Recreation Fees and Reforms

General discussions on hiking in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest
User avatar
kepPNW
Posts: 6411
Joined: June 21st, 2012, 9:55 am
Location: Salmon Creek

Re: Recreation Fees and Reforms

Post by kepPNW » November 30th, 2016, 9:06 am

Koda wrote:I wasn’t around when they were invented so its possible I missed out on some controversy and am just used to them, but AFAIK there is no federal tax paying for the plow in winter like there is for trail maintenance in the summer.
What I remember was they were an extension of the Reagan philosophy that government should do absolutely nothing to benefit "the general welfare" of the populace, but rather nickle-and-dime those who may benefit from individual services in order to prove how inefficient government really was and ultimately do away with the service. In this case, snow-plowing. Used to be simply considered the natural role of the socialist state. Then, it became viewed as that unnatural role of the socialist state! Yes, there was a time when We The People gave a damn about our fellow citizens.
Karl
Back on the trail, again...

User avatar
Guy
Posts: 3333
Joined: May 10th, 2009, 4:42 pm
Location: The Foothills of Mt Hood
Contact:

Re: Recreation Fees and Reforms

Post by Guy » November 30th, 2016, 9:26 am

kepPNW wrote:
Koda wrote:I wasn’t around when they were invented so its possible I missed out on some controversy and am just used to them, but AFAIK there is no federal tax paying for the plow in winter like there is for trail maintenance in the summer.
What I remember was they were an extension of the Reagan philosophy that government should do absolutely nothing to benefit "the general welfare" of the populace, but rather nickle-and-dime those who may benefit from individual services in order to prove how inefficient government really was and ultimately do away with the service. In this case, snow-plowing. Used to be simply considered the natural role of the socialist state. Then, it became viewed as that unnatural role of the socialist state! Yes, there was a time when We The People gave a damn about our fellow citizens.
You forgot to put the <Evil Reagan Rant> </Evil Reagan Rant>tags around your reply Karl ;)

Personally I'm OK with snow park permits if they are at locations were snow clearing and maintenance is done. Yes it's a fee for service but it's a service the vast majority of the population does not avail itself of.

If a "snow permit" was required just to travel snow cleared roads then I would certainly be against it.
hiking log & photos.
Ad monte summa aut mors

User avatar
BigBear
Posts: 1836
Joined: October 1st, 2009, 11:54 am

Re: Recreation Fees and Reforms

Post by BigBear » November 30th, 2016, 9:46 am

Sno-Park Pass fees offset the cost of plowing the parking areas that normally would be closed during the winter.

The trailhead fee (introduced in 1994) was proposed as a voluntary fee that would increase the existing budget for trail maintenance. However, MHNF immediately zeroed-out their existing trail maintenance budget (as shared with me by the budget analyst who was ordered to do it) and the the fees went toward signage that demanded the fee be paid by all users. USFS was sued numerous times since 1994, including an Arizona case which made it a requirement that a minimum of a picnic table, privy and trash can be at each location where a fee was charged, and two additional cases which said the fee at non-developed trailheads was "unambiguously prohibited." The Supervisor for Region 6, when asked about the court findings, replied "we don't recognize the findings from these court cases" (even though the defendant was USFS. I have sent letters to Wyden and Merkeley and they have been non-responsive. The attitude seems to be: each citizen has to sue the Forest Service on their own, they will win, but it will cost them more than the $30/year in court fees. So, how sour would you be toward USFS given such an arrogant attitude toward the law?

User avatar
kepPNW
Posts: 6411
Joined: June 21st, 2012, 9:55 am
Location: Salmon Creek

Re: Recreation Fees and Reforms

Post by kepPNW » November 30th, 2016, 9:55 am

Guy wrote:You forgot to put the <Evil Reagan Rant> </Evil Reagan Rant>tags around your reply Karl ;)
Heh, Goldwater started it, Reagan institutionalized it, Trump normalized it. Facts is facts. :twisted:
Guy wrote:Personally I'm OK with snow park permits if they are at locations were snow clearing and maintenance is done. Yes it's a fee for service but it's a service the vast majority of the population does not avail itself of.

If a "snow permit" was required just to travel snow cleared roads then I would certainly be against it.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I'm pretty sure the funds are not wholly dedicated to clearing parking lots. At least originally, they were intended to pay for snow-plowing in general. (I believe some ski resorts actually contract for plowing roads that lead to them, then bill the state.) So, it might be argued that, anyone who drives over Government camp is availing themselves of a service paid for by a small minority? Could be I'm remembering ancient history, and they've cleaned up their stories enough that this isn't the clear message anymore, too.
Karl
Back on the trail, again...

User avatar
Koda
Posts: 3466
Joined: June 5th, 2009, 7:54 am

Re: Recreation Fees and Reforms

Post by Koda » November 30th, 2016, 11:16 am

kepPNW wrote:Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I'm pretty sure the funds are not wholly dedicated to clearing parking lots. At least originally, they were intended to pay for snow-plowing in general.
I always thought ODOT paid for general plowing from state and/or federal taxes... snowed over roads affect interstate commerce, so a necessity. Ive always assumed that snowparks are purely recreational facilities and thus the reason for the snow park permit to maintain them in winter. Im super skeptical the annual snow park revenue could even remotely touch the cost of plowing all the roads statewide even on a light snow year.
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2

User avatar
miah66
Posts: 2039
Joined: July 6th, 2009, 8:00 pm

Re: Recreation Fees and Reforms

Post by miah66 » November 30th, 2016, 11:21 am

Koda wrote: Im super skeptical the annual snow park NWFP revenue could even remotely touch the cost of plowing all the roads maintaining all the trails statewide even on a light snow year.
FTFY :lol: ;)
"The top...is not the top" - Mile...Mile & a Half

Instagram @pdxstrider

User avatar
BigBear
Posts: 1836
Joined: October 1st, 2009, 11:54 am

Re: Recreation Fees and Reforms

Post by BigBear » November 30th, 2016, 1:03 pm

I'm leaning toward miah66's edit of "all roads" to "trailheads." The roads are probably covered by gas taxes, but the sno-parking was meant to offset the parking areas.

Also, I would like to add that MHNF had created some skeptical impressions in the 1990s which led up to the lawsuits over the forest passes.

The primary battle was over "Paragraph B." If a ranger ever started talking about outfitter/guide permits, all you had to do at that time was hint that you had read Paragraph B and s/he would get nervous and start backpeddling immediately. Unfortunately, the back-peddling never seemed to go so far as to understand that Paragraph B was tax law, and not under the authority of USFS to change. It was tax code, plain and simple.

At issue was whether or not hike leaders of outdoor clubs were volunteers or outfitter/guides which required individual permits, liability insurance, and would have to pay USFS to walk their trails. Paragraph B, which can be found in ORS 704.015 (2) (b) notes that "shared trip costs" (reimbursements for mileage) are excluded from the determination of compensation, and thus those individuals are not outfitter/guides.

It took many a conversation to get MHNF on board with this law.

Another situation arose at this time where the Hood River District expressed concern over hikers on the grazed lands of Memaloose Hills east of Mosier. They set-up a meeting with Mazamas, Trails Club, Friends of the Gorge, Clark County CC, and another club to discuss this issue. At the meeting, the 7 USFS employees tried to pass off "Testimony to a Subcommittee" as a "Public Law" and thus was going to require each oranization to submit its bylaws and financial records for review, as well as pay for permits for every single trail they hiked.

Fortunately, the plan was exposed for the fraud that it was. Testimony is not law, and it appears the bill never made it out of committee.

The third event I recall at that time was some harrassment by Zig Zag RS of the Mazamas over the grandfathering-in of two memorials (approved by the Region 6 Supervisor as being grandfathered-in), which ZZRS would have to return to the Mazamas for re-dedication. One of the rangers met the hiking group at Burnt Lake and started making up rules. These "rules" included "no laughing in the wilderness" and "only two people can swim in the lake at any one time." The sad thing for this ranger was that the hike leader was actually an USFS employee at the regional office and knew very well that there no such laws. The ZZRS head ranger was called on Monday, read the riot act, and no further incidents came to be.

So, when the NW Forest Pass came into existence, did not provide the trail maintenance as promised, and was not voluntary...well, the sparks flew.

User avatar
Guy
Posts: 3333
Joined: May 10th, 2009, 4:42 pm
Location: The Foothills of Mt Hood
Contact:

Re: Recreation Fees and Reforms

Post by Guy » November 30th, 2016, 2:57 pm

BigBear wrote: The third event I recall at that time was some harrassment by Zig Zag RS of the Mazamas over the grandfathering-in of two memorials (approved by the Region 6 Supervisor as being grandfathered-in), which ZZRS would have to return to the Mazamas for re-dedication. One of the rangers met the hiking group at Burnt Lake and started making up rules. These "rules" included "no laughing in the wilderness" and "only two people can swim in the lake at any one time." The sad thing for this ranger was that the hike leader was actually an USFS employee at the regional office and knew very well that there no such laws. The ZZRS head ranger was called on Monday, read the riot act, and no further incidents came to be.
Amazing, this sounds like something you would expect to read in The Onion. Was laughing allowed if you purchased the correct "laughing permit" :)
hiking log & photos.
Ad monte summa aut mors

User avatar
Water
Posts: 1355
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Recreation Fees and Reforms

Post by Water » December 5th, 2016, 4:27 pm

i just came here to wallow in my own crapulence and appreciate that there is enough of a faction these days to actually self-sustain such a thread.

bigbear thank you for your pertinent and incisive comments.

chrisca for your efforts to bring about clearer accounting on the monies generated by NWFP and how it is distributed. Do you need help with anything? I've wanted to spearhead efforts like this with MSHI/MSHNVM but it falls apart for numerous reasons, namely as a non-expert I am grappling at straws in dark on so much, Rumsfield's 'unknown unknowns' - there are tools, processes, procedures I don't even know that I don't know.

And others who support the accountability of government, I know few of you have any qualms with paying for public good, and willingly do so at greater levels if it is transparently executed. I don't want government out of my life, I want efficient, effective, transparent, and equitable government acting at the behest of citizens.

/end rant
Feel Free to Feel Free

User avatar
miah66
Posts: 2039
Joined: July 6th, 2009, 8:00 pm

Re: Recreation Fees and Reforms

Post by miah66 » December 5th, 2016, 5:01 pm

Water wrote:I don't want government out of my life, I want efficient, effective, transparent, and equitable government acting at the behest of citizens.

/end rant
well spoken, less effectively executed!
"The top...is not the top" - Mile...Mile & a Half

Instagram @pdxstrider

Post Reply