14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

[groomden]

Why not offer a Colorado High Peaks or 14ers license plate option instead for $20 bucks? I'd go for that, if I lived in Colorado of course. For the tourists, it seems short sighted to add extra fees on to the $800+ I'm bringing to the state each weekend I visit just in airfare and hotel expenses. Once I get a car and buy a couple meals I easily am spending $1500 for a thursday to Sunday visit. The week my family spends with me each early August is easily a $3500 trip as well. Don't even get me started about once boarding season hits...

dennis

[Brian C]

Not sure about fees (I'd sure rather not pay them!), but it seems like a permit system of some sort is going to be inevitable in the future. The point would be to simply limit the number of people up there. The "easy" and popular 14ers are becoming so crowded it's hard to walk up/down the trails and if their popularity continues to increase something is going to have to change.

Edit: I think a SMALL fee (3-5 bucks) to get one of a limited number of daily permits to hike one of the most popular 14ers wouldn't be too bad as long as the money went to something awesome like CFI. That way it'd fund a great organization that helps maintain the peaks while also bringing down the number of people to a reasonable level.

[Jim Davies]

Once again, Catherine Keske has come up with a bogus study result that will be widely mocked by 14er climbers. Does anybody really believe that the average climber spends $150 per 14er summit?

The thing that invalidates this study is who she was asking: basically, she asked the people who will be RECEIVING the fees. Of course people in towns near the 14ers think the "outsiders" should pay for access. Try asking the same questions in Denver at a CMC meeting, and you won't get 60% agreement, I can guarantee you.

[Waggs]

...

The thing that invalidates this study is who she was asking: basically, she asked the people who will be RECEIVING the fees. Of course people in towns near the 14ers think the "outsiders" should pay for access. ...

And even these people appear to be very short sided. *IF* i have to spend $20 to attempt a summit that is close to their town, then that is $20 (or more) of revenue that that town will not be receiving from from me (or my group) in after summit celebration.

It also seems to me that this will consume far more revenue in (attempted) enforcement than will be collected.

Waggs

[Navigaiter]

I actually wouldn't be averse to a fee on the Grays/Torreys/Bierstadts of the world. I also wouldn't be completely averse to the Longs permit idea. I've seen people on Longs who don't even know what mountain they're on.

Then again, there's a huge part of me that is completely against charging me a fee to access public lands. I don't want to see Colorado turn into Coloeurope.

I also fear the degradation of the more remote routes on some of the easier peaks. If a fee were charged at Stephens Gulch, it's inevitable that people will start using Horseshoe Basin or Chihuahua Gulch more, and I just don't want to see those off-the-beaten-track routes become pedestrian routes.

[ThuChad]

While I agree $20/climb is ridiculous, I would pay $20 annually if I knew it went directly to the upkeep of 14ers. I would guess that for the majority of people that climb 14ers they get 1-2 done annually. I would guess the average is closer to 4-5 for active 14ers.com site members.

The fee would be minimal per 14er for frequent climbers and higher for the one 14er in a lifetime climber. It may slightly cut down on traffic also.

[Jim Davies]

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;

[OBC13]

When I saw this topic I started to just leave the site and ignore it because the whole idea really ticks me off. As a Colorado native who has been in these mountains since the 1960's I can tell you that this is not just a bureaucratic issue of rights and money. It is indicative of the deterioration of the quality of life in Colorado. Colorado hiking is going to go the way of Colorado skiing at this rate; expensive and elitist.
I don't want to pay anything to hike a 14er. And what real good would $20 do? To administer such a program would expend the guts of the $20 anyway. And just HOW would such a program be administered? Are you going to have a ranger at every trailhead? Or on summits checking for permits? I would be immediately motivated to climb the peaks without a permit by going to trailheads that are not staffed and telling anybody who doesn't like it to (fill in the blank).
It would take a lot more money than $20 per hiker to have toilet facilities at all the trail heads. If they want to make this totally intolerable why not limit access to the peaks based on training and ability? The state could fund CMC to issue licenses based on their A, B, C and D climber classifications. Then each hike would be classified and only climbers with the appropriate credentials would be allowed to hike. (There are probably some who would even agree with such a preposterous notion.) Wyoming is looking better all the time.

[ThuChad]

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;

I have done that but I doubt the hoards at Kite Lake have.

[Waggs]

The thread is veering off on what would be done with the money. Seems to me that that has already been determined:

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.


The money (appears to me) to be a source of revenue generation for the "towns". Plain and simple, a recreation tax.

And as Jim D. pointed out earlier, if you are a towns member and presented with:

Would you rather receive money from those evil polluting mining companies or hikers who have unlimited disposable income by virtue of what they do (hyperbole intended)?

Which option would you choose?

Waggs

[edhaman]

If Waggs is correct about the purpose of these taxes is to benefit Alma and Leadville, I'd have to ask: Why is the federal government involved in something solely to benefit two small communities? This "study" and all that goes with it doesn't seem to be a proper use of federal taxpayer funds by the Forest Service. Maybe our legislators would like to know how the NFS is misusing its funds.

[MountainHiker]

Who would collect the fee? A private concessionaire? (Kite Lake) Who would build the facilities? The tax payer?

I wouldn’t object to a small fee, like $3 to $5 per vehicle, if it went directly to building & maintenance of facilities at the trailhead. Quandary & Sherman could use outhouses.

But $20 smells more like a private concessionaire collecting money for maintaining tax payer constructed camp ground. Constructed campgrounds tend to lessen the capacity of a trailhead. “This spot is ours” instead of “ I saw a tent spot just over here when I was scouting for mine.” Improved trailhead parking lots tend to come with no-camping signs.

Just build an outhouse and increase the capacity of the parking lot. For that a small fee per car would be reasonable. We already support CFI for trail work.