[pct-l] America the Beautiful - for a fee

[dsaufley at sprynet.com]

In answer to your question Oil Can, NO, I have not seen any improvements in the NF areas I frequently use.  In fact, I noticed a full trash can, never once emptied, on the top of Mt. Josephine for at least a year.  Worse yet, since we've started purchasing the Adventure Pass, they've shut the forest down completely three years in a row (though not this year, thankfully).   To me it was the classic, "pay more, get less." 

I also question the "heavy use" they report.  I'm constantly amazed at how few people I see in the San Gabriels, when there are millions upon millions of 'em down below in Los Angeles.  Heavy use, my foot.  I've often had the mountains and trails all to myself.  Not complaining mind you, I like it that way.  One of the people I have never seen on any trail in the Angeles Nat'l Forest is a RANGER, though you can find at least three or four of them at the Rowher Flats OHV area on any given Saturday or Sunday, making sure that the riders have their Adventure Passes and Green Stickers.   The motorcycles tear up the mountains and the PCT, which goes right through the OHV area.

But don't get me started . . . 

L-Rod

-----Original Message-----
>From: Mike Saenz <msaenz at mve-architects.com>
>Sent: Dec 13, 2006 2:37 PM
>To: pct-l at backcountry.net
>Subject: [pct-l] America the Beautiful - for a fee
>
>Man, am I sorry for opening this one...
>(I would have deleted and forgotten it, but it had Steve's name on it.
>So y'all can thank Steve for the rant.)
>
>But since I opened and read it:
>
>This used to be called the "National Forest Adventure Pass", but since
>it ONLY applied to southern California, the "national" felt like salt on
>an open wound.
>
>>From the USFS web site:
>http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/sanbernardino/ap/welcome.shtml
>"Why? - The national forests of Coastal and Southern California are
>heavily used, requiring more up-keep and maintenance to the many High
>Impact Recreation Areas (HIRA)."
>
>Someone help me out with this. Has anyone seen ANY improvements made
>from the fee that helped in the "up-keep" or "maintenance" of anything
>beyond a hundred yards of a road? What I've seen are MORE parking
>spaces, MORE restrooms and MORE picnic tables. Doesn't this just invite
>MORE use in the "high impact" areas?
>
>Don't get me wrong, I'm all for improving access to our forest areas and
>I'll always jump at the chance to introduce city-folk to the beauty of
>our wilderness areas! But these "improvements" do nothing to maintain
>and up-keep anything beyond the parking areas.
>
>As backpackers, all we need is a place to park our car. I don't need the
>restrooms, the picnic tables or even the paved parking area. Once I've
>shouldered my pack, I'm outta there! But I still need to pay $30 a year
>to access the forest which is technically, as a tax payer, MINE already?
>
>If the additional revenue is needed (I won't even debate that point),
>wouldn't it be more fair to charge a day use for people who use these
>parking/picnic areas rather than charge a fee to park at a trailhead?
>
>My commute to work passes right by the photo on the USFS site of the El
>Cariso Visitor's Center. But the pass isn't needed only at the areas
>where the "improvements" are made, but along the entire length of
>highway 74 in the national forest boundary. If I park alongside the road
>to see Ortega Falls, I need to have a pass. If I stop to take a photo of
>anything along this road, I need to display a pass.
>
>Along the PCT in a national forest, if we wanted to park a car at the
>trail, we need a pass. But I can count on one hand the locations between
>Campo and the Sierra where you might be able to call "high impact
>areas".
>
>I strongly opposed the pass system. But if it's here to stay, then make
>it truly "national" and reduce the annual fee, or make it a day-use fee
>for the use of the public facilities, not the forest itself.
>
>We're paying for tolls on roads built on publicly owned freeways and now
>paying to access publicly owned forest. What's next?
>
>Michael  Saenz
>Associate Partner
>
>MVE & Partners, Inc. | Architecture + Planning + Interiors 
>Irvine + Oakland + Honolulu
>
>1900 Main Street, Suite 800 | Irvine, California 92614-7318 | T
>949.809.3388 | www.mve-architects.com
>-----Original Message-----
>From: pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net
>[mailto:pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net] On Behalf Of Steve Courtway
>Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 1:55 PM
>To: pct-l at backcountry.net
>Subject: Re: [pct-l] America the Beatiful
>
>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 
>
>_______________________________________________
>pct-l mailing list
>pct-l at backcountry.net
>unsubscribe or change options:
>http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>_______________________________________________
>pct-l mailing list
>pct-l at backcountry.net
>unsubscribe or change options:
>http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l