Gotta Pay Before You Hike

Fees have always, in my lifetime, been charged to pay for services. As rancher that pays for grazing permits (fees) on both National Forest and private owned land, I know that the money for the controling agency has to come from somewhere. And as the inflationary costs rise, the charges rise in various ways.

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. As a rancher my grazing fees were used to great extent to help pay for camp grounds used by RVers, hunters, fishers, etc. They still are. Today it is only grazing fees that are the major supplemental funds from the General Fund that pays the Forest Service. Logging, Mining, Energy fees are no longer of any amount and Camping fees were never any significant amount to pay the cost of the Forest Service. The Park Service has faced the same inflationary cost increases.

There are always unintended, or at least no previous admitted consequences to any and every government action. The money has to come from somewhere to support the continued growth of every government agency.

When you enter the park you pay a fee, and when you camp you pay an additional fee. That is fair because only some camp. If Rim 2rim hikers pay that is fair because not everyone does that hike and it increases the manpower requirements of the NPS. I believe it is good user fee.
jesseannie

When I first clicked on this thread I thought something else that's no longer. Then I read the Fox news story...did that educate me to reconsider my original opinion! Somebody has to collect the trash and keep the restrooms usable. And responding to emergencies and unprepared hikers requires well trained people.

Seems a good idea to me.

jesseannie wrote:
When you enter the park you pay a fee, and when you camp you pay an additional fee. That is fair because only some camp. If Rim 2rim hikers pay that is fair because not everyone does that hike and it increases the manpower requirements of the NPS. I believe it is good user fee.
jesseannie

Excellent response!

We've hiked but only one way -down- to the canyon floor where we picked up our rafting trip beginning. We trained for that hike DOWN. Even down it is very strenuous. On our way we saw folks going down holding only a small water bottle - no backpack for emergencies - no hiking shoes and toting young children. Those are the kinds of people that the rangers have to babysit and nurse back to health.

We also hiked from the North Rim and saw a group coming up that had hiked from rim to rim. Some were puking from heat stroke and moaning. All were dragging their butts. These folks did not plan for that trip.

Rangers spend a lot of time on that trail to look for medical issues. They are stationed at the bottom of the canyon for days in order to be part of rescue teams.

I'm all for a charge for hiking rim to rim in the canyon.

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.

Since everyone seems good with additional fees for use of public lands, I wonder how you will feel when you have to pay to stop at an overlook that has a public pit toilet or picnic table. These are also considered improved properties, and for those uninformed, there has been a fight going on for years about "fee demo" (fee demonstration) areas especially in the west. In Colorado, the USFS charged a fee to drive up a state highway... the Longs Peak Road. If you "promised" not to stop along the road for a picture or at the information kiosk, they would let you pass without paying the $5 fee, BUT YOU HAD TO TELL THEM YOU WOULD NOT STOP, THEY DIDN'T ASK!! In Federal court, this fee area was found to be illegal. The exact same thing happened in Arizona near Phoenix I believe it was where the USFS started charging a fee for an established road to park alongside a public highway.

This isn't something new, just a new way to get around the existing laws!

Pay to play is coming I'm afraid, and I'd be willing to bet that the fees collected won't be used for the purpose we think they should...they certainly aren't now. Already our national parks have deferred maintenance and they charge a fee. Since they can't do what they already need to do, what makes anyone think they will be able to administer additional funding/responsibilities properly.

Additionally, our government seems unable to enforce basic already legislated fees (think of the Cliven Bundy fiasco in Nevada early this year). So if they can't collect grazing fees from someone obviously using the lands for profit, how do you suppose they will enforce fees in other areas? The way they do it now is hire a contractor to do the work for them. Of course these folks have no enforcement powers, but if you ever run into one, you might feel differently.

Our public lands are slowly being regulated away from us in my opinion and I feel the almost certain eventual widespread application of fees from this proposed legislation (expected to be added to another bill to ensure passage) is just another cog in the seemingly never ending privatization of our commons.

Off Pavement wrote:
Since everyone seems good with additional fees for use of public lands, I wonder how you will feel when you have to pay to stop at an overlook that has a public pit toilet or picnic table. These are also considered improved properties, and for those uninformed, there has been a fight going on for years about "fee demo" (fee demonstration) areas especially in the west. In Colorado, the USFS charged a fee to drive up a state highway... the Longs Peak Road. If you "promised" not to stop along the road for a picture or at the information kiosk, they would let you pass without paying the $5 fee, BUT YOU HAD TO TELL THEM YOU WOULD NOT STOP, THEY DIDN'T ASK!! In Federal court, this fee area was found to be illegal. The exact same thing happened in Arizona near Phoenix I believe it was where the USFS started charging a fee for an established road to park alongside a public highway.

This isn't something new, just a new way to get around the existing laws!

Pay to play is coming I'm afraid, and I'd be willing to bet that the fees collected won't be used for the purpose we think they should...they certainly aren't now. Already our national parks have deferred maintenance and they charge a fee. Since they can't do what they already need to do, what makes anyone think they will be able to administer additional funding/responsibilities properly.

Additionally, our government seems unable to enforce basic already legislated fees (think of the Cliven Bundy fiasco in Nevada early this year). So if they can't collect grazing fees from someone obviously using the lands for profit, how do you suppose they will enforce fees in other areas? The way they do it now is hire a contractor to do the work for them. Of course these folks have no enforcement powers, but if you ever run into one, you might feel differently.

Our public lands are slowly being regulated away from us in my opinion and I feel the almost certain eventual widespread application of fees from this proposed legislation (expected to be added to another bill to ensure passage) is just another cog in the seemingly never ending privatization of our commons.

I wouldn't be terribly happy but then 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.

the sort of fee you describe now exists along the 'airport road' in Sedona, AZ and on the road to summerhaven on mt. lemmon in Tucson. if you stop along the way at one of the turnouts you'd better have a tag on your windshield or risk a ticket. I understand the need to maintain roads and infrastructure but as with red light cameras in our area a lot of these fees are just designed to raise general revenue.

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.

"...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.

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!