Bill_Simpkins Posted December 31, 2002 Posted December 31, 2002 Check Out: Washington State Parks New Law in Effect Jan. 1st This sucks. Especially because I live in Bellingham and I climb and boulder at Larrabee State Park 2-3 times a week. If I wanted to pay, I'd go pull plastic! One of the things I love about climbing outside is that it is an escape from most of the worldly problems............... like money! Let me know what you think, how this may affect you and what State Parks have climbing in your area. I understand that the areas need maintanance, but I already pay alot of State taxes. This is silly! Quote
Alpine_Tom Posted December 31, 2002 Posted December 31, 2002 (edited) To put it in perspective, Donald Dovey doesn't have to worry about parking fees anymore. One option to avoid the fee would be to bicycle there, or bicycle the last mile or two. Edited December 31, 2002 by Alpine_Tom Quote
gapertimmy Posted December 31, 2002 Posted December 31, 2002 i think these rates are pretty comprable to those at Oregon State Parks/smiffy rox Quote
wscottf Posted December 31, 2002 Posted December 31, 2002 Ok, so let's see here: Mount Rainier NP : $30 WA State Parks : $50 NW Forest Pass : $30 Snow Park Pass : $20 Rainier Climbing Permit : $25 "Volcano Pass" : $30 ------------------------------------ Total : $185 Is this getting a little out of hand here? I thought I already paid taxes! I'm cetainly willing to pay for the Mount Rainier Fees because I see the added value in paying those (clear road, rangers, Muir Hut, waste disposal). Where's the added value in paying for the rest of them? Quote
freeclimb9 Posted December 31, 2002 Posted December 31, 2002 Not a state park, but you still have time to put in your comment about MRNP fees. I've added my comments into the record, and got the following reply: From Jill Hawk, We appreciate your time in commenting on Mount Rainier's Mountaineering Cost Recovery Fee Proposal. The comment period will be open until Jan. 22, 2003. All comments will be considered, analyzed, and included in the public record. Thank you, Chief Ranger Mount Rainier National Park Quote
allison Posted January 1, 2003 Posted January 1, 2003 Hm....vote to lower taxes time and time again....now there are less services available....hmmm, could there possibly be a relationship there? Quote
Dave_Schuldt Posted January 1, 2003 Posted January 1, 2003 Right on. This is what Happens when Tim Eyman and his henchmen are alowed to run loose. the Strange called him "surprisingly faggy". They should know!! Quote
leithal Posted January 1, 2003 Posted January 1, 2003 Okay, first let me state that I'm not excited by this fee increase either (I'm one of the people that will supposedly have to collect it), but I just want to make a couple points... You do pay taxes, but only about 1/4 of 1% goes to state parks. We appreciate your help, but until our government recognizes parks as a higher priority, your contributions aren't going that far. The proposed budget for the upcoming bienneum is calling for a $15m cut from the general fund (where your tax dollars go) and then an increased spending authority of $12.5m from our PRSA fund. What that means is that parks has to generate an additional $12.5m in order to stay afloat. While taking a huge cut. The parking fee is proposed to generate maybe $10m, so we're going to be screwed no matter what. On top of that, Locke is requiring we close 3-5 more parks this bienneum (we closed 4 this past year). Now Larrabe is safe, and Index probably is, and Peshastin might be, but the latter two don't generate any funds. That doesn't give them big points when it comes to deciding which ones stay and which ones go. I don't have the answer, but again, until our government realizes the many benefits of state parks- sanity, health, education, local economic stimulus,etc., etc.- and places a higher priority on them by dedicating more of your taxes dollars, you're gonna see more 'pay to play' fees. Quote
Harry_Pi Posted January 1, 2003 Posted January 1, 2003 Hello Capitalist! You play, you pay! The money you saved on Tim Eyman initiatives can be applied toward your favorite outdoor rec activivity. Da, get a clue dumb ass. Quote
Bill_Simpkins Posted January 1, 2003 Author Posted January 1, 2003 The money problem really blows. What I don't understand is why there are way more tax payers now then ever, and we have less money for the parks?! Well, I know that the FEDERAL Parks are low on cash because they, for the most part, kicked out the logging, which brought in lot's of $BLING$BLING$ . I have lots of friends in the forest service and they say that one of the worst things that ever happened to the federal parks was to cut back on logging. That's a concrete reason which, I don't like, but I can understand because of possible environmental reasons. But that's another story. Now the State Parks are suffering because of tons of uneeded State programs, projects, overpriced private contracts, and because they don't have Math Guru's( BTW, I'm a math guru!), figuring out how to maximize our hard earned cash, leaving it up to politically motivated people like Gary Locke and his posse of Poli-Sci interns, I have to pay $50 a year to chalk up at a place I've been going to for 22 years(since I was 6) for FREE! That's why I'm upset. Morally: I'm ok with my money, but I know a crapload of poor fellow college kids and poor families who could not afford to go to the park with this fee. Isn't the Park suppossed to be for all, not just for those who have extra cash? You know what happen's when we leave the poor with less to do? ..........Compton. You don't pay a cook change your timing belt, you take your car to a mechanic. Turn the budget over to UW or WWU's math department and we would all have a new Lexus and free Black Butte Porter for life. BTW: No offence to the people collecting the fee's. I know you don't like it either. Politics suck, and we are caught in the middle of it. We are getting Happy New Year Everybody!!! Quote
geordie Posted January 1, 2003 Posted January 1, 2003 RE logging on Federal Lands: Let's remember there's a difference between National Parks and National Forests. While the funding issue is complex, lack of funds for National Parks has nothing to with logging on National Forests. My real comment though is a reminder for people to be active each and every November. The people in DC and Olympia should be representing our views and needs. In addition to impeaching Eyman, we need to give our public officials the boot if they can't make parks a priority. If you don't or won't vote, whine all you want, but realize this is all your fault. Quote
Harry_Pi Posted January 1, 2003 Posted January 1, 2003 (edited) Original topic was State Park parking fees, not National Park and Forest fees. Edited January 1, 2003 by Harry_Pi Quote
leejams Posted January 2, 2003 Posted January 2, 2003 Ooops you forgot one, to climb at the coulee you have to pay the fish and wildlife comittee parking pass. Quote
Bill_Simpkins Posted January 2, 2003 Author Posted January 2, 2003 My bad about the national mixup. BTW I do vote. It's morally wrong to charge fees to access PUBLIC lands. I'd rather they let the parks go wild, and just worry about garbage then charge fees to maintain parking lots, bathrooms and picnic tables and campgrounds. I love that stuff sometimes, but taking that away is better than charging for what's already ours. What do you guy's think, would you rather have them drop services and have no fees or keep services and charge you, if that was an option? You can also write the State Parks and voice your opinion: issues@parks.wa.gov. Quote
slothrop Posted January 2, 2003 Posted January 2, 2003 (edited) The only services I'd like to see on public lands are basic parking and access (a gravel pullout is enough) and an outhouse. Trail maintenance, too, but new trails aren't that important to me. Edited January 2, 2003 by slothrop Quote
Jim Posted January 2, 2003 Posted January 2, 2003 I’d have to agree with previous posters that, for the state at least, the chickens are coming home to roost. Seems like for the past 10 years under the initiative process the trend has been to reduce taxes. There’s been some big holes blown through the budget in the past couple years. Much of the budget is allocated towards non-discretionary spending, so when the budget ax falls parks and open space get hit hard. But we do have two nice publicly financed stadiums downtown. On the federal end, things have changed. While it’s true that timber sales are way down, most of Federal timber sales lost money when you figure the funds spent on designing roads, building roads, marking the sale, working up the environmental documents. The difference was that even thought he sales were losing money, the feds were willing to fund the Forest Circus as long as the logs were rolling out. Now that production is down it’s a lower priority. Again its priorities - we are funding that wonderful missile defense system. Quote
allthumbs Posted January 2, 2003 Posted January 2, 2003 Why don't you cheap bastards get over yourselves. Considering the fact that you're lucky as hell to live and play in one of the World's most outrageous mountain ranges, I don't think it's worth bitching over some modest user fees. If you can't afford $200-300 a year to play, I suggest you take up knitting. Hell, I spend more on a weekend party than a year's worth of user fees. Most hobbies -- ORVs, golf, trap & skeet, boating, flying, diving, whoring, drinking, gambling, etc... can break the bank and no one grumbles. I'm all in favor of lower taxation and letting special interest groups, i.e. climbers and ORV'ers for instance, pay user fees to support their representative hobby. Why should a person totally uninvolved with any outdoor pursuits pay recreation fees? Why should a person that could care less about football have to pay for the new football stadium? (Insert myriad examples here.) So pay to play and quit your bitching. ...and Schuldt, quit skating and pay your damn bar bill. Quote
Jim Posted January 2, 2003 Posted January 2, 2003 Actually, I don’t mind paying some fee. Snow parks have to be plowed; summer trails are maintained, etc. It’s just that it seems to be filtering down to a lower layer such as state lands that local folks use, who might not have the bucks to shell out. And there’s the priority question. The feds don’t mind shoveling funds into land management agencies for natural resource extraction for instance. A good example is the Powder Basin in Wyoming where funding for the local BLM has substantially increased to cover the work needed for permitting natural gas extraction. It’s public land that should be funded from the general tax funds. It there are some narrow user groups, snowshoers, climbers, skiers, that need to pony up some access funds, I have no problem with that. But to have to fork out money just to access trails or picnic for the day in the national forests seems a stretch. Quote
plexus Posted January 2, 2003 Posted January 2, 2003 Jim is right about the NF. I've done countless interviews for numerous articles about the shrinking NF budget. Logging cost the taxpayers money, meaning the capital returned to the NF did not cover expenses of the NF. Also the NF really hasn't been getting less money, but rather have less pow for the buck. Their budget has pretty much stayed flat for the past 10 years, but figure in inflation, higher salaries, etc..... Now good ol' Shrub is gonna let the clear-cutting begin again....(sigh) Where's Hayduke when you need him Quote
Greg_W Posted January 2, 2003 Posted January 2, 2003 Now good ol' Shrub is gonna let the clear-cutting begin again....(sigh) You're clueless, fucko. Tree-hugging motherfucker. Quote
plexus Posted January 2, 2003 Posted January 2, 2003 You'r just mad because soembody stole your Charleton Heston blow-up doll Quote
Greg_W Posted January 2, 2003 Posted January 2, 2003 No, bitch, I am sick of you liberal tree-hugger types spewing bullshit that isn't true just to scare people. Don't malign Charleton Heston, he's a great American. Quote
sk Posted January 2, 2003 Posted January 2, 2003 What I remember about the implamentation of the users fees is that it was suposed to limit and perhaps stop the tramendous amount of logging on public land... if the forest is enough of a comodity standing, maybe the government will let it stand. I pay user fees when it is convienent to do so... I am not a big fan of a complex system. Honestly, I do not know weather it is right or wrong persay, but I would rather pay to use the wilderness than see it paved over. Quote
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.