Forum
Buying gear? Please use these links to help 14ers.com:

More info...

Other ways to help...

14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Colorado 14ers access and fee issues only, please

Are you okay with paying a user fee to access Colorado 14'ers?

Yes, for all 14'ers.
24
9%
Maybe, for certain areas.
40
14%
Maybe, but only if the fees were small.
30
11%
No, fees should generally not be charged to access these areas.
182
66%
 
Total votes : 276
User avatar
Posts: 108
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Denver

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Postby MrFrumpylane » Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:04 pm

SilverLynx wrote:
MrFrumpylane wrote:Typical.. I blame this whole mess on the CSU professor for conducting this research. (Just trying to gear up for football season, people!)

Go Buffs! 8)

And oh, for the record, I'm against the fees.

Any idea which CSU professor is doing this research? I may have taken a class with him/her.


EDIT: Someone beat me to it.

User avatar
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 9:12 am

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Postby Hungry Jack » Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:12 pm

LtWitte wrote:
Hungry Jack wrote:So let's dispense with the drama and hyperbole. It's not guns or butter. The Germans didn't just bomb Pearl Harbor. Sputnik is not up there spying on us. It has little to do with our national trajectory.


Alright, I'll give you that one...except for the "Germans bombing Pearl Harbor." I know what you meant. :D

You are right that this will not change the election or make it to a national stage, but it is a little taste of the taxation debate that we are currently having on a larger scale that will affect this nation. I'm not one to lay down my guns on any taxation debate, especially when it involves increasing taxes. (oh, and the guns reference is a metaphor.) I know we got people from California, Illinois and Massachusetts on this forum so I have to be careful.


Well, I don't fit the political stereotype of one who lives in Chicago. I feel taxed to death in a country, county, state and city that cannot manage its fiscal affairs. It's a disaster on all levels. But I'll stop there.

But my point is that the love of the outdoors probably has the potential to sway individuals on this issue away from positions that might be attributed to their party of choice. But I guess as someone whose views are probably pretty pronounced Libertarian views, "pay for what you use" might fit. But as you argue, I may be paying twice, which is something I would be willing to do. 14ers are that important, even to a flatlander.
I need more dehydrogenase.

Online
User avatar
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 3:32 pm
Location: Westminster, CO

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Postby mikemalick » Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:22 pm

I cannot remember for sure, but I believe it was at the Mt Massive TH a couple years back where I saw a voluntary "contribution" box/post. I was happy to throw some money in there and it was my choice to do so, to park at that location, etc. I don't recall seeing that type of arrangement at other THs. Anyone know if this was tried on a larger scale in the past, but failed due to maintenance issues, incompetence, theft, etc? I just hope the money that goes into those is used for work in that area rather than being wasted in a general fund somewhere. I have nothing to back it up, but I think most folks would be much more amenable to a voluntary contribution arrangement like that...especially if those funds were explicitly destined for projects right there.

User avatar
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:57 am
Location: Lakewood, CO

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Postby PeteDunnewald » Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:26 pm

Hungry Jack wrote:I may be paying twice, which is something I would be willing to do. 14ers are that important, even to a flatlander.

Aww, come on! How about groceries? Are you willing to pay twice for them? They're pretty important.
We pay enough in taxes and fees.
Pete

User avatar
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 9:12 am

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Postby Hungry Jack » Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:33 pm

4Lo wrote:
Hungry Jack wrote:I may be paying twice, which is something I would be willing to do. 14ers are that important, even to a flatlander.

Aww, come on! How about groceries? Are you willing to pay twice for them? They're pretty important.
We pay enough in taxes and fees.
Pete


That's a weak rebuttal. Groceries are available everywhere with all kinds of options. There is nothing special or unique about groceries, and they are consumer goods meant to be gobbled up and pooped out (sometimes on top of a 14er).

And since I am not around to volunteer and do trail work in CO (I have built a lot of trail in the Missouri Ozarks), paying a 14er fee would be a simple way to compensate for my use. But then again, I could just mail a check to CFI, which is probably something I need to do.
I need more dehydrogenase.

User avatar
Posts: 139
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 2:15 pm
Location: Little Rock, Arkansas

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Postby CHWitte » Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:38 pm

Hungry Jack wrote:That's a weak rebuttal. Groceries are available everywhere with all kinds of options. There is nothing special or unique about groceries, and they are consumer goods meant to be gobbled up and pooped out (sometimes on top of a 14er).

And since I am not around to volunteer and do trail work in CO (I have built a lot of trail in the Missouri Ozarks), paying a 14er fee would be a simple way to compensate for my use. But then again, I could just mail a check to CFI, which is probably something I need to do.


But why pay twice if you don't have too?? Why would you let the government charge you twice for something and get away with it? Surely as a Libertarian as you say, the government is not what you desire to be messing in your everyday life, especially one of your favorite hobbies, is it? Why not vote people into Congress who will use part of the $2.9 trillion to apportion more money to the NFS?

User avatar
Posts: 285
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 2:08 pm

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Postby nfire » Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:44 pm

LtWitte wrote:
But why pay twice if you don't have too??

to

User avatar
Posts: 1544
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:33 pm
Location: Arvada, CO

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Postby coloradokevin » Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:47 pm

Watching the last few posts develop has given me another thought. A few things have been suggested here in the past couple of hours:

1) The amount of money that the forest service already receives, and the extra amount they'd need to receive to cover additional costs on trails, would be a tiny drop in a HUGE bucket. $5 Billion is the entire budget for the USFS, whereas our government currently brings in approximately $2.3 Trillion in annual tax revenue. As such, if my math is correct on this, the ENTIRE budget for the USFS is approximately 0.2% of our nation's budget.

2) It is unlikely that a politician is going to make or break their career on this issue alone.

3) Whether we collect fees or not, we're talking about a tiny amount of money in the grand scheme of things (nationally), but we're talking about an issue that also irritates a lot of Americans who hike on a regular basis. The representatives and senators that we have elected in this state may be willing to listen to our gripe on this issue, simply because they can gain our support with little political cost (in other words, they don't have to make someone else mad to make us happy -- they only stand to gain votes by taking a firm stance in favor of a no-fee position).


With these facts in mind, I actually think we're in a good position to convince our politicians to NOT support a fee system. First of all, they probably won't lose any elections by standing up for an issue like this one. More importantly, they'll get a chance to gain a few political points by showing how much they are standing up for the rights of hard-working Americans, and supporting our ability to enjoy our national forests. In short, a simple issue like this one can span political parties, and we can potentially gain the support of our elected officials simply by letting them know that this is an important issue to a lot of us that live near national forests.

If Senators Udall or Bennet (or any candidates who might be running against them) were called to task on this issue, they could easily support our position without worrying about losing votes in other areas. As such, they'd gain votes for free. In other words, we don't have a strong group of voters who are angrily supporting fees, just a group that angrily opposes fees. This is a rare "gimme" in politics.

If a politician takes a stance on abortion (any stance), they naturally anger the other side of the issue. If they take a stance on guns (any stance), they'll make one group happy while making the other group angry. Because of this trend many politicians are forced to carefully weigh their support for any group, for fear of losing too many votes on the other side of the line. But, that's not what we have here. What we have is a group of hikers/climbers who are opposing usage fees, and on the other side of the line are a whole bunch of Americans who were unaware of the issue, and just don't care to begin with.

But, I can tell you that my support for a politician is easy to get on this issue (as I mentioned, it's free), but it is also easy to lose (because this is important to me). I do believe that those of us who feel strongly on this issue would be well served by communicating this information to our current elected officials, as well as candidates who may be seeking office this fall. After all, many elections are won by narrow margins, and grabbing the low hanging fruit for a few votes is sometimes enough to push a candidate over the edge.

Anyway, my dog just told me that it's time to take her for her daily hike... I'll come back to this issue later!
Last edited by coloradokevin on Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:19 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:57 am
Location: Lakewood, CO

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Postby PeteDunnewald » Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:48 pm

Hungry Jack wrote:
4Lo wrote:
Hungry Jack wrote:I may be paying twice, which is something I would be willing to do. 14ers are that important, even to a flatlander.

Aww, come on! How about groceries? Are you willing to pay twice for them? They're pretty important.
We pay enough in taxes and fees.
Pete


That's a weak rebuttal. Groceries are available everywhere with all kinds of options. There is nothing special or unique about groceries, and they are consumer goods meant to be gobbled up and pooped out (sometimes on top of a 14er).

And since I am not around to volunteer and do trail work in CO (I have built a lot of trail in the Missouri Ozarks), paying a 14er fee would be a simple way to compensate for my use. But then again, I could just mail a check to CFI, which is probably something I need to do.

Sorry for the dumb/weak (just saw the edit) rebuttal. My point is: Why would you want to pay more for something that was already paid for? Doesn't really matter what it is.
Contributing to the CFI is a great way to get trail work and other things that directly impact the 14ers done. I have zero confidence that money collected by a governmental agency is going to go towards what they said it would.
Pete

User avatar
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 9:12 am

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Postby Hungry Jack » Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:52 pm

LtWitte wrote:
Hungry Jack wrote:That's a weak rebuttal. Groceries are available everywhere with all kinds of options. There is nothing special or unique about groceries, and they are consumer goods meant to be gobbled up and pooped out (sometimes on top of a 14er).

And since I am not around to volunteer and do trail work in CO (I have built a lot of trail in the Missouri Ozarks), paying a 14er fee would be a simple way to compensate for my use. But then again, I could just mail a check to CFI, which is probably something I need to do.


But why pay twice if you don't have too?? Why would you let the government charge you twice for something and get away with it? Surely as a Libertarian as you say, the government is not what you desire to be messing in your everyday life, especially one of your favorite hobbies, is it? Why not vote people into Congress who will use part of the $2.9 trillion to apportion more money to the NFS?


It's simple. I value 14ers a lot more than I currently pay to use them (whatever imaginary figure that may be). It's voting with your wallet. It is the ultimate expression of freedom (for those who have economic choice).

Others here have suggested a willingness to pay a fee if they could be assured that the funds would be deployed locally for capital improvements. This makes the decision easier, and addresses your point about the $2.9T cesspool.

I won't vote people into office who will support 14ers because: 1) they don't exist, at least in terms of a policy preference, because no one is going to campaign on this issue; 2) if they did exist, they would probably have stances on other issues that would turn me off; and 3) politicians lie all the time.

So the willingness to pay a user fee is a bit like volunteering for a specific cause, like building trails in the Ozarks. You make an investment or contribution of time or money. It goes directly to the intended source. The bureaucracy is minimized. You feel good. Choice made. Utility maximized.
I need more dehydrogenase.

Posts: 4
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 12:37 pm

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Postby KBenzar » Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:55 pm

Although my message to coloradokevin got this conversation going, I have largely stayed out of it. However because the organization I head (Western Slope No-Fee Coalition http://www.westernslopenofee.org) is actively engaged in trying to influence national policy (i.e. congress), and has been for a long time, I will contribute one observation and one suggestion.
The observation is that access fees began as Fee Demo in the late '90s. They were pushed by some key Republican legislators (Ralph Regula, Richard Pombo - both gone now) but were embraced by the Clinton administration and made part of Al Gore's "Reinventing Government" initiative. They have been continued and expanded by both the Bush and Obama administrations. Fees have been supported and opposed by members of congress of both parties. There is plenty of blame (or praise depending on your point of view) to go around and no need to point fingers at each other down here in the real world where we are all just citizens. The prime movers pushing for fees are the commercial interests, led by the American Recreation Coalition http://www.funoutdoors.com/arc/about which promotes "public/private partnerships" that are really privatization of our public lands. ARC proudly claims responsibility for Fee Demo as an "ARC initiative." (see also http://www.parkprivatization.com) Their goal, which is already well advanced, is to accustom us to paying for access, then the commercial interests move in to commercialize that access and profit from it. Anyone who thinks the Forest Service can be trusted to protect us from that is, as one poster phrased it, "a special kind of naive."
Now my suggestion: The long term policy on recreation fees is set in congress and one of the key players is Colorado Senator Mark Udall, who sits on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, chairs the National Parks Subcommittee, and takes a keen interest in National Forest issues. All of you who are Colorado residents and have an opinion about this should send him your thoughts via his constituent webform: http://www.markudall.senate.gov/?p=contact_us Like other members of congress he only accepts comments from his constituents but those of you outside Colorado can write him c/o the National Parks subcommittee at http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-form

I will now crawl back under my rock. Thank you for your time.

User avatar
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 9:12 am

Re: 14'er Climbing Fees Might Be Considered

Postby Hungry Jack » Mon Aug 20, 2012 2:00 pm

KBenzar wrote:Although my message to coloradokevin got this conversation going, I have largely stayed out of it. However because the organization I head (Western Slope No-Fee Coalition http://www.westernslopenofee.org) is actively engaged in trying to influence national policy (i.e. congress), and has been for a long time, I will contribute one observation and one suggestion.
The observation is that access fees began as Fee Demo in the late '90s. They were pushed by some key Republican legislators (Ralph Regula, Richard Pombo - both gone now) but were embraced by the Clinton administration and made part of Al Gore's "Reinventing Government" initiative. They have been continued and expanded by both the Bush and Obama administrations. Fees have been supported and opposed by members of congress of both parties. There is plenty of blame (or praise depending on your point of view) to go around and no need to point fingers at each other down here in the real world where we are all just citizens. The prime movers pushing for fees are the commercial interests, led by the American Recreation Coalition http://www.funoutdoors.com/arc/about which promotes "public/private partnerships" that are really privatization of our public lands. ARC proudly claims responsibility for Fee Demo as an "ARC initiative." (see also http://www.parkprivatization.com) Their goal, which is already well advanced, is to accustom us to paying for access, then the commercial interests move in to commercialize that access and profit from it. Anyone who thinks the Forest Service can be trusted to protect us from that is, as one poster phrased it, "a special kind of naive."
Now my suggestion: The long term policy on recreation fees is set in congress and one of the key players is Colorado Senator Mark Udall, who sits on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, chairs the National Parks Subcommittee, and takes a keen interest in National Forest issues. All of you who are Colorado residents and have an opinion about this should send him your thoughts via his constituent webform: http://www.markudall.senate.gov/?p=contact_us Like other members of congress he only accepts comments from his constituents but those of you outside Colorado can write him c/o the National Parks subcommittee at http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-form

I will now crawl back under my rock. Thank you for your time.


Excellent perspective. Thanks for weighing in. Yikes.

Like many here, I am willing to pay more if it supports upkeep of the natural asset. I would not want to pay a dime for some corporate entity to profit off this.
I need more dehydrogenase.

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest