Gotta Pay Before You Hike

[Mr_Beebo]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/30/grand-canyon-to-charge-hikers-fee-for-rim-to-rim-trek/?intcmp=l...

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.

[Roy_Lynne]

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.

[mowermech]

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!

[Brassica]

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.

[D_E_Bishop]

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.

[bid_time]

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.

[dodge_guy]

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!

[2012Coleman]

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.

[NJRVer]

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!

[Off_Pavement]

"...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.

[tsetsaf]

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.

[rk911]

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.

[Off_Pavement]

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.

[dahkota]

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.

[2gypsies1]

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.