ryland_moore Posted December 19, 2002 Share Posted December 19, 2002 Good points all (CC Highlander, Cpt., j b et al.) To clarify, rangers I mean climbing rangers specific to Rainier and not the Larry the Tools of the Cascades. I see all of your points. Wouldn't it be nice though if everything were so black and white. Can make things a lot easier to determine which side of the fence to be caught on. p.s. Page top mo-fo's (I just broke my page-top cherry!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted December 19, 2002 Share Posted December 19, 2002 wrong again slugo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryland_moore Posted December 19, 2002 Share Posted December 19, 2002 Wha????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted December 19, 2002 Share Posted December 19, 2002 trask I expected more from a cagey bbs veteran like yourself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted December 19, 2002 Share Posted December 19, 2002 don't have time; out the door for a lunch date Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted December 19, 2002 Share Posted December 19, 2002 CascadeClimber: I don't get it. So you dislike government bureaucracy and believe that there is too much law protecting you from yourself and that the State shouldn't give you a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt. What has that got to do with user fees? Are you suggesting that there should not be a backcountry ranger or climbing ranger program at Mount Rainier? What we are seeing in the increased reliance on user fees in Rainer Park and in the National Forests, I think, is the fact that these agencies are receiving less funding for recreational programs. I'm not so sure their budget for supporting concessionaires or building roads so our timber can be sent to Japan are being cut by the same amount, but never-the-less, I believe their reports that they have less funding for trail maintenance and climbing rangers. Would you have them cut these programs (that would certainly be a move toward "smaller government," or do you think that if we protest the fees they will get the money from somewhere else or what? JB: I don't know, but I bet the guided outfits actually "contribute" more to the park than private climbers and impact the mountain less. I believe they actually assist with rescues sometimes and conduct work parties and other "volunteer" efforts, and I believe it is RMI that sets up the trail (snow trench) above the DC every year and who sets ladders where needed to bridge crevasses. They may not pay as much per-person-per-day (I have not idea), but I bet they are more self-reliant that other climbers as a general rule, less dependent on rangers for information about current conditions, less likely to need NPS rescue, etc., Sure, the large parties have more impact on your experience on any given day on the DC route, and they obviously bring a lot of people to the mountain who would probably not otherwise be there, but does the businessman from Chicago have any less right to be there than you do? Although I have climbed Mount Rainier many times, I have never been to Muir in the summer and I haven't been to Camp Schurman in the summer since they started guiding that route in large numbers, so I haven't seen them in action. But it doesn't seem to me that a climber interested in any one of the other 33 routes on the mountain is really threatened much by their activity up there. And what does this have to do with the fee increase? Freeclimb: Do you think there should be a climbing ranger program? Assuming the fees go to pay for that program (which may or may not be the case), there would be a choice between a user fee like this one and using general tax money to pay for the program, or upping the campground fees or something and making some other user group pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted December 19, 2002 Share Posted December 19, 2002 Oh, and I note with pleasure that when I was returned to the "recent posts" page, the substantive discussion has briefly outweiged the "spray" topics. Wow! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted December 19, 2002 Share Posted December 19, 2002 Good arguments matt- And what does this have to do with the fee increase? Do the guided parties pay a fee too? I would bet if we did a study one might find that they spend more time on the mountain than the typical climber. I could theoretically argue in that case these guided clients impact the mountain more since if they spend more time on the mountain. But is it true? I bet it might be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted December 19, 2002 Share Posted December 19, 2002 Oh wait it takes a guide to get guided parties to the top. That's an extra person for each 3-4 people (guessing) so that is indeed an increase in their impact on the mountain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeclimb9 Posted December 19, 2002 Share Posted December 19, 2002 Freeclimb: Do you think there should be a climbing ranger program? Sure. Why not. It's relatively cheap to finance (wasn't last year's budget around $200,000? That's like half a toilet in cost.), and the good press is great marketing for the park. But I don't think climbers should be the ones footing the entire bill. I think it's clear that the Climbing Rangers benefit MRNP much more than they benefit the climbers on the mountain. I thought $15 for a one-time visit was excessive. The $30 proposed fee is crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlander Posted December 19, 2002 Share Posted December 19, 2002 (edited) Approximatly 11,678 climbers on Raineer last year. At 30$ a piece thats $350,340, not counting park entrance fees and the contract with RMI. I for one would like to know how that money is going to be spent. Climbing rangers don't get paid that much. Edited December 19, 2002 by Highlander Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted December 19, 2002 Share Posted December 19, 2002 BTW half the reason I say no to climbing Rainier to partner is the excessive taxing. Money to get in the park and money to climb it. Now more money I think it's going to influence more climbers to "avoid" the fee. Is that good? Dont answer... We can argue between ourselves all we want until blue in the face but it does not matter unless we are heard by the right people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Posted December 19, 2002 Share Posted December 19, 2002 you're all preaching to the choir. where were you tuesday night? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted December 19, 2002 Share Posted December 19, 2002 does the businessman from Chicago have any less right to be there than you do? Being self-reliant is an integral part of my mountaineering philosophy. Why not put a conveyor belt to the top to allow my granny the view from the summit as well? You guys could pay for it, no? I am not against guided climbing, on the contrary, but I think private parties have priority or at least they should not bear equal cost (or is it greater cost?) for access to a public resource. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fleblebleb Posted December 20, 2002 Share Posted December 20, 2002 If I don't want increased "user" fees, why can't I vote for that by not going to a chat session that would suck up my evening and make no difference in the greater scheme of things anyway? If I don't go, why does that have to be a vote for increased user fees? If I do pay the user fees, why is that a vote for more user fees? Why do we have to be fucked if we do and fucked if we don't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEF Posted December 20, 2002 Share Posted December 20, 2002 I was at the meeting Tuesday and many of the questions being raised here were answered then. 1) Climbers on guided trips do pay the same fee as everyone else. A guided climber is likely paying in the low 4 figures total to climb, so a $15 fee increase is not a big concern. 2) The climber fee does pay for the climbing rangers amongst other things. Climbing is the only activity targeted for extra fees. Climbers on any of the routes besides Muir and Emmons see almost no extra resources provided for them outside of blue bag collection barrels at the TH. Yes they still pay the fee. The Muir and Emmons routes together account for 90+% of the 11,000+ climbs on Rainier. Approx 3,700 are guided climbs. A number of alternative plans was presented (and listed on the MRNP website) of which the “preferred” was based on the new $30 fee. Some in the audience felt that meant it was a foregone conclusion. The sentiment in the audience was decidedly anti-fee, and some were critical that “no fee” was not among the alternatives. MRNP cannot explain that climbers are more costly to service than the tourist who arrives expecting to visit the multimillion dollar visitor center, use the toilet facilites that require expensive engineering and treatment, and use the nature ranger time in a public tour of the meadows via paved pathways. The park has now gone down the path of managment which dictates what you plan to do while you are “visiting” the park will dictate what extra fees you may be required to pay. Climbing, being an easily targeted use, now pays more. As someone who believes our National Parks are a heritage to which we as citizens pay taxes and are entitled to use, I find this offensive. National Parks are to the country what libraries and city parks are to the city, and should not be subject to special use fees. Your comments are still being accepted at the park at links given earlier in the thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted December 20, 2002 Share Posted December 20, 2002 RE-you're all preaching to the choir. where were you tuesday night? I was at yo mamma's house Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted December 20, 2002 Share Posted December 20, 2002 Thanks for the information SEF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.