Pay More 2 Play (WMNF proposed fee changes)

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
darren said:
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.
- darren
Click to expand...

I never knew this! Are you saying that the money collected by the WMNF is only used for services and NOT for maintaining trails or providing backcountry campsites?
 
No, I am not saying that the fee money does not go into anything else, but it is very telling that the fee is going up and so is the level of frontcountry services - toilets and kiosks. I haven't seen any increase in backcountry services. The fact that the frontcountry services are required to collect the fees and that part or all of the fees are used to build the services is the never ending cycle. The FS has in effect created a self licking ice cream cone that I am not interested in funding.

BTW, how much money is spent in enforcing and collecting these fees? How much does it cost to send a ranger or two to every trailhead to empty the fee tube and check for stickers? I'm guessing $50 - $60 / hour when you factor in overhead and benefits. Plus the truck and gas. So they can go get $3, $6, or $9 out of the tubes.

How much did the visitor info center cost so that they have a place to sell stickers out of? I used to get my sticker from the gas station in Twin Mountain - that cost the FS nothing. Oh, but then they don't meet the info center requirement......hence build the info center and then raise fees to cover it. ugh.

- darren
 
In Googling to learn more about this topic, I found a very interesting document. It's the 5-year proposed program of work. It's full of entries indicating use fee sites, and whether or not they should continue to charge a fee.

It also has some other goodies not relevant to this discussion. Have you heard this one yet?
Mt. Cabot Cabin: Manage cabin as a rental under National Recreation Reservation System.


http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain/recreation/rec_facilities_analysis/site_tasks.pdf
 
StashZdanuk said:
...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.
Click to expand...

That's not quite what I was thinking. The point isn't to make it easier for the WMNF to charge fees (BTW, what you suggest would require a change in federal law). On the contrary, what should be done is for people to work towards the repealing of the FLREA. Western Slope No Fee Coalition is one of organizations leading this fight. Writing the WMNF and you congressional delegation is probably the best way. As previously mentioned, not paying the fees is another way (the Forest Service uses collected fees as evidence that the public supports the status quo). Darren, I love your placard idea!

If the Forest Service was adequately funded in the annual federal budget, then it would not have to waste money building and maintaining amenities* required to collect income. Nor would it feel compelled to illegally charge unsuspecting or ambivalent citizens.

*Not all amenities are a waste. Educational displays, toilets, etc. do have their place
 
No, I am not saying that the fee money does not go into anything else, but it is very telling that the fee is going up and so is the level of frontcountry services - toilets and kiosks. I haven't seen any increase in backcountry services. The fact that the frontcountry services are required to collect the fees and that part or all of the fees are used to build the services is the never ending cycle. The FS has in effect created a self licking ice cream cone that I am not interested in funding.
Click to expand...

MichaelJ said:
In Googling to learn more about this topic, I found a very interesting document. It's the 5-year proposed program of work. It's full of entries indicating use fee sites, and whether or not they should continue to charge a fee.

It also has some other goodies not relevant to this discussion. Have you heard this one yet?
Mt. Cabot Cabin: Manage cabin as a rental under National Recreation Reservation System.


http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain/recreation/rec_facilities_analysis/site_tasks.pdf
Click to expand...

This link is very telling about where the priorities are. While it looks like WMNF needs the money - the focus is on improving trailheads and campgrounds. WMNF money is being spent to remove existing shelters but not replace them with tent platforms? There is no mention of adding more backcountry tenting sites! And what about overall trail maintenance? I'm guessing this is on a separate list but I guess the fees we pay doesn't go into adding more trail crews. This is very enlightening conversation that is making me re-think this whole fee collecting scheme.:eek:
 
Actually, there is at least one mention of adding back country camping sites - new tent pads at the Valley Way tent site.

But keep in mind, the vast majority of hikers in the WMNF (and they're the one's paying the majority of the fees) don't back country camp. They're much more interested in the front country camping areas, trailhead facilities, and informational kiosks. This board is a very biased collection of fee payers, and I suspect we don't represent the general public.
 
TEO said:
That's not quite what I was thinking. The point isn't to make it easier for the WMNF to charge fees (BTW, what you suggest would require a change in federal law). On the contrary, what should be done is for people to work towards the repealing of the FLREA. Western Slope No Fee Coalition is one of organizations leading this fight. Writing the WMNF and you congressional delegation is probably the best way. As previously mentioned, not paying the fees is another way (the Forest Service uses collected fees as evidence that the public supports the status quo). Darren, I love your placard idea!

If the Forest Service was adequately funded in the annual federal budget, then it would not have to waste money building and maintaining amenities* required to collect income. Nor would it feel compelled to illegally charge unsuspecting or ambivalent citizens.

*Not all amenities are a waste. Educational displays, toilets, etc. do have their place
Click to expand...

More specifically your point is to repeal FLREA. We all have ways in which we choose to get things done and mine rarely includes supporting organizations like Western Slope No Fee Coalition not completely separated (in my interpretation) from politics (although their website does reference posts made on VFTT).

Direct communication to those who can change laws, as you suggest and have I, is more my preference. It tends to reduce, at least in a small way, the involvement of special interest groups who were likely involved in the start of the whole mess.
 
Last edited:
Out of curiosity I did a VFTT search on "Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act" and got a few hits (one of course being this thread). There are quite a few similarities of expressed opinion and some really funny comments. At least we have the consistency of agreeing that some disagree with others on how to go about reacting to or fixing things. :)

One thing that seems to be common among these and a lot of the loooong threads on other topics is the subject of bathrooms. :confused:
 
Last edited:
I'm glad this finally went as far as to involve toilets, something I'm familiar with. If the dollars were spent on upgrading trailheads (i.e. some on the Kanc) or other places similar, with such facilities, it would present even more, shall we say dooty's, I mean dooties, (baba booey)er, uh, ...duties, yea, that's it. Especially if it was built along a place like the Kanc it would quickly get abused. Which in turn, would create more cost to maintain. I use to clean 2 of the WMNF Ranger stations, the old one in Gorham, along 16 and across from Libby's pool, and the one in Bethel. Ah, yes, the world of sealed government bidding. (yes, its a beautiful $400 hammer, but does it work?) The facilities used by the public were some of the worst things I have ever had to clean. (if toilets could talk.....)By public, I mean more of the "driving, touristy" kind. If places like this were put in other areas it would create a greater problem as it would mean more trash, more upkeep, and more maintenance, thus creating, perhaps in the future, even more fees or increases in such. I would hate to see this happen at places like the parking for the Hancocks, sometimes its bad enough as it is.
As a volunteer who has helped set-up and maintain "facilities" in 2 different states in similar circumstances, all I can say is, the more accessible it is, the worse it becomes.
I'll admit it , as I already have, I'm FP (Fee-Payer), perhaps I'm in need of counseling. I'm sure enough of my tax dollars go to waste on things I don't agree with, but I pay it anyway. In the hope that others, like me, agree the WMNF is worth it. At least, its my hope, when I pay my $20-$30, it goes in some way to the WMNF. If I were allowed to even donate to a sponsored program that would do such, even more so.

I'm hesitant about the Cabot cabin. I like the old vestiges of the hiking community. I missed the old Crag Camp as soon as they mentioned it was coming down. I couldn't even bring my self to watch it smoke from Gorham Hill. I don't want to see the atmosphere of Cabot ruined.
 
MichaelJ said:
It also has some other goodies not relevant to this discussion. Have you heard this one yet?
Mt. Cabot Cabin: Manage cabin as a rental under National Recreation Reservation System.
Click to expand...
Yes, that was in the Union Leader article mentioned in the base note

I'll bet that cabin gets a lot more use as a rest stop by day hikers than as an overnight use which can't be done if it's kept locked. Some users may prefer the fee to know they will have it to themselves instead of worrying about it being filled by a previous group. Wonder what the Boy Scouts who repaired it think?

And the Jim Liberty Cabin has had problems with people ignoring the rental policy and breaking in.
 
I can't say I'm too happy about these proposed fee increases but if the money continues to be used to maintain the trails and other forest services then I'm OK with it. As a previous poster said, I'm forced to pay a lot more money for goods and services closer to home which I do not enjoy as much as hiking. From $5 to $10 is a big increase for a weekly pass as is $20 to $30 for the annual, but hiking in the WMNF keeps me sane so I'll pay the fee since it is worth it IMO. There are less desirable ways to spend my money.
 
I wont rant politically because I know dave m will pm me not to, but the fee's are not right, as Ive said all along. I never had a doubt they would raise the fee once it took hold and it amazes me people are so gung ho and happy to pay them. I am not one of those people, I have never paid the fee and will continue not to,Just because you enjoy hiking so much you think its a good deal,really thats the logic the govt counts on, (oh oh).:eek:
 
I have always bought a pass and will continue to do so. What happens when you don't display a pass? I have never seen meter police :) Do the rangers write out tickets? I definitely don't like to think that my money is paying for tourists to do their thing over on the Kanc at rest areas that don't require a pass. Maybe they should put in coin operated locks on the doors of the outhouses on the Kanc. And I certainly hope they don't expand amenities to remote parking areas(Trail heads) on my dollar. If you need a toilet at your disposal at all times than stay in the city.
 
For those who are interested in eliminating the fees, you may be interested in contacting your senator and asking for support of S.868, the Fee Repeal and Expanded Access Act. (For those in favour of the fees, I guess a heads-up to contact your senator and ask for opposition...)

There's a suit pending against the Forest Service for the Mt. Evans auto road, which is maintained by CDOT and arguably operated as a toll road by the Forest Service. (some background).

Regardless of your position, it's worth keeping an eye out...the legislation and court case could change how our public lands are funded for some time.
 
Jim lombard said:
Yup, they sure do write out tickets.:mad:
Click to expand...

I'm only aware of them putting the fee envelope on your windshield, with a "reminder" to pay.

Have you actually received something other than this "reminder"?

Jason


Edit: Apparently, as I suspected, no one has ever received a "ticket". No enforcement.
 
Last edited:
ferrisjrf said:
I'm only aware of them putting the fee envelope on your windshield, with a "reminder" to pay.

Have you actually received something other than this "reminder"?

Jason


Edit: Apparently, as I suspected, no one has ever received a "ticket". No enforcement.
Click to expand...


No, they don't enforce it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bikehikeskifish
White Mountain National Forest proposes fee increase
2
Replies
20
Views
10K
peakbagger
P
R
WMNF Parking Fee Increase Proposal Jan 30,2017 Comment Deadline
2
Replies
26
Views
21K
Remix
R
arghman
  • Locked
WMNF proposed parking fee increase?
Replies
3
Views
2K
arghman
arghman

Latest posts

Top