from our bivy sacks. How/when it got there doesn't matter. What matters most is that a few bucks keeps out the assholes.

 

 

Edited by TRbetaFlash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd also like to mention that the proceeds from charging a few bucks are *far* below what is needed to maintain the facility. It's the exact same concept as paying $1.75 on the bus in the city. That money doesn't buy the busses and all the things with it; Our tax dollars buy it.

 

There is a certain human cognitive bias you hit when you charge for something, as opposed to making it free. Even if the amount is negligible, many people disagree with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×