Gotta Pay Before You Hike

Here in Washington State they have this Discovery Fee which is like $30 bucks a year, which I don't mind paying, BUT there are some hikes, all they have is a parking lot and they require the stupid pass, still not a problem, BUT if you have the pass in another car, or from out of state or any reason, There is no sign telling you where to get the pass, only that they will charge you $300 for not having one. But if you happen to be able to find where they sell them, its $10 a day to take a hike down a trail.

dahkota wrote:

Rancher Will wrote:

For example, prior to the banning of logging on National Forest a few years ago by the then administration, the Forest Service obtained a major portion of revenue from logging, mining, and grazing fees.

Logging is banned in National Parks, not National Forests.

Tell that to the people who used to work in lumber mills that have disappeared, and logging operations that have disappeared, in Northwestern Montana. BUT, be prepared for some "colorful language" to be directed your way.

As for the "pay to play" fees, I have no problem with them. In fact, I would like to see them expanded to include school sports!

Fourteen years ago, I hosted a "trail runner" who got stranded in the Grand Canyon. I was backpacking for four days. This fool tried to cross the canyon twice in one day. That's forty one miles. He came up eight miles short at dusk at the campground.

He was a recent retiree who hiked in the mountains of Utah every day to prepare.

I put him up in my tent since I had room. Others brought him food, clothes and a mattress to sleep on. Then he had the bad taste to start whining about the President when I was trying to fall asleep.

Those of you that have been to the Canyon lately have seen some changes. The most recent and very expensive is the Bright Angel Trailhead. The Park's budget was nowhere close to the cost of all the upgrades and many of us sent in our donations for the improvement. Neither the Park nor the Association can afford to pay the ever increasing costs of the day to day operations, so some of those who take advantage(read that as use and appreciate) of the improvements and hike the Canyon are being asked to help.

I equate it to the old fee schedule charged at Disney Land when I was a kid. There was an entry fee at the gate and "A" thru "E" tickets with graduated costs. The NPS knows not all of you will hike the canyon and have chosen to ask those that do to add a little extra and they will maintain and improve the trail system. The alternative is a substantial increase in entry fees for everyone.

My wife and I have been to all but seven of the National Parks since we were married and I don't feel that the entrance fees have increased as dramatically as most commodities, especially considering that we get a lot more for our money that Mr. Disney can provide at his parks.

Just my belief.

So you think changing one word in the headline from runner to hiker is an agenda. You may be intereseted to know, it's both organized runners and hikers that are being charged a fee.

Journalism 101 - the headline is to grab the attention of the reader so he will read the article. Apparently no one got to the second paragraph.

Thanks to coleman for outing the reading comprehension level.

What`s next? charging people to look at it!

Sorry, but I see this as just another way of making money! $175 for a permit? so lets say they only need to rescue twice a year, that`s a lot of money left for profit! they need to stop before they price people out of going to NP`s that are paid for by our taxes to begin with!

dahkota wrote:
to be exact:
"Starting Sept. 15, any group taking organized, rim-to-rim or extended day-hiking and running trips in the inner Canyon will have to pay for $175 for a permit."

Note the key word "Organized"

What happened is that a guy "organized" a rim to rim hike and charged people for it.

And, people in general seem to have been born in barns. They leave trash all over the trail with no regard for who has to clean it up. They are too lazy to clean up after themselves.

Don't complain about the government charging fees, complain about the lazy, dirty, people who take advantage of something for nothing that ruin for the rest of us.

Yes - please read and understand before spreradind misinformation far and wide. And thanks to Francesca for outing Fox on this one.

Francesca Knowles wrote:

rk911 wrote:


in my mind "slanting" an article means twisting or inventing facts to support a point-of-view.

Or changing a headline to do so. Which is what Fox did when lifting the article in its entirety from the Wall Street Journal.

Original Headline:
Grand Canyon to Charge Runners a Fee
As More Try Trip From Rim to Rim in a Day, Rescues Are on the Rise
WSJ Link

Fox's headline, the only revision:

Grand Canyon to charge hikers a fee for ‘rim to rim’ trek

If Fox had no agenda, why change only the headline, and especially changing the word "runners" to "hikers"? Very effective tool, too, judging from the fact that the O.P. practically quoted it verbatim in the threadtitle as if it was something affecting everybody hiking into the park, further stating in the threadstarter:

Mr.Beebo wrote:


There is a fee to get into the GC park which has been the norm; now there appears to be a fee to hike as well. I agree the parks need funds to operate, seems like the pot of water just keeps getting warmer and warmer while the frog sleeps.

Thank you Francesca!

"...there is a world of difference with fees designed to offset the costs of rescuing folks from themselves and a fee designed to just be a revenue stream."

I agree completely. I should have referenced this proposed legislation... HR 5204.

It seems the nps has become a "no" organization. We found ourselves constantly wondering if we were "allowed" to do inoculous things like sit next to a river or lake. I understand the reasoning behind the fee but do you realize that a law was nearly passed to require permits for taking pictures on federal lands? At the last minute people caught wind and it was changed but came very close.