LuckyDan
Senior Member
“And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”. Friedrich Nietzsche
I’ll start with I certainly understand Teledork’s concerns. While her area has always been popular, the past was nothing compared to now. Foy’s Montana is in a similar boat. Heck, I, as probably everyone here is in a similar boat. As I previously stated these topics are interesting earlier in this, I share the following:
The idea of fee for access is mentioned as a remedy, that fee is or could be a detriment or the start of cascading detriment and we already pay fees for the same or similar so another is within the realm of reasonability, (I think that’s a word?).
We as consumers of the natural world and the public domain in this Country are charged fees to access all, or parts of it. The problem with the expectations in my opinion is those fees are not universal. For example, I now pay a fee to access 19 trailheads in the Central Cascades and they are limited in availability. The fee is new this year, (Okay not exactly, the original launch date was postponed so stop typing). I can go across the way to the Blue Mtns and hike a BUNCH of trails and access A LOT of various Wildernesses for no fee at all. Some trailheads don’t even have sign in boxes. There are several venues across the PNW that my Forest Pass won’t gain me access to as they are under Concessionaire Contract, thus I pay their fee. The point is The state/USFS Region where Paul T and I live, we have a lot available that access costs us nothing to little, and access is currently unregulated or very minimally regulated. In other States people may pay more and may be regulated. I can’t type for Paul, but I for one am concerned about paying more, dubious what that more gets me or anyone, and being further limited. Can that limit be argued as minimal or for the greater good? Certainly.
This brings me to the second point. The idea as I understand it, is that a fee will get more and/or better enforcement. Under the current fee structure charged in the PNW by Region 6 of the Forest Service as the example, little or no monies collected go toward hard, (Law) enforcement. What may be spent in soft (employee contact) enforcement is unclear, I’ll offer not a lot or enough. Based on that, I don’t know another fee will change that. The following link offers the breakdown, scroll toward the bottom and you be the judge.
In closing, what limiting access will do, (The cascading detriment) is disperse those who seek access to the public domain elsewhere, as in other National Forests, BLM lands and so on. For example Gone used the Deschutes River Example. It is highly regulated below Pelton Dam and has a fairly robust infrastructure to support it. When the permit system went into full effect in the 80’s, the shift in use to other rivers within a couple years was significant within their respective seasons. So everyone be prepared to share that you may not need to now, and be ready to travel more and schedule more as what may be in your back yard, may not be readily accessible to you. I’ll go out on a limb and offer that some on here post have travels to far flung places because their respective home turf is over run, over used, trashed and so on. Finally for those who think this isn’t an issue for me, my area or my favorite place; I’ll offer that it’s just not an issue for you YET.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/deschutes/passes-permits/?cid=fsbdev2_026999#deschutes
I’ll start with I certainly understand Teledork’s concerns. While her area has always been popular, the past was nothing compared to now. Foy’s Montana is in a similar boat. Heck, I, as probably everyone here is in a similar boat. As I previously stated these topics are interesting earlier in this, I share the following:
The idea of fee for access is mentioned as a remedy, that fee is or could be a detriment or the start of cascading detriment and we already pay fees for the same or similar so another is within the realm of reasonability, (I think that’s a word?).
We as consumers of the natural world and the public domain in this Country are charged fees to access all, or parts of it. The problem with the expectations in my opinion is those fees are not universal. For example, I now pay a fee to access 19 trailheads in the Central Cascades and they are limited in availability. The fee is new this year, (Okay not exactly, the original launch date was postponed so stop typing). I can go across the way to the Blue Mtns and hike a BUNCH of trails and access A LOT of various Wildernesses for no fee at all. Some trailheads don’t even have sign in boxes. There are several venues across the PNW that my Forest Pass won’t gain me access to as they are under Concessionaire Contract, thus I pay their fee. The point is The state/USFS Region where Paul T and I live, we have a lot available that access costs us nothing to little, and access is currently unregulated or very minimally regulated. In other States people may pay more and may be regulated. I can’t type for Paul, but I for one am concerned about paying more, dubious what that more gets me or anyone, and being further limited. Can that limit be argued as minimal or for the greater good? Certainly.
This brings me to the second point. The idea as I understand it, is that a fee will get more and/or better enforcement. Under the current fee structure charged in the PNW by Region 6 of the Forest Service as the example, little or no monies collected go toward hard, (Law) enforcement. What may be spent in soft (employee contact) enforcement is unclear, I’ll offer not a lot or enough. Based on that, I don’t know another fee will change that. The following link offers the breakdown, scroll toward the bottom and you be the judge.
In closing, what limiting access will do, (The cascading detriment) is disperse those who seek access to the public domain elsewhere, as in other National Forests, BLM lands and so on. For example Gone used the Deschutes River Example. It is highly regulated below Pelton Dam and has a fairly robust infrastructure to support it. When the permit system went into full effect in the 80’s, the shift in use to other rivers within a couple years was significant within their respective seasons. So everyone be prepared to share that you may not need to now, and be ready to travel more and schedule more as what may be in your back yard, may not be readily accessible to you. I’ll go out on a limb and offer that some on here post have travels to far flung places because their respective home turf is over run, over used, trashed and so on. Finally for those who think this isn’t an issue for me, my area or my favorite place; I’ll offer that it’s just not an issue for you YET.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/deschutes/passes-permits/?cid=fsbdev2_026999#deschutes