WMNF Trailhead Fees

Security

hikingnclimbing said:

I never thought of it in terms of supporting some of the items that you listed, especially security. I am very curious as to what they consider to be security at the trailheads. Perhaps I am thinking of more modern day security, but things like cameras and guards jump in to my head. I certainly don't expect someone to make sure that my car stays safe all day. I take it as part of the risk of parking at the trailhead.

Click to expand...

My guess is you've never been a victim of a trailhead breakin or don't do any worrying about it. Having a porcelain throne provided by Uncle Sam is inconsequential in my mind compared to having the windows still intact on my vehicle. It's a long windy ride home if they aren't. Especially cold if it's winter. I'd gladly pay double or even triple the fee if there actually WAS some security. Video surveillance or patrols or what have you. Right now the fee is ostensibly for trail maintenance but only car drivers are paying for that. If you ride the bus or hitchhike to a trailhead you can still use the trails and don't need to pay.

I would like to see the owners/drivers of the vehicles get a little bit of benefit specifically for them. Get ready for the next breakin thread to start soon.

Here's a link to the last one:Break-ins at Lafayette

There's no way to have true security at remote trailheads. There are too many to cover and there's very little police force to cover it. You'd have to pay a much higher fee to get any real coverage and that would drive away too many hikers.

Let's start somewhere

19 Mile Brook, Appalachia and Lafayette are not remote and those are three that crop up regularly as targets. Is the Forest Service doing ANYTHING to stop break-ins even there?

bcskier said:

19 Mile Brook, Appalachia and Lafayette are not remote and those are three that crop up regularly as targets. Is the Forest Service doing ANYTHING to stop break-ins even there?

Click to expand...

I think maybe you are expecting too much from people who are already stretched thin. The Forest Service probably has but a dozen rangers out to do everything from monitor the Alpine zone, answer tourist complaints, etc. etc. The New Hampshire State Police know about these trouble spots and try to patrol as best they can. But we live in a society where people determined to break the law (and alas there are many) will find a way to do so no matter what. Remember the thread where the young lady from China lost her life on Falling Waters and folks (myself included) thought it rediculous the idea of having cell phone towers set up for cell service in the area and other inane ideas? How is putting cameras and the necessary power supplies to run them any different? Besides, cameras are all good and fine, but they will only help out AFTER the crime has been commited. I don't know about you, but wether or not the person gets caught I am still gonna be pissed driving home with a shattered window.

Brian

This thread started with the observation that the laws governing the charging of fees for the use of federal land seem to require that certain services be provided if fees are charged. One of those services was security. If you think what the WMNF does fulfills that requirement then there is nothing more I can say on the subject and still be germane to this thread.

griffin said:

I dug up one of the discussions here:
http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=14210&page=4&pp=15&highlight=fees+ruled+illegal

This is the last page.

Short version (but correct me if I'm wrong):
Someone appealed the fines he got for not paying a parking fee to a magistrate.

The magistrate rule that the fees were illegal.

The magistrate's ruling was appealed.

The court that heard the appeal overturned the magistrate's ruling, reinstating the fines for not paying the fee.

John Law decided to drop all but one fine anyway.

Click to expand...

So the court has spoken.

The next step is for someone to get elected to either house of Congress and change the law. And find a better way to fund Parks and Forests. [I hope this didn't cross the no politics threshold, if so, I'm sorry]

After all people complain about this from time to time, just like the weather. And just like the weather, nobody ever does anything about it.

bcskier said:

If you think what the WMNF does fulfills that requirement then there is nothing more I can say on the subject and still be germane to this thread.

Click to expand...

They try, and do so with what little funds they DO have. Thats the point I am trying to make. Not too long ago a person was going around a local New Hampshire community (I don't remember which, but it was Southern NH) stealing man hole covers to sell to scrap yards for money. A well staffed police department in a highly populated town still managed to have determined people rip them off. Now look at all the trailheads in the WHites, a dozen FS Rangers who have dual duties besides just policing trailheads......I guess this is more a sad commentary on those who are in charge of giving the FS funding (or rather, lately has been in charge of CUTTING FS funding). As Steve says, elect someone who is going to make the proper changes.

Brian

TEO said:

It would seem to me that most White Mountain National Forest trailheads do not meet all of the criteria set out in Section 3(f)(4)(D):

(i) Designated developed parking.
(ii) A permanent toilet facility.
(iii) A permanent trash receptacle.
(iv) Interpretive sign, exhibit, or kiosk.
(v) Picnic tables.
(vi) Security services.

The criteria set forth in Section 3(g)(2)(A) do not seem to be met by primitive campsites such as those found on the Gale River Road, so again, it would seem to me that the WMNF has no legal standing to charge fees for those campsites (and they may not, I haven't stayed there in years).

Click to expand...

I believe that "security" can be read to mean paid patrol by local law enforcement, not a bad use of parking fees.

Kinsman Notch added a trash can a few years ago, probably mostly used by thru-hikers who don't pay fees.

One congressman who wrote the original law specifically said it wasn't to apply to dispersed roadside camping, but the WMNF does charge a fee.

Many of the things these fees are used for - painting out blazes in Wilderness and hiring more bureaucrats to implement foolish policies - are things I oppose so I try not to pay the fees as a matter of principle. For instance, for hiking Hancocks last week I parked on a pulloff maybe .4 miles below the trailhead as I need the exercise anyway.

the fees just cover the costs of enforcement...

Bob said:

the fees just cover the costs of enforcement...

Click to expand...

That's demonstrably not true. You can see the reports of what has been done with the fees. I'm not a huge fan of the fees, but let's stick with some facts.

BTW, of the three trailheads mentioned above, only 19 Mile Brook is a WMNF fee site. The other two are on state land and one is in a state park, no fees are collected there. I'm not sure you can expect the USFS to patrol those parking lots.

bcskier said:

My guess is you've never been a victim of a trailhead breakin or don't do any worrying about it.

Click to expand...

I, fortunately, have never had to experience it first hand. But I am perfectly aware that it does happen. That's why I never have anything in my car at the trail head. I leave my purse at home and hike with my driver's license and credit card. I keep my cell phone in my pack. And my iPod stays home, too. Basically, I try to make myself the smallest target at the trailhead in hopes that the "bad guys" don't feel the need to break in to my poor ol' Scoobie Do.

It is good to see citizens scrutinizing taxation. However, it's three bucks. I get the $25 pass and I park about 100 times.

What is that as a percentage of your total fed taxation, and where did it go? Of all the money the fed confiscates, this might be the best three bucks.

This issue is a non-starter, IMO.

This "hurts" because you pull $3 cash out of your pocket and "purchase" your parking spot. Looking around, you don't see $3 worth of "value" for your money. The parking pass "hurts" a bit once per year but then it doesn't hurt any more. EasyPass is an easy mark for NJ politicians to raise money because again you don't have to pay the increases in cash -- you just zip through. Credit cards... same concept.

You never actually hold the federal income taxes withheld from your paycheck in your hand. If instead we had to send the money in every April in total, there would be an uprising never before seen in a democratic country. Not only that but most are "delighted" to get a refund every year (assuming we do.) Me, I'm mad that I gave the government an interest-free loan of my money that could be making money for me!

Tim

bikehikeskifish said:

You never actually hold the federal income taxes withheld from your paycheck in your hand.

Click to expand...

If you are self-employed you hold that money and cry when you have to send it. I got a renewal pass this year (the one on my windshield was four years old). It didn't hurt nearly as much to send for the sticker as it did to send the taxes.

I am very happy to make this small contribution for such a worthwhile cause.

David Metsky said:

You can see the reports of what has been done with the fees.

Click to expand...

I don't mind coughing up a few bucks to support the forest (and the wording in the forest plan...something like "users should make some contribution towards maintenance"...seems reasonable to me.) But I remain unconvinced that the additional revenue from the fees hasn't been offset by cuts from other funding sources.

Or to put it more viscerally: it really stings to pay taxes, pay the parking fees, and then find very undermaintained public land. Not that simply axing the parking fees will fix that big problem, of course.

Remember that the WMNF is "Land of many uses". One of those uses is maintained hiking trails. There are others, which may or may not align with this particular one.

The trouble with "public land" is that it is a jack of all trades and an ace of none. If we made it into "our ace", then lots of other users might not approve. Private land is maintained in a manner consistent with the private owner's desires. There's a difference.

You can probably sign up to volunteer to make it better if you want. Just don't paint any of MadRiver's boulders in the process

Tim

if so many people don't mind paying it and support it - then it should be up to the people - a donation per say. Its not a national park - its a national forest.

If I have ones in my wallet, I will pay the parking fees, if not then i don't worry about it. I hate to pay for parking and i hate to give my money to 'the man". I'm a bit cycnical about government but not quite ready to move into a Montana compound. Honestly, if I knew the money was going back into the countryside to help preserve the area and make things beautiful, i would be more than happy to give my money away, but I am a bit cynical.