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.

[lfcjasp]

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]

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

[Rancher_Will]

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.

[fj12ryder]

I can't access the link from WSJ, and you say that the article's only change is the headline. If that is so then the WSJ headline is incorrect, as the article makes no mention of runners being the only people targeted for the fee. The only criteria for the fee was "rim to rim" hike or run".

That would make Faux News' headline as accurate as the WSJ headline. I'll bet that doesn't happen too often. 🙂

[Francesca_Knowl]

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.

[rk911]

camperforlife wrote:
I'd call it a slant as well. Here is a quote from the article that sums up the need for a fee pretty well:

"The service received "pretty much constant" emergency service calls for issues including dehydration and blisters that weekend, she said. Unprepared and injured trekkers triggered more search-and-rescue operations, park rangers said."

A fee will cut down on the unprepared weekenders who don't have a clue what they are getting into.

how is that a 'slant' unless 'slant' means the facts that resulted in the decision to require a fee? in my mind "slanting" an article means twisting or inventing facts to support a point-of-view.

Webster's defines slant this way: "to interpret or present in line with a special interest". i'd say there's little-to-no interpretation going on in that article. after a 35-yr career in public safety communications, the last 28 of which were at a major, regional 9-1-1 call center in suburban Chicago, I can attest to the general lack of preparation to meet easily expected emergency situations in the general public. lack of enough water, proper footware, reasonable expectations as to time, etc. would, or should, all be easily forseeable problems that might arise during a hike from rim-to-rim at GCNP.

[camperforlife]

I'd call it a slant as well. Here is a quote from the article that sums up the need for a fee pretty well:

"The service received "pretty much constant" emergency service calls for issues including dehydration and blisters that weekend, she said. Unprepared and injured trekkers triggered more search-and-rescue operations, park rangers said."

A fee will cut down on the unprepared weekenders who don't have a clue what they are getting into.

[rhagfo]

ed6713 wrote:
Someone has to pay to clean up the trash, rescue the fools, etc.
I've always been a fan of user fees for such things. Better, in my opinion, then using general tax dollars. If you want to play, you have to pay.

X2

[fj12ryder]

Yeah, I don't care for Feux News, what little I read of it anyway, but I didn't think it was biased one way or the other. Just a FYI pretty much.

[mich800]

Francesca Knowles wrote:
Leave it to Fox to slant this story as if permits are something new and onerous. They're not, having been required for individual backcountry/overnight hikers at the GC for many years. Typical individual fee is $10.00, though annual frequent-hiker permits are also available. Link to Parks page As already noted, this new program affects only GROUPS of hikers, and is an attempt to limit their impact.

An article in a perhaps more respectable source, the Lansing State Journal, gets it right beginning with its proper headline:
Grand Canyon group trips need permit
That article further notes that groups as big as 150 people have been not uncommon in the past. Such enormous parties will now evidently not be allowed, or at least better controlled. Seems reasonable and even responsible to me.

Maybe you have some preconceived bias of the source. I read the article and headline and in no way was my take the parks were charging an onerous fees or even a bad thing. Simply there will be a permit fee for group treks.

[TurnThePage]

rk911 wrote:

Francesca Knowles wrote:
Leave it to Fox to slant this story as if permits are something new and onerous....

slant is in the eye of the beholder.

What a Fair & Balanced response! 😉

Maybe I'll wait for a new knee before making that trek. It's on my list though.

[rk911]

Francesca Knowles wrote:
Leave it to Fox to slant this story as if permits are something new and onerous....

slant is in the eye of the beholder.

[Mr_Beebo]

I'm going to step back in and agree with just about everything said. I've been on many trails thru National parks and seen the litter strewn along pathways. I saw a male and female ranger go 100' down a side of the Smokies and disappear while hiking to Abrams Falls, so steep they were holding onto brush to both descend and then come back up. All to retrieve several soda cans, water bottles and some dorito bags.

What are folks thinking when they look over the canyons, at the same time dropping a Gatorade bottle? That the rangers will pick it up?
What are they thinking taking trails listed at moderate or difficult, in only flip flops, with no water, and a cell phone in their face? That everything is like tv?
If people could police themselves, show some responsibility and some respect, things probably wouldn't get to this. However, I suppose charging for the trail may encourage some of the casual, out of shape, ill equipped, insensitive sorts to photo the trail head and watch the rest of the hike on youtube.

It's too bad it has to be that way.

[TomHaycraft]

Some things change, others stay the same.

In 2003, I did the rim to rim run with a small group from Austin, TX. The NP discouraged these activities to the point that we talked little about what we were doing. Now it is so common they are charging fees.

We trained for it, much as one would in a "build" for a marathon complete with downhill repeats to prep our quads and knees for the first 7 miles to get down to the bottom of the canyon. We saw many "casual hikers" who appeared to be no more prepared than those taking a walk in a city park. We heard the stories about the number of rescues the park service and emergency response teams would have to perform.

I don't recall trash (litter) being a big issue, but each of us picked up what we saw, left the canyon a little cleaner than before we entered.

To run it again and have to pay the fees? I wouldn't be mad about the fees, I would be mad about those who are unprepared for the conditions or for those so clue-less to leave the litter for others to pick up.

[PawPaw_n_Gram]

During our stay as CG hosts at a national park this summer, we noticed that the NPS is getting more serious about ensuring that Commercial Use Authorizations are actually obtained. There are a lot of companies which make a lot of money off our National Parks facilities.

It is only fair that they foot some of the bill for the extra costs they force the national parks to spend to support their businesses.