Pay More 2 Play (WMNF proposed fee changes)

[darren]

Wilderness Trail they did spend a lot on hiker amenities

You mean tourist ammenities. Heated bathrooms??? Waste of money. Now they want to increase the fees by 50%...what is next, a bidet and heated towel rack? Maybe a smoking lounge?

On a good note, maybe there will be overtime money available for Ranger Dick to do daily patrols of Owls head to save the wilderness from invasive summit signs. (yes, that was sarcasm)

In my opinion, they have proven themselves unable of being judicial stewards of my money. Until they stop wasting money I have a hard time giving more to them.

- darren

 

[giggy]

Keep in mind there are two public entities here - the WMNF and it's associated fee for "improved trailhead facilities" is a federal government organization. The same government who is not paying the current-use fee / property taxes to the local communities which hold the land. I believe all the plowing, and certainly all the taxes paid while in NH (Gas, Room and Meals) benefit the state government which charges no fees for parking anywhere. It is the state government to which F&G belongs, which is tasked with SAR, funded by license fees charged to hunters, fishermen, kayakers, boaters, etc., but not generally to hikers.

Tim

That is a great point - and looking at it that way, it makes sense, NH plows to hopefully reap the benefit of tourism (again, myself buying, lodging, beer, food, coffee, gas, etc.. in NH). I got a problem paying to take a walk on federal land since something like 25 - 30% of my paycheck goes there..... I pay if I have to - but don't agree with it.

Its the typical argument people use to think is ok to raise and charge... it benefits the trails, it funds the SAR, its for the children, bla bla bla etc.. the bottom line is everyone has to cut back right now - but the good ole gov (state and fed) - just thinks they can charge more rather than re-evaluate. The middle class is being bled more than ever. Its not about the $10.00 increase - its more than that. Its the thinking behind it.

 

[TEO]

As far as I can tell the parking fee covers only the cost to use the cleared, plowed (usually) trailhead parking area. If hikers and others didn't use the lots there'd be no need for the expense of building and maintaining them.

I've yet to see a fee charged to use a trail. Should you want to avoid the parking fee simply park in the nearest public lot and walk to the trailhead.

The Forest Service legally can't charge you for parking, rather the fee is for using an area and it has to have a have a minimum amount of amenities.

Directly from the FLREA (Section 3):

(d) Limitations on Recreation Fees.-- (1) PROHIBITION ON FEES FOR CERTAIN ACTIVITIES OR SERVICES.--The Secretary shall not charge any standard amenity recreation fee or expanded amenity recreation fee for Federal recreational lands and waters administered by the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, or the Bureau of Reclamation under this Act for any of the following:

(A) Solely for parking, undesignated parking, or picnicking along roads or trailsides.

and

(f) Standard Amenity Recreation Fee.--Except as limited by subsection (d), the Secretary may charge a standard amenity recreation fee for Federal recreational lands and waters under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, or the Forest Service, but only at the following:

...

(4) An area--

...

(D) that contains all of the following amenities:

(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.

A trailhead such as Lincoln Woods would seem to comply with the law, however, a trailhead such as Greeley Ponds (and indeed most in the WMNF) does not.

 

[Stash]

My specialty is not law so I won't attempt to interpret them.

My opinion: If adding an additional $10 to the federal coffers will in any way help maintain the lands I'll pay it many times over. There are many more issues with the way the federal, state and local governments spend money that I see as worse.

I know about poor tax management. I'm originally from Rhode Island.

 

[Christa]

For what it's worth, I don't have any issue paying an extra $10 for a parking pass. Yes, it's an increase, but it's also the first one in 12 years. For the number of times I hike in the course of a year, it pays for itself very quickly. And, really, in the grand scheme of things, the pass is really only costing you a little over $2 a month at the new rate. That's one less coffee or soda a month. Wow. I think I can handle that.

As a side note, many of the National and State Parks across this country also charge fees to get into and I have no problem paying those either. The fees they charge to enter/use their parks are significantly cheaper than a day at Disneyland or Six Flags (and it's much healthier for you). I'd much rather preserve the natural resources that are out there than see it turned over to developers.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

You mean tourist ammenities. Heated bathrooms??? Waste of money. - darren

Too funny. One of my Pemi ski-through buddies this past Saturday was lamenting that he did not hand over his car keys to some of the faster skiers so that they would have a place to warm up at Lincoln Woods while waiting for us. I reminded him that they would have the toilet building, which is heated by propane gas and includes "mood lighting" inside to boot. We never seem to complete our ski-through in time to make use of the log cabin with its wood stove and hot drinks at Lincoln Woods. At least one gets something for the USFS "parking" fees at LW, but given that the toilets are there, make sure that you use them to avoid arrest and a large fine.

 

[Stash]

I reminded him that they would have the toilet building, which is heated by propane gas and includes "mood lighting" inside to boot.

When did they change from the wood stove in the toilet building? I noticed the absence of the stove this winter. Apparently I hadn't been there in a while. It used to add a bit of atosphere to the place...

 

[Waumbek]

I've been watching "mission creep" in the "amenities" for years and wondering why, why, why? There's some immutable law of "progress" that says that once you have an unlighted, unheated vault john, which came in at $80K even for that, you will progress to propane-heated mood-lit bathrooms and then to whatever the next level is. Why? Because you can.

 

[RollingRock]

In my opinion, they have proven themselves unable of being judicial stewards of my money. Until they stop wasting money I have a hard time giving more to them.

- darren

Unfortunately, just like businesses, there is waste in the Department of Interior. It doesn't mean they are NOT deserving our support. Do you have examples you have seen the WMNF is wasting our money

 

[Waumbek]

Unfortunately, just like businesses, there is waste in the Department of Interior. It doesn't mean they are NOT deserving our support. Do you have examples you have seen the WMNF is wasting our money

I'd be curious to know how much use the relatively new and large USFS/WMNF information centers in Pinkham Notch and at I-93 Exit 32 get. Yes, they sell parking passes, but that doesn't require a large new structure. PNVC and White Mountain Attractions could hav sold the passes. I've been in both USFS buildings several times and have never seen anyone looking at the information exhibits. This is not a rhetorical question; I really don't know. Have you ever looked at the exhibits?

 

[RoySwkr]

I'd be curious to know how much use the relatively new and large USFS/WMNF information centers in Pinkham Notch and at I-93 Exit 32 get.... Have you ever looked at the exhibits?

If by Pinkham Notch you mean the new Androscoggin RD HQ N of the notch, I've looked at the exhibits there. Most of the building is office space of course.

If the new one at exit 32 is at the foot of the ramp, I've looked at the exhibits there both before and after the expansion.

I don't think either is an appropriate use of parking pass money which should be for field work only, and will say so in my comments to the WMNF.

 

[RollingRock]

I'd be curious to know how much use the relatively new and large USFS/WMNF information centers in Pinkham Notch and at I-93 Exit 32 get. Have you ever looked at the exhibits?

I know that the center in Lincoln has a cool 3-D map of the WMNF similar to what you see at AMC Pinkham - the difference is that the one at Pinkham focuses on the Presidential Range. In Lincoln, I really like being able to get off the ramp and see which WNMF campgrounds still have space available. That said, if the WMNF have centers only open to sell passes then I think that should be visited to save costs. Let visitor centers sell these.

 

[TEO]

That said, if the WMNF have centers only open to sell passes then I think that should be visited to save costs. Let visitor centers sell these.

Read the law. The interpretive displays/kiosks, bathrooms, trashcans, etc. are required for the Forest Service to legally charge a user fee. In National Forests in the Southwest, such amenities have been added after people have taken the Forest Service to court over the fees.

 

[Stash]

Read the law. The interpretive displays/kiosks, bathrooms, trashcans, etc. are required for the Forest Service to legally charge a user fee. In National Forests in the Southwest, such amenities have been added after people have taken the Forest Service to court over the fees.

So as stated at the beginning of the thread you'll be providing that information as feedback...

"To provide feedback on this proposal, contact Marianne Leberman, Recreation & Wilderness Program Leader at [email protected] or 603-528-8751, or Marianne Leberman, White Mountain National Forest, 719 N Main St., Laconia 03246 by May 1."​

 

[darren]

Unfortunately, just like businesses, there is waste in the Department of Interior. It doesn't mean they are NOT deserving our support. Do you have examples you have seen the WMNF is wasting our money

See my whole post - heated bathrooms, over the top ranger activity at owls head are two particular issues that really frost my butt.

Read the law. The interpretive displays/kiosks, bathrooms, trashcans, etc. are required for the Forest Service to legally charge a user fee. In National Forests in the Southwest, such amenities have been added after people have taken the Forest Service to court over the fees.

This is exactly what I am talking about. The "services" are required in order to collect the fee. The fee is required in order to pay for the services. It is a stupid, useless cycle. It is like the Mass Pike putting up new toll booths after the highway is paid for and collecting tolls because they need to pay for the new tool booths. It is a stupid waste of money.

Is $30 a year a lot of money? No I spend more on Diet Mountain Dew in a month. But the fact is that I choose to buy the Diet Mountain Dew because I want it. I do not want nor need heated bathrooms at trailheads or info kiosks. Collecting money just to build stuff that is not needed just because they can or because it is some sort of "progress" on National Forest land is serious abuse in my mind.

$20 last year, $30 this year, $50 next year, where does it stop? Heated bathrooms, 3D maps, kiosks now, what is next? Digitally controlled neon avalanche warning signs?

- darren

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Perhaps we could contribute a list of trailheads which collect fees which fail to provide the services (or perhaps list the services which are provided) as described in TEO's post http://www.vftt.org/forums/showpost.php?p=266600&postcount=23.

That way when we do communicate our opinions we can cite their law and the failure to comply with it.

I for one notice the lack of a toilet, permanent or otherwise, and many of the trailheads I have been to. Hancocks and 19MBT come immediately to mind. I don't recall having one at Stony Brook either. I'm sure there are more.

Mt. Clinton Road has a toilet, but the men's room is not accessible due to the snow depth. I used the women's room on Saturday, so I "guess" I got my $3 worth It also has a kiosk, picnic tables and a trash receptacle. Not sure what constitutes "security services" - an occasional drive-by?

Should we start a new thread? TEO?

Tim

 

[Stash]

...or maybe it would be best to work toward making what's required at the parking areas, etc more practical to make the fee easier to rationalize.

I'll gladly make that comment to the address provided.

 

[RoySwkr]

You mean tourist ammenities. Heated bathrooms??? Waste of money.

The first time I went in the Wilderness Trail, the only parking was the now-closed tiny lot on the W side. They have since built a huge paved lot, the log cabin, the rest rooms, the suspension bridge, the sidewalk on the highway bridge, and multiple display panels. They could have created 90% of the added value for hikers at 10% of the expense.

I for one notice the lack of a toilet, permanent or otherwise, and many of the trailheads I have been to. Hancocks and 19MBT come immediately to mind. I don't recall having one at Stony Brook either. I'm sure there are more.

19MB as mentioned in my previous post in probably the worst offender although there are dozens with just off road lots such as Hancock Overlook (for which they actually issued a press release saying the fee would be removed but never actually did it). They have removed the fee at Stony Brook.

 

[jniehof]

Unfortunately, just like businesses, there is waste in the Department of Interior. It doesn't mean they are NOT deserving our support. Do you have examples you have seen the WMNF is wasting our money

Quibble, in the interests of "blaming"* the correct parties: the WMNF is managed by the Forest Service, which is in the Department of Agriculture. (Split from Interior in 1889, so I can see the source of the confusion ).

(*Assuming there is blame to go around, etc. etc.)

 

[darren]

It seems that the simple solution is to place a placard on your dashboard that states:

"In accordance with TITLE VIII--FEDERAL LANDS RECREATION ENHANCEMENT ACT (From the 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (PL 108-447), Section III, this area does not contain all of the following amenities: (i) Designated developed parking, (ii) A permanent toilet facility, (iii) A permanent trash receptacle, (iv) Interpretive sign, exhibit, or kiosk, (v) Picnic tables, and (vi) Security services, and therefore this area is exempt from fee collection. According to the law I have not paid a fee to park here. In the interest of conservation of paper products, please do not issue a ticket as it is clearly unenforceable."

This placard could be used at any WMNF trailhead other than Lincoln Woods. When at Lincoln Woods pay the $3 (unless you park at Lincoln Woods more than 10 times a year and then you can get the $30 sticker).

Sometimes the best way to fight something is to follow the rules exactly.

- darren