Enchantments Permit- Charge for day passes?

[Vernman23]

Yesterday Craig G and I headed up to climb Snow Creek (or Prusik to see what the climbing ranger would say). We were asked if we filled out a permit at the trailhead (we had not) and were told to do so since "They are currently free" This struck us as an odd statement "they are currently free" implying that they might not be free in the future?! Wondering what everyone was thinking about this, if anyone had heard anything...

[olyclimber]

Well that would suck. And then of course more Rangers would have to be hired to enforce it. And then a 10 foot fence with concertina wire would have to be built around it, along with guard shacks and pillboxes.

 

Let's hope that was just the Ranger trying to get you to fill out a day use permit since it is free.

[Fairweather]

Well done, Leavenworth Mountain Association.

 

http://cascadeclimbers.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1112791/1

 

 

[max]

Well done, Leavenworth Mountain Association.

 

http://cascadeclimbers.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1112791/1

 

 

Care to give us a summary of why LMA is responsible for this? In all honesty, I'm not interested in reading 7 pages to find out myself.

[max]

Wondering what everyone was thinking about this,...

 

My thinking about this: you should have got a free permit from the get-go, and (at least as far as I can decipher from your story) it was nice that the ranger gave you the option of getting one without fining/punishing you.

 

Regarding the "currently free" part... it seems to me to be a rhetorical device that was somewhat ingenuous, but (by your description) wasn't an emphasis point. Seems like a probable "slip". In the grand scheme of things, it's inconsequential compared to your mistake.

 

Just my thoughts, as you asked.

[Vernman23]

Compared to my mistake of not getting a pass? Yeah huge violation there to go climb snow creek! Seems like if they only have one year or left on the grant that they would find a way to pay for it and what better way to pay for it then implement a new permit system by saying they are keeping people "safe" and protecting the environment! Not very often a government agency shrinks...

[olyclimber]

Well done, Leavenworth Mountain Association.

 

http://cascadeclimbers.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1112791/1

 

 

Care to give us a summary of why LMA is responsible for this? In all honesty, I'm not interested in reading 7 pages to find out myself.

 

Unfortunately that is either FUD or misinformation. The LMA is not responsible.

What you'll find from reading that thread is that people from either side (not including the rangers) are pretty good at sniping each other.

 

fact:

The LMA had absolutely nothing to do with the formation of a climbing ranger program in Leavenworth. The USFS applied for a grant, was awarded that grant, and have the funding now to run this program for 2 years.

 

The LMA engaged the Forest Service and provided input...and also tried to help the Rangers by spreading the word of their existence...but they had nothing to do with the formation of the program.

 

The LMA is just another advocacy group, that happens to represent Wenatchee Valley climbers. It is just one of many advocacy groups that could be involved...the WCC, the Mountaineers are a few others.

 

From the FS Rangers:

The program is funded by a grant received through the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO). The RCO provides grant funding for the development and maintenance of recreational opportunities throughout the state. Details about the different grant programs and their requirements can be found here: http://www.rco.wa.gov/grants/index.shtml. Funding for grants does expire at the end of two years, although the grant can be applied for again to continue funding. The WRRD did gain support for the climbing program in the form of written, signed letters from numerous organizations including: The Access Fund, American Alpine Club, Washington Climbers Coalition as well as many more. All of these organizations were given the project idea, grant details and what the project would accomplish. After review, these organizations supported the program and provided letters of support that expressed their stake in climbing opportunities and why they felt that this program would benefit the climbing opportunities in the area.

The LMA isn't even listed. But if you disagree with what is going on here, and you belong to one of those groups, then you'd be best served to communicate that to your organization. A united organization representing your interests trumps a couple of guys bitching in an internet forum any day. Unless that is all you seek to accomplish...to troll for a reaction.

 

Finally, I think Mark W's point is important:

 

We are right to be skeptical and watchful of the agenda here, but continuing to present our community as disorganized and hostile will not gain any sympathy or legitimacy for us as a user group in Washington DC. Rather, engaging land managers as the LMA is attempting to do, with organized and mature requests for services and fulfillment of our needs be they continuing roads access, new and maintained facilities (trails, toilets, etc.) while simultaneously educating them on and demonstrating the historic legitimacy as a backcountry user group will in my opinion go much further in limiting or evading any future regulation, or worse, the implementation of more fees.

 

In addition to solidifying our group in the eyes of managers, we need to keep pressure on Congress to fund our parks properly instead of the long standing trend of starving them out and leaving land managers trying to extract funding through fee demo programs and privatization. Write your reps and senators!

 

[telemarker]

I met Adam recently out cragging, only because his friend introduced him to me. He seemed like a nice enough guy, but I wouldn't know because he seemed largely uninterested in talking. I have seen him several times since with barely a "hello". It would be more reassuring if part of his job description was to be more of an ambassador by actively building rapport amongst climbers he sees at the crags.

[Fairweather]

Oly,

 

I can think of few freedoms more basic than the one that allows us all to enjoy the unimproved commons untaxed and without having to show papers to some government agent. What's more, the absurdity of the current state of affairs in places like the Enchantments can be argued from either side of the political spectrum. This is to say there is lots to dislike about fees and permits--whether you believe outdoor recreation is being commoditized by government-private sector collusion, or simply being strangled by the new nanny-state green police. The result is the same. Frankly, I'm surprised that you and others here are such conformists. Would you tolerate being randomly asked by an agent of government to show a permit in order to walk down the street? Hell no, I suspect. So why should you or Vernman23--or even Max have to tolerate it on a back country trail?

 

As for LMA, well, I think it's sad when certain associations--who claim to speak for us all--are used by the USFS as dupes. And while the efforts of interest groups like LMA, WCC, ACC, etc., to work within an ever-tightening set of pointless government rules is laudable, they always miss the larger point. Thoreau, Muir, Leopold, Marshall, Abbey all viewed personal freedom as one of wilderness's best, most liberating features. Apparently conformity is now more important. Welcome to the new world, I guess. Don't forget to bring the correct attitude--and your papers.

[num1mc]

I can think of few freedoms more basic than the one that allows us all to enjoy the unimproved commons untaxed and without having to show papers to some government agent

 

Yea that

[olyclimber]

Oly,

 

I can think of few freedoms more basic than the one that allows us all to enjoy the unimproved commons untaxed and without having to show papers to some government agent. What's more, the absurdity of the current state of affairs in places like the Enchantments can be argued from either side of the political spectrum. This is to say there is lots to dislike about fees and permits--whether you believe outdoor recreation is being commoditized by government-private sector collusion, or simply being strangled by the new nanny-state green police. The result is the same. Frankly, I'm surprised that you and others here are such conformists. Would you tolerate being randomly asked by an agent of government to show a permit in order to walk down the street? Hell no, I suspect. So why should you or Vernman23--or even Max have to tolerate it on a back country trail?

 

As for LMA, well, I think it's sad when certain associations--who claim to speak for us all--are used by the USFS as dupes. And while the efforts of interest groups like LMA, WCC, ACC, etc., to work within an ever-tightening set of pointless government rules is laudable, they always miss the larger point. Thoreau, Muir, Leopold, Marshall, Abbey all viewed personal freedom as one of wilderness's best, most liberating features. Apparently conformity is now more important. Welcome to the new world, I guess. Don't forget to bring the correct attitude--and your papers.

 

I think (as a few others here have also noted) that you seem to be reading something else other than what I wrote. All I did was state the facts, I did not "conform". As well I reposted that information that Mark posted that would be the best way to organize to fight things if you don't like the way they are going.

 

You seem to have something out for the LMA, I'm not sure why. Maybe you can present a few fact as to what they have done to draw your ire, aside from a few of their members trading barbs with you here. They haven't really done anything more than the other, more well established organizations that claim to represent the interest of climbers did. In fact, in the case of these rangers, they have done less as when it comes to the establishment of the of the 2 year program than these other organizations. And I don't have anything to do with the LMA...their website says they represent climbers in the Wenatchee Valley. I don't live there.

 

Here's an idea: you clearly have a better handle on things than these organizations. Why don't you start a new org that does thing the right way? You are a smart guy, maybe you could make a real difference. If your ideas are good, others will join in.

 

It wasn't that long ago that the places I hold dear were free to visit, and you would often never see another person let alone pay a fee to be there. It was pretty tough for me to process the fact that I had to pay to be in some of those places. Yes, I will fight along with those that fight against wrapping these places up with red tape and Recreation Police. But I'm not going the Hayduke Lives route, I guess I feel too old for that. If we think things are going wrong then we need to come together as a community and fight it using the processes that our government provides, for better or worse. Its funny we would argue here, while as others have noted, what I think the biggest enemies to what we hold dear are thousands of miles away.

 

[olyclimber]

And I think we would be stupid not to acknowledge that the walls are closing in on us. Seattle is now the fastest growing big city in the United States. This is not the country or state that we were born to. This place is changing. The planet is getting crowded. Future generations may have a hard time grasping the idea of a wild and free land that Thoreau, Muir, Abbey, etc wrote about, let alone visiting them without stepping in someone else's excrement, only partially hidden under a rock. And imagine a place like the Enchantments, but in China....they would probably be mining the granite.

 

I guess that is the flip side of things. Personally, I was thinking of running away to Alaska. We are but visitors here.

[telemarker]

And I think we would be stupid not to acknowledge that the walls are closing in on us. Seattle is now the fastest growing big city in the United States.

 

Aah yes. I remember fondly when Bumbershoot was a cute little uncrowded festival. and when there was no line waiting to get on the rickety old Orange roller coaster. When it took just 1 hour 45 minutes to get to Seattle from Chehalis with no traffic.

[Fairweather]

My thinking about this: you should have got a free permit from the get-go, . . . it was nice that the ranger gave you the option of getting one without fining/punishing you.

In the grand scheme of things, it's inconsequential compared to your mistake.

 

What, exactly, was Vern's "consequential" mistake again?

[AlpineK]

Population growth is the primary problem. Like it or not: More people = more demand for everything.

 

Look at the 2014 lottery for climbing Mt. Whitney. It's only a few hours drive from the greater LA Area

 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/inyo/passes-permits/recreation/?cid=stelprdb5150055

 

Permits cost $15

 

As of this date:

 

11,634 applications were entered for 2014 lottery

4,473 were successful

 

Yep things used to be better back in John Muir's day

 

[img:center]http://seattletimes.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/fyi-guy/files/2014/05/fyiguy-censuspop-web.jpg[/img]

Edited May 29, 2014 by Feck

[Fairweather]

There is no doubt that population growth is the main component of the larger ecological crisis. But the only problem with your data is that even as the PNW has continued to grow, wilderness visits here and elsewhere continue to decline in real numbers. Likely because of the same complaints I aired above. Why are you OK with tightening restrictions on access? There's really no need for it--other than power and money. The biggest problem is that less visits equals less advocacy, long term. The link below is 2008, but by the USFS's own 2013 account, visitation has since been flat. In any event, don't you have a philosophical problem with being stopped in the back country and asked to produce a permit?

 

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/11/national_forests_see_fewer_vis.html

The figures are estimates based on surveys and counts around each national forest. Total forest visits dropped from 204.8 million in 2004 to 178.6million in 2007, a 13 percent decline. Visits to Oregon and Washington national forests fell from 28.2 million in 2004 to 20.5 million in 2007, a 27 percent drop. That's the sharpest percentage drop of any Forest Service region in the country. The next largest drop was 24.3 percent decline in the Forest Service's Eastern Region, which encompasses several Midwest and northeastern states.

 

The long-term outlook--a dramatic per-capita decrease and not much increase in real numbers:

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_p049/rmrs_p049_367_373.pdf

 

 

[olyclimber]

 

I really think you're putting words in people's mouths when you say they are "ok with it". I think most people may not be "ok with it" but also might be disenfranchised from anything even remotely involving politics and have just decided to to deal with what ever hand they have been dealt the best they can.

 

As for permits, I can see them being useful in targeted areas that are seeing overuse and destruction of the environment. out side of that, I think they shouldn't exist. But I also think that federal areas should be free to visit and fully funded by the resources that are drawn from them across the land.

 

 

[AlpineK]

It appears the USFS permitting system for the Enchantments is similar to the system for Mt. Whitney

 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/okawen/passes-permits/recreation/?cid=fsbdev3_053607

 

They both use a lottery system. Fees at Whitney are a flat $15 but the Enchantments charge $5/person/day. I'm not sure how they come up with those fees, but it doesn't appear to be a good money making system in either case.

 

If either chunks of land were my private property and making money off hikers was my business I'd charge a lot more than $5/person/day for entry permits

 

Yes they do control the system and set rules but the alternatives at either end of the spectrum sound bad

 

• No use of any kind is allowed - That would suck
  
• Unrestricted use - The place would get trashed in no time
  

[Fairweather]

It appears the USFS permitting system for the Enchantments is similar to the system for Mt. Whitney

 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/okawen/passes-permits/recreation/?cid=fsbdev3_053607

 

They both use a lottery system. Fees at Whitney are a flat $15 but the Enchantments charge $5/person/day. I'm not sure how they come up with those fees, but it doesn't appear to be a good money making system in either case.

 

If either chunks of land were my private property and making money off hikers was my business I'd charge a lot more than $5/person/day for entry permits

 

Yes they do control the system and set rules but the alternatives at either end of the spectrum sound bad

 

• No use of any kind is allowed - That would suck
  
• Unrestricted use - The place would get trashed in no time
  

 

If real and significant physical damage is occurring then some sort of overnight use restrictions may be occasionally warranted. However, I would argue that "the place would get trashed" sentiment is a sort of red herring because a.)the present quota/permit system needlessly creates artificial demand; b.)repairing lost road access to traditional trail heads throughout the wilderness system would effectively disperse use; c.)the imposition of solitude is not true solitude--nor is it an adequate reason to restrict freedom of access; d.)day use should never be restricted, permitted, or taxed--anywhere; and, e.)as already stated, wilderness use is declining or static.

[AlpineK]

Yee Haw

 

[img:center]http://www.4x4offroads.com/image-files/formula-off-road-akureyri-2006-399.jpg[/img]