[pct-l] America the Beatiful

[Steve Courtway]

You're right, in Southern California, we have the Forest Adventure Pass 
system, you buy an anual "pass" for 30 bucks (a 2nd one is 5 bucks more) ((I 
think those numbers are correct, as I adhere to the requirement part-time)), 
which allows you to park at Cleveland, San Bernardino, Los Padres, and 
Angeles National Forest Trailheads.  Only within the last couple years have 
the "adventure" passes been enforced on Mt. Laguna -  If you don't display a 
pass, a ticket is left on your windshield to the tune of 5 bucks.  (I've 
never paid one with no ill-results).  This summer, while camped at Mineral 
King, and paying the new $12/night fee, I observed two rangers who were 
picking up trash.  Rollll in, empty a trash can, stretch, look around, play 
a little grab-ass, maybe empty another one, stretch a little more, look 
around, smooch some more.  I don't feel so bad for skipping out on National 
Forest Fees now and again.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim and/or Ginny Owen" <spiriteagle99 at hotmail.com>
To: <pct-l at backcountry.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 1:34 PM
Subject: [pct-l] America the Beatiful


> Where we live you don't have to pay to use the forests, however I think 
> that
> in California and perhaps Oregon and Washington there is an annual permit
> required to park at national forest trailheads.  Perhaps New Hampshire as
> well?  I think I remember that the passes were only good for certain
> forests, and that if you traveled to another part of the state or to a
> different state you had to buy another permit.  Is that right?
>
> If so, this permit could save you money and would simplify the process a 
> lot
> since one permit would work for all areas. It would especially be handy 
> for
> people traveling who may not know that they need a special permit to hike.
>
> For those of us who live in areas that don't charge for parking (yet) - it
> is an added cost.  But we can choose whether or not to use the National
> Parks or to hike elsewhere.
>
> I do agree that our taxes are supposed to pay for upkeep of the national
> lands - but they don't and haven't for a lot of years.  "Temporary" 
> funding
> programs have become permanent, but it still doesn't begin to cover the
> costs.  As the federal land base has expanded, the money to maintain the
> lands has decreased.  Every time there is a new monument, wilderness area 
> or
> park, the money comes out of some other park's budget. That budget isn't
> growing and isn't likely to under the new Congress. The number of people
> using the public lands is not growing and there are too many other
> priorities that will garner more votes.  People who don't use the public
> lands are quite happy to see those who do pay for the use of them.  Like 
> it
> or not, it's likely to stay that way.
>
> Ginny
>
>
>
>
> http://www.spiriteaglehome.com/
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Visit MSN Holiday Challenge for your chance to win up to $50,000 in 
> Holiday
> cash from MSN today!
> http://www.msnholidaychallenge.com/index.aspx?ocid=tagline&locale=en-us
>
> _______________________________________________
> pct-l mailing list
> pct-l at backcountry.net
> unsubscribe or change options:
> http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l