[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[pct-l] user fees



Here's my argument against user fees. I've heard many people say that they're 
a great idea for a great cause and that they are more than happy to 
contribute, but once money is raised FROM recreation rather than FOR the 
enhancement of recreation it becomes a slippery slope. 
   First of all, I consider fees to hike and stay overnight in the 
backcountry to be a double tax. Money is already collected via income taxes, 
entrance fees and campground fees from users of our public lands. Access 
roads are then built and maintained, and ditto for campgrounds, 
administrative and maintenance facilities etc. Trails are also built and 
maintained. These trails are available for all to use. It is a choice to 
either use them or not.
  Fees collected from backcountry users are supposedly to be used for trail 
maintenance and related issues, but in reality they are not. They are spent 
on the above mentioned as well. I know this for a fact because I attended 
several user fee meetings sponsored by The Mountainers in Seattle. The very 
first thing that came out of the mouth of the Chief Ranger of Olympic 
National Park was " Backcountry fees aren't just for back country  use, 
they're for other things as well." He then proceeded to give us a list of 
things the money collected from backpackers would be used for, among them 
graveling roads and remodeling lodges. To my mind, it's nothing but a surtax 
on hikers. I would object far less if the money was used on only backcountry 
issues. Campground fees should be used for campground maintenance, entrance 
fees for access road maintenance and income tax for administration and other 
maintenance. Why shouldn't backcountry fees be used exclusively in the 
backcountry?
      As for the slippery slope, once the idea of raising money FROM 
recreation is accepted, what is to stop officials from MAXIMIZING this income 
source. An example would be climbing Mount Rainier. Officials could conclude 
that there is far more money to be made from taxing commercial users such as 
Rainier Mountain Incorporated than individual parties. 20% of the $600 
charged by RMI is a lot more than $20 currently charged to individual users. 
So climbing of Rainier could be banned  (or greatly reduced) without a 
certified guide in order to maximize income. Ditto for rafting/kayaking the 
Grand Canyon and even the issuance of backcountry permits. Hell, why not just 
auction them off to the highest bidder? I'm certain there are officials 
already scheming to do this with the attitude of "since  the greenies and 
granolas got in the way of us making money from timber harvest, let's replace 
that income source and get even by charging recreational users to the max. 
We'll just tighten the screws little by little so that people get used to it.
* From the PCT-L |  Need help? http://www.backcountry.net/faq.html  *

==============================================================================