[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 *
==============================================================================