14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

[Jim Davies]

2) "Why not just add a box where people can leave an optional donation if they are so inclined? It wouldn't have to be collected on a daily basis, and they could raise some money that way from the people who are willing to pay."

There's a donation box at the trailhead for Bel/Ox/Missouri, anyone know how much that brings in on an annual basis? There's almost no way it can bring in more than a minimal parking fee would.

The donation box at the Barr Trailhead brings in a few hundred dollars per year, which is a small fraction of the annual cost of maintaining the trail. The $5/day parking fee for that lot probably brings in more than that per day.

[Waggs]

...

2) I think the idea of ecological impact may be somewhat overblown. A lot of the modern 14'er trails can handle the impact of many feet. Paying a fee isn't going to change how these feet impact the mountain. If I pay $20/climb, what difference is it going to make on the 14'er itself? These fees rarely cover more than trailhead maintenance anyway, if they even get allocated for that use.

I read the first few pages of the report from the link given earlier.

Bits I found interesting (not necessarily in any given order):

In our case, we hypothesize that
there are different demand elasticities for hikers who are willing to
substitute their Fourteener recreation for another Fourteener or to
a Thirteener. We hypothesize that these decreases in demand are
due to a substitution effect, rather than the result of an income
effect. If the income effect is small, then this would reduce the
concern that entrance fees as a rationing device would price out
low-income users and those that could not afford access at the new
prices.

We also investigate the hypothesis that there will be
considerably higher value, measured in willingness to pay for peak
access, to hikers who have strong preferences for and therefore
limited substitutes for their current Fourteener.


Our study site is Colorado’s Rocky Mountains, which have 54
peaks that are over 14,000 feet (nearly 3 km) above sea level. These
peaks are referred to as ‘‘Fourteeners’’ both individually and
collectively. While exact numbers for recreational visitor use can be
challenging to obtain (English et al., 2002), data collected by the
USDA Forest Service and affliate groups allow us to estimate that
a minimum of 100,000 people from within the state and all across
the country specifcally seek recreation at Colorado Fourteeners
each year (Colorado Fourteeners Initiative, 2007; Frazier, 2006;
Kedrowski, 2006).

Fourteener recreation activities include day
hiking, camping, off road vehicle trails, wildlife viewing and
photography opportunities. However, one of the most popular
activities is ‘‘peak bagging’’, when the hiker attempts to summit
one, or all of the 54 Fourteeners. Despite continuing issues relating
to environmental management of these peaks on public lands,
there are no estimates of the economic value or price responsiveness of Fourteener hikers to fees.

While the report states intent on reducing environmental impact, I'm still trying to understand how research was done under the context of (from the first post):

During her study, Catherine will be exploring sustainable economic development practices in the fragile mountain ecosystems of rural mountain communities.
During the first phase the study, Catherine and her colleagues conducted stakeholder meetings in the rural Colorado towns of Alma and Leadville. The meetings combined government officials and citizens in order to gather information from all individuals regarding the transition from a mining economy to a recreational economy. Opinions from the community members regarding economic development were vital to the research study and well-being of the areas...

Maybe the above should be reinterpreted (by me) as: will a fee system create economic hardship for you Mr. or Ms. small town?

Waggs

[MountainHiker]

Impact on resources are heralded as a reason for the fees, but fees will do nothing for the trails. Fees tend to get collected by private concessionaires who will patrol the gateway areas where the fees are collected. Any efficiency realized by private verses government won’t be passed on to the user. It will go to the company that won the monopoly for access to the area. Anything other than a minor fee to pay for outhouse cleaning and parking lot grading is money that will dissipate into nothing of benefit to the user. This will be true whether it’s government or private collecting the fee. Trails are not maintained by trailhead fees. Donate to CFI for that.

[ClimbandMine]

1) The USFS does receive taxpayer money. We're already paying for these things, albeit indirectly.

2) I think the idea of ecological impact may be somewhat overblown. A lot of the modern 14'er trails can handle the impact of many feet. Paying a fee isn't going to change how these feet impact the mountain. If I pay $20/climb, what difference is it going to make on the 14'er itself? These fees rarely cover more than trailhead maintenance anyway, if they even get allocated for that use.

3) The annual pass system is already failing (see my post on Brainard Lake).

1 - The USFS is woefully underfunded to adequately provide what most people would consider a reasonable level of service. Even then, the USFS has to disproportionately allocate resources to many of these super high use areas which leaves other areas resource starved. Ever wonder why there's no TP in the outhouse? It's because the rangers are busy running back and forth between trailheads elsewhere.

2 - My point was that the trailhead facilities and roads do not maintain themselves. If you want to drive your vehicle to the trailhead instead of parking down on the county road and hoofing it in for 10 miles, then you may want to rethink your aversion to fees. The USFS cannot afford to regrade most roads every year, and before the hordes of hikers started entering some of these areas the USFS would regrade the road once every 5 - 10 years. Now, (think Grays and Torreys) they need to regrade the road every 1-2 years. It just means that somewhere else a road that needs to be maintained is not getting the maintenance it needs.

3 - I don't agree with a private concessionaire being able to ignore the pass system. But... This is a taste of what is to come. The USFS is under immense political pressure to turn over many of these functions to private concessionaires because the forest service can provide it's services elsewhere whereas the private groups can provide "better" service (at less cost?!?!). It's just another form of corporate welfare, but this is what has happened to most of the national parks over the last few decades, and it's creeping into the forest service now.

1 - Your point about the USFS being underfunded is irrelevant. The US government is well funded by our taxes (although in the opinion of many spending needs to be cut to match the revenue coming in and taxes need to increase some to balance). Our taxes are simply poorly allocated. If certain department is "underfunded", that is a matter of opinion and the relative lobbying power of the base of support. Forest fires receive a higher allocation than trails in the USFS because more people are affected.

2 / 3 - if fees are not collected than additional bureaucracy needed to collect and service those fees well not increase along with it. (See Mt. Evans fiasco). Less infrastructure = less need for fees. Same with roads. A rougher road in S. Colony meant less people close to the peak. The FS smoothed the road thus more people. Thus a push for fees to decrease the user base and manage the impacts. How 'bout manage the impacts with tougher access without the fees and the increased bureaucracy / # of rangers? oh wait, this is the US government we are talking about...

[SteveBonowski]

Navigaiter: "I've seen people on Longs who don't even know what mountain they're on...." I led Mt. Democrat last weekend for CMC and chatted up several persons who didn't know where Democrat was; where Lincoln was in relationship to the trail they were taking to the Cameron/Democrat saddle. Fortunately the weather was perfect.

"I would pay $20 annually if it went directly to the upkeep of 14ers......You can already do this by donating directly to CFI....." CFI doesn't cover all the 14ers. The work to gain access and then build some new trail in 2006-11 on Wilson Peak was done by the USFS, CMC, Telluride Mountain Club. BLM has been doing its own maintenance on its three 14ers.

In addition, where do 14ers begin and end? Sounds like a dumb question?? Not really. Every USFS 14er is in a ranger district & forest that has a management plan in place, or undergoing revision. CFI does not get into monitoring of plans or advocating for certain points of view. That gets done by the CMC and a few smaller groups, like Quiet Use Coalition in Chaffee County. Upkeep of 14ers needs more than just CFI getting money. Supporting CMC's conservation program; QUC; VOC (which is now doing some 14er work); Rocky Mountain Field Institute in Colorado Springs; etc. also is important.

(Disclosure: I've been a major donor to CFI since 1994)

Someone mentioned the possibility of a State Parks & Trails license plate. That may come sooner than one thinks, if a slot in the specialty plate list opens up. The number of causes on license plates is limited by the law that authorizes same. A lot of CFI's money comes from the grants program at Colorado Parks & Wildlife. Much of the non-motorized grant pool comes from the Land & Water Conservation Fund, which is funded by off-shore drilling royalties. That funding is seldom funded at the $1.9 billion level authorized by Congress, but gets diverted off for other budget purposes. There is also ideological opposition in the current Congress to acquisition of more lands, some of which is funded by LWCF. Another source of revenue is federal gas tax money that comes back to the states. Cars are now more efficient and use less gas. People are driving smarter, which means less mileage. So, gas tax revenues have been in decline.

If Colorado CPW is going to keep funding non-motorized trails at anywhere near the current level of funding, other sources of revenue need to be identified.

[BillMiddlebrook]

A lot of CFI's money comes from the grants program at Colorado Parks & Wildlife.

Yup, Steve, but that's changing fast. In the past few years, we've been able to get Individual Donations up to 24% which is equal to Government Grants (which are progressively going down). Why is this important? Because individual donations are UNRESTRICTED FUNDS and can be used on any project - not so with most other types of contributions. Since I joined the CFI Board in 2009, my personal mission has been to beat the bushes and generate as many individual donations as possible. CFI is growing and doing more each year and we can't depend on government money to make sure these projects are funded. Adopt-a-peak, hot-shot crews and major projects meant CFI trail work on 20 peaks last year. This includes minor trail restoration and major trail projects like Mt. Yale, Chi Basin and Mt. of the Holy Cross.

If we ever get to a fee/permit system for the popular 14ers, it would be crazy if CFI wasn't one of the main beneficiaries of the funds. Seriously

[edhaman]

I propose this for our new national anthem, or at least the anthem for beautiful Taxorado:

"Should fifty per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.

Don't ask me what I want it for
If you don't want to pay some more
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me."

-Tax Man, by The Beatles

[pseudoghost]

1 - Your point about the USFS being underfunded is irrelevant. The US government is well funded by our taxes (although in the opinion of many spending needs to be cut to match the revenue coming in and taxes need to increase some to balance). Our taxes are simply poorly allocated. If certain department is "underfunded", that is a matter of opinion and the relative lobbying power of the base of support. Forest fires receive a higher allocation than trails in the USFS because more people are affected.

I don't think it's irrelevant. If you want usable roads and trailhead facilities then you have to pay for them some way. Whether that's through taxes or through usage fees, the money must come from somewhere. Since it seems unlikely that the USFS budget is going to be increased in the current political climate, then it seems reasonable to at least consider usage fees as an alternative. Otherwise, don't complain when you can't get to the trailhead. (As an aside, I do agree that federal spending needs to be reigned in, but that's neither here nor there, the only relevance to this discussion is that if the USFS budget sucks this badly in times of "excess", imagine what it will be like in times of "austerity").

2 / 3 - if fees are not collected than additional bureaucracy needed to collect and service those fees well not increase along with it. (See Mt. Evans fiasco). Less infrastructure = less need for fees. Same with roads. A rougher road in S. Colony meant less people close to the peak. The FS smoothed the road thus more people. Thus a push for fees to decrease the user base and manage the impacts. How 'bout manage the impacts with tougher access without the fees and the increased bureaucracy / # of rangers? oh wait, this is the US government we are talking about...

Well at least your viewpoint is consistent. The Mt Evans fiasco was another subject in its entirety, the USFS was charging for a road that it did not own.

[Mtn Geek]

How would they be able to maintain a fee for only 14ers? If they charge for parking, then anybody who wants to hike the 13ers in the area end up paying the 14er fee. Then there are ways around paying the fee, find a different approach.

Or, they could set up a kiosk, or drop box where you insert your money and have a tag showing you paid. Then what, man a ranger on the summit making sure everybody paid? And what if your caught without your permit and refuse to pay? You could run down the mountain with the ranger chasing you. Now nobody is manning the peak.

Their is no way they can get everybody to pay the fee, only at the busy trailheads.

Is this fee for all 14ers or just the busy ones? I would have to imagine that Culebra does not count since it sits on private property.

[edhaman]

I don’t complain when I can’t get to the trailhead. Just like I don’t complain because the route I want to take has a lot of scree or switchbacks. It’s all part of the mountaineering experience. Considering the current economy, I don’t think this is a time “excess.” If the government wants to go with user fees, then don’t “double-dip” by also making us pay taxes for the same agency/service. These western federal lands were paid for by taxpayers (mostly the Louisiana Purchase, the Oregon Treaty of 1846, and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848), so they already belong to “us.” And if we weren’t paying so much in taxes for failed social engineering programs, pork barrel projects, and general government waste and inefficiency, we’d have more to allocate to the USFS.

[Aug_Dog]

While I agree $20/climb is ridiculous, I would pay $20 annually if I knew it went directly to the upkeep of 14ers.

You can already do this by donating directly to CFI: http://www.14ers.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Best post I have seen so far in this thread! I donated for the first time the other day and I actually felt badly about how small my gift was. I would have given much, much more if I could, but I fully plan on donating more when I can. What CFI is doing for the 14er community is so understated it's ridiculous.

I climbed Grays/Torreys for the first time many years ago. When I first went up, the trail was a trail. It still felt like a wilderness area. Looking down upon the basin from Edwards last weekend, it looks like I-25 during rush hour. I would have no problem whatsoever charging for that hike, as we collectively are just DESTROYING that basin, one of the more beautiful in the state. If you didn't know, there used to be a train to the top of Mt. McClellan some 100 years ago. Tourists paid for that train ticket to see the BEAUTIFUL sight of Grays/Torreys, what I would imagine was an incredibly majestic sight for those early travelers.

These days, we trample all over that earth and shotgun beers at the top.

Charge the effing hell out of that ascent. Please. Seriously.

Same with Longs.

[Aug_Dog]

To add to my above post, I would honestly pay $50 to climb Grays/Torreys again sans idiots. I would absolutely love to see less than 50 people on that trail. I've done Grays twice and Torrey once. My GF has done neither. I am very firm on this: I am NOT going back to that basin unless it's a Tuesday or the apocalypse has left the earth bare of humans. Kelso is so high on my list of coveted routes, but I don't want anything to do with Stephens Gulch and the complete BS that the uncaring bring to that area. Call me a "14er hipster" all you want, but I don't want to share the trail with the asshat populace that frequents the popular trails these days.

Charge the S*IT out of Grays/Torreys. Please!