14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

[greenhorn1]

$20 per mountain? F**k that.

[wildlobo71]

This cannot be solely directed at the 14ers, I'd prefer it to be trail-heads if anything, because like Ian mentioned above - it's more to do with the trail-heads and vehicles than specifically trails on the mountain. If this were to be enacted (and I am not immediately a proponent of it,) I like the blend of the following ideas -

1. Charge a per visit fee of $3 or 5 bucks; do it like they collect at Kite Lake with a secure box and windshield tags. Save all the window tags you "collect" and these can be receipts for tax deductions.
2. If you are into more visits than just a few, or you just want to not worry about carrying cash, pay for an annual Trailhead Pass (good at any TH not already covered by other fees - i.e. RMNP). It's a windshield sticker or rear-window sticker. This could be $25, and of course - tax deductible.
3. If you are really gung-ho, get a personalized license plate (and it shouldn't just cover 14ers - it should be about the trailheads more than the specific peaks) and renew it like you typically renew plates (registration is already deductible.) No, this option does not give you prime parking options next to the Forest Service sign-in box.

We all know that there are ways to skirt this if you object, so that will always be an option if you so choose. There's absolutely no way to enforce this 100% - sort of like riding the Light Rail - I have only gotten asked to present a ticket once in a decade... but I buy the ticket *most* every time because it's still cheaper than the penalty ticket.

[denvermikey]

At $20 a pop, there would have been several thousand dollars collected yesterday just for Gray's and Torrey's. My son and I did Edwards and just sat in awe from the summit watching the unbelievable masses of people assaulting G&T. There was easily 50 on top of Gray's (that we could see) and well over 100 on the trail leading to the summit. I swear I thought there was a release party for the new IPhone or something. Plenty more on the saddle, summit of Torrey's and lower down on the trail heading up. It was unreal to watch.
I am not really for or against fees, but I do tend to agree with be OK with it if I knew most of it went to maintaining the areas. I mean, we could trust our government to do that, right?
There are so many ways to climb several of the 14ers, how would they collect from all climbers? Set up a booth at the summit? I don't really see this happening.

[forbins_mtn]

this is obviously just the gov't looking at a growing sport and recreational activity and wanting to make money on it, right? i can give the pros and cons of it - but it just comes down to revenue, and someone wanting to find a way to make money on a growing interest. one of the reasons i love hiking is that i haven't spent a dime on it all summer besides gas to get there and food.

i'd be all in for a Parks and Trails License Plate though. Get me annual access to state and national parks. I do it anyways for a few of them

[KBenzar]

Since my message to coloradokevin started this thread, I would like to contribute some more information that I've found. I think the paper that Keske will be presenting in Estes Park next month is probably the one that's available at http://asm.lternet.edu/sites/asm.lterne ... %20JEM.pdf
Here is the abstract:

High alpine peaks throughout the world are under increasing environmental pressure from hikers,
trekkers, and climbers. Colorado’s ‘‘Fourteeners’’, peaks with summits above 14,000 feet are no exception.
Most of these peaks have no entrance fees, and reach ecological and social carrying capacity on
weekends. This paper illustrates how a series of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions can
be used to evaluate substitutability between different alpine peaks and quantify the price responsiveness
to an entrance fee. Using this approach, we find that peak load pricing would decrease use of popular
Fourteeners in Colorado by 22%. This reduction is due almost entirely to substitution, rather than income
effects. There is also price inelastic demand, as 60% of the hikers find no substitution for their specific
Fourteener at the varying cost increases posed in the survey. The no substitute group has a mean net
benefit of $294 per hiker, per trip, considerably higher than visitor net benefits in most recreational use
studies.

There are several pricing schemes discussed including a $70 per person fee to reduce overall use by 20% and variable pricing to try and shift use from peak periods and weekends to weekdays and shoulder seasons.

[Doug Shaw]

You people who are saying you might support it "as long as the money is spent on 14ers" are a special kind of naïve.

I bet you support lotteries because the funds go toward education, and that it warms your heart knowing that the government is setting aside the dedicated revenue from the social security tax to help people live a decent life when they retire.

[edhaman]

So the primary purpose of this tax is to prevent some citizens from accessing their wilderness areas. This would certainly be a "regressive" tax, with the biggest effect on lower-income people.

[14erFred]

Montani semper liberi!

[sunny1]

^^^ re: EdHaman's post: That's what bothers me about the fees. There are low income folks, students, etc., that a $20 access fee could mean not being able to get gas for their car, food for the week, etc.

If they can clearly establish that the fees paid go to improve and maintain the TH areas, I am personally not opposed to paying a fee.
I would also agree with part of the fee supporting local SAR teams.

If the fees will be funneled back to nearby towns and counties, I don't agree with that. The towns and counties aren't receiving the same wear and tear as the mountains are with similar impacts, as the mountains have become increasingly popular over the past few years.

[ajkagy]

I'll get ripped for this but I thInk Longs should be permit-based. Not saying they should necessarily charge for the permit, but I think a permit should be required. 7 rescues in one day!? That's why.

permit for longs is a great idea, the same way they have permits for Whitney and half dome...surprised the NPS hasn't even thought of it yet.

I don't really think fees for most 14ers are warranted, except for maybe the front range 14ers and a few of the more popular areas. a TON of money could be made from bierstadt/grays and torreys.

[OBC13]

Considering the obesity issue in the USA, shouldn't we be encouraging people to get outside?

The other issue is that we should be training people how to enjoy the outdoors with minimal impact.

Yes. But who is the "we"? CMC provides training based on membership. REI provides some training. The government does not need to provide training.
Encouraging people to get outside does not mean encouraging obese individuals to attempt 14ers. Besides this has nothing to do with fees for 14ers. How do fees encourage anyone?

[TheF79]

Just to give a bit of perspective on these types of studies, they aren't trying evaluate whether people think a policy SHOULD go into place, rather, if a fee was in place, would they pay it? WTP studies are designed to elicit people's "true" valuation for "non-market goods" like 14er recreation. If we go back 40 years or so, non-market goods (recreational values, amenity values, species conservation, biodiversity) basically received ZERO consideration in government cost-benefit analysis. So even though we would all agree that 14ers are valuable resources, if a mine wanted to blow up a mountain, the fact that recreation value would be harmed would not have been formally considered in CBA. It's been studies not too different from this WTP study that have demonstrated to federal agencies that people do derive LOTS of value from recreational amenities, which needs to be considered. Anyway, determining how much people value recreational amenities is a different beast than asking, from a public policy perspective, "should users pay a fee?" [/economist] While I could see how this study could result in some bad public policy, this study mostly appears to be telling us what we already know - we love the mountains and they provide tremendous value to our lives.