Oregon Hikers

teachpdx wrote: ↑

February 6th, 2020, 3:02 pm

Fees still happening, but apparently reduced.
A small silver lining for all of our "public comment".

I think that's an enormous silver lining.

But if none of the funds are going to the USFS, I don't quite understand how Recreation.gov gets away with charging 6 times more to book an overnight trip than a day hike.

adamschneider wrote: ↑

February 6th, 2020, 4:50 pm

But if none of the funds are going to the USFS, I don't quite understand how Recreation.gov gets away with charging 6 times more to book an overnight trip than a day hike.

They say the rationale is that overnight is "like a reservation" while dayhiking is "like a ticket" to an event. It's just the square holes they had to fit the round pegs in to. So, basically, it was as though a programmer decided.

Does the fee just go to expenses of website?

My complaint is how they're limiting the number of people to the entire wilderness. For no good reason.

adamschneider wrote: ↑

February 6th, 2020, 4:50 pm

teachpdx wrote: ↑

February 6th, 2020, 3:02 pm

Fees still happening, but apparently reduced.
A small silver lining for all of our "public comment".

I think that's an enormous silver lining.

But if none of the funds are going to the USFS, I don't quite understand how Recreation.gov gets away with charging 6 times more to book an overnight trip than a day hike.

It has nothing to do with public comment.

It's illegal what they proposed to do in that short time frame. They're just buying time to stay within the law.

retired jerry wrote: ↑

February 6th, 2020, 5:55 pm

Does the fee just go to expenses of website?

Yes it just goes to the Federal contractor Booz Allen Hamilton for the expenses of that website. There's no way they're just profiting greatly on the contract they won. If the 45+ minute wait time to talk to a human is any indication it's got to be incredibly expensive to maintain that website. They're probably lucky if they only break even when they have to host the complex and intricate booking of public federal lands and facilities which have a near insatiable demand from the public.

I read this article recently, and although it is maybe a tad cynical/sarcastic, it does summarize the trend in recreation that we are seeing and sheds some light on what's happening with Recgov.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.outdoo ... ands%3famp

Good story

$6 fee seems reasonable to reserve a campsite, probably not a huge profit maker for BAH

My problem is still that over-use is not a huge problem. And that restricting the entire wilderness is over reaction.

FS should be encouraging more people to use the Wilderness

I agree. There are a few areas that get busy in the prime season. They can manage this with education, installing backcountry toilets, etc.

This plan just seems like the lazy way out and it does nothing to correct bad behavior. It just relies on reducing overall use over the entire area, which is ridiculous. I can't think of another hiking area in the country that limits day use to the extent this plan does.

This is a major victory. There's so way to spin it: The FS felt enormous public pressure and knew that litigation was coming. They also knew that they would probably lose in court, so they backed down. Good decision by whoever got sensible about this.

As to the current plan about having to go to recreation.gov, I agree with others that it's way too restrictive. Most of the 79 trails won't come anywhere close to reaching their quotas, but you'll still have to go to the website and buy a permit. So many unanswered questions:

-Can you get a free permit at the ranger station?

-Will they still divide the permits as they said they would?: "A portion of permits will be available for reservation well in advance of a trip, and the remaining portion will be made available immediately prior to a trip (i.e. the day before)."

-Can people change their dates or cancel their permits so that others can use them? If they run this like the Obsidian permits, then a large percentage of people will "grab" the permits on the release date and then not actually use them. Since the FS is now being more sensible, perhaps they'll design a better system this time.

-What is the staffing for enforcing quotas? I believe historically they have staffed two seasonal rangers at Obsidian during high-season weekends. I saw another one roaming around Tam McArthur once. That's obviously not going to cut it for 1/2 million acres.

cunningkeith wrote: ↑

February 7th, 2020, 8:29 am

-What is the staffing for enforcing quotas? I believe historically they have staffed two seasonal rangers at Obsidian during high-season weekends. I saw another one roaming around Tam McArthur once. That's obviously not going to cut it for 1/2 million acres.

Hush. No one is supposed to notice that.

The original proposal envisioned the permit system as creating a revenue stream capable of supporting a budget for new staff who would help help with both education and enforcement efforts. From what I can see (and I've only seen this thread, not an official press release) this revision of the plan doesn't provide the USFS for Willamette NF and Deschutes NF with any new revenue at all. With 79 trailheads and hundreds of thousands of acres to cover, their chances for effective enforcement are roughly nil. Except perhaps in those few high-volume, high use areas that we tried to tell them were the only sensible place to put quotas anyway.

This will almost certainly result in many people ignoring the quotas and permits altogether, which in turn will defeat the purpose of this enormously broad attempt to restrict access. Making rules that cannot possibly be enforced eventually creates resentment of those rules both among those who follow them and those who do not.