Gifford Pinchot fees

Use this forum to post links to news stories from other websites - ones that other hikers might find interesting. This is not intended for original material or anecdotal information. You can reply to any news stories posted, but do not start a new thread without a link to a specific news story.
ChrisA
Posts: 54
Joined: June 11th, 2021, 12:14 pm
Location: Vancouver, WA

Gifford Pinchot fees

Post by ChrisA » July 19th, 2022, 11:12 am

Gifford Pinchot NF is proposing new or increased fees. You can find information on their website.

User avatar
Bosterson
Posts: 2317
Joined: May 18th, 2009, 3:17 pm
Location: Portland

Re: Gifford Pinchot fees

Post by Bosterson » July 19th, 2022, 12:00 pm

Wait, they're going to rent out the Burley Mountain lookout? Did they fix the leaks in the roof? That thing did not seem like it was in good enough shape to rent out last time I was there...

Also I don't think a bunch of those MSH sites (specifically Hummocks and S Coldwater) have the FLREA required amenities to support a fee. Which presumably means that the USFS - which is trying to raise money since its budget is so overburdened - is going to build new facilities just so they can charge for access? That makes sense.

But otherwise, thanks for the heads up on this. I kind of vaguely remember this being floated a few years ago. I think this, along with all the other recent proposals (Central Cascades, the upcoming Mt Hood climbing permit, new access permits at Red Rocks in Vegas, eg) really does lay bare that the land managers (USFS and BLM) see access fees and pay-to-play as the endgame for the majority of public lands.

Really, everyone that goes outdoors needs to adopt a full court press of "no new fees" (yes, you can say that in a GW Bush voice), hard stop.
#pnw #bestlife #bitingflies #favoriteyellowcap #neverdispleased

User avatar
jdemott
Posts: 651
Joined: July 23rd, 2010, 1:43 pm
Contact:

Re: Gifford Pinchot fees

Post by jdemott » July 19th, 2022, 2:59 pm

I totally understand the strong feelings against new or increased user fees. But let me for a moment offer the devil's advocate view that maybe user fees aren't the unmitigated evil they might seem.

1. For decades, the USFS has viewed forest industry (loggers, lumber mills, etc.) as the agency's primary customer, and hikers and outdoor enthusiasts have been second class citizens. The reason is simple, the industrial users contributed to the agency budget and the hikers were just an expense. It might be a very good thing for hikers, campers, etc., to be seen as a group who contribute to the agency budget. We would be customers, entitled to demand better service, not just supplicants.

2. One of the common arguments against fees is that this is OUR LAND, we've already paid for it so we shouldn't have to pay to use it. I own my house also and in fact have lived here long enough that it is actually paid for. But I still have to keep paying and paying if I want to continue to enjoy it. Sometimes it is something small like a leaky faucet and other times it is something big like a new roof, but being the owner just means that I keep paying. Forests are no different--things cost money, even for owners.

3. Now that I am in my mid-seventies, some minor amenities seem much more important. A regularly serviced toilet at the trailhead is a big convenience. A maintained trail with safe stream crossings and free of major obstacles like rock slides is really important--a fall would not be a good thing for me. I understand that a lot of users welcome some more adventure and don't care much about improvements--I used to go places that I wouldn't think of going now. There are a lot of folks (seniors, families with children, people with disabilities) who need to have some of the minor improvements and maintenance that fees can support.

4. The user fees for USFS lands are pretty modest. Compared with just about any other recreational activity, they are a great bargain.

5. What I worry about is that commercial outfitters and concessionaires will come along and offer to pay fees that ordinary users resist paying. Those third parties would gain control over desirable sites, which they would then sell or rent to those willing to pay. The result of that would certainly be much higher costs and more limits on access to desirable sites. Far better for regular users to pay our share directly to the USFS and keep the middlemen out of the picture.

I know this doesn't have the gut appeal of "no new fees" but it's my two cents worth.

AlpenGlowHiker
Posts: 81
Joined: May 14th, 2020, 6:35 am
Location: Portland

Re: Gifford Pinchot fees

Post by AlpenGlowHiker » July 20th, 2022, 5:03 am

jdemott, I pretty much agree with you.

One thing that prompted me to reply, was your comment about concessionaires. Keep them out. I don't have a need for them, and I don't want them.

I want the USFS maintaining (or whoever the land owner is) and charging fee's for it, as the fee's are priced to the point of maintenance NOT for making a profit.

jdemott wrote:
July 19th, 2022, 2:59 pm
I totally understand the strong feelings against new or increased user fees. But let me for a moment offer the devil's advocate view that maybe user fees aren't the unmitigated evil they might seem.

1. For decades, the USFS has viewed forest industry (loggers, lumber mills, etc.) as the agency's primary customer, and hikers and outdoor enthusiasts have been second class citizens. The reason is simple, the industrial users contributed to the agency budget and the hikers were just an expense. It might be a very good thing for hikers, campers, etc., to be seen as a group who contribute to the agency budget. We would be customers, entitled to demand better service, not just supplicants.

2. One of the common arguments against fees is that this is OUR LAND, we've already paid for it so we shouldn't have to pay to use it. I own my house also and in fact have lived here long enough that it is actually paid for. But I still have to keep paying and paying if I want to continue to enjoy it. Sometimes it is something small like a leaky faucet and other times it is something big like a new roof, but being the owner just means that I keep paying. Forests are no different--things cost money, even for owners.

3. Now that I am in my mid-seventies, some minor amenities seem much more important. A regularly serviced toilet at the trailhead is a big convenience. A maintained trail with safe stream crossings and free of major obstacles like rock slides is really important--a fall would not be a good thing for me. I understand that a lot of users welcome some more adventure and don't care much about improvements--I used to go places that I wouldn't think of going now. There are a lot of folks (seniors, families with children, people with disabilities) who need to have some of the minor improvements and maintenance that fees can support.

4. The user fees for USFS lands are pretty modest. Compared with just about any other recreational activity, they are a great bargain.

5. What I worry about is that commercial outfitters and concessionaires will come along and offer to pay fees that ordinary users resist paying. Those third parties would gain control over desirable sites, which they would then sell or rent to those willing to pay. The result of that would certainly be much higher costs and more limits on access to desirable sites. Far better for regular users to pay our share directly to the USFS and keep the middlemen out of the picture.

I know this doesn't have the gut appeal of "no new fees" but it's my two cents worth.

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 14396
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Gifford Pinchot fees

Post by retired jerry » July 20th, 2022, 5:29 am

I don't care if there's a concessionaire, as long as they're friendly

I've had concessionaires that acted all officious, but usually they're friendly.

And as long as they don't charge more.

I noticed that at McNeil Campground, the sign says the host will come by and collect the fee, but no one ever came. Two nights.

I think income taxes should pay for FS expenses.

Charge for campgrounds is fine. If they increase a little to cover expenses that's okay.

Congress should add to the REA, that for trailheads, they can charge a fee for trail maintenance. And not have to put in those amenities. But paying from income taxes would be better.

Just my opinion :)

justpeachy
Posts: 3066
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Re: Gifford Pinchot fees

Post by justpeachy » July 20th, 2022, 9:42 am

Bosterson wrote:
July 19th, 2022, 12:00 pm
Wait, they're going to rent out the Burley Mountain lookout? Did they fix the leaks in the roof? That thing did not seem like it was in good enough shape to rent out last time I was there...
Red Mountain Lookout is on that list too and when I was there last fall the place was in need of repairs. At one point in time volunteers had fixed it up really nice, but it hasn't been kept up, even though they've been talking about making it into a rental for YEARS.

At minimum both Burley and Red will need toilets installed in order for them to become rentals.

$90/night is the most expensive price I've seen for a lookout rental that is rented through recreation.gov (which I presume these will be).

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

Re: Gifford Pinchot fees

Post by Water » July 20th, 2022, 9:13 pm

Really, pay the fees to the FS or the fear you'll have to pay them to a for-profit entity who will jack up the price??

I probably sound toxic, but this is a pathetic capitulating response. Half these fees already get harvested by a for-profit entity that runs recreation.gov where you have to go to get the permits. When you book Burley Mountain lookout for (checks notes) $90 a night, you get a decrepit 90 year old lookout... And pay Booz Allen Hamilton $8 for the liberty to book it.. And $10 to a Booz if you have to cancel, in addition to forfeiting your original $8. And if it's 14 days or closer, the first night's cost ($90) gets taken.

Compared to $75/night for Bear Basin lookout and cabin in northern California... That can sleep up to 12 people and is a properly maintained facility. Or Green Ridge Lookout at $40/night for a swank lookout with nice flooring, windows, sink basin, fridge, stove, etc.

The lewis River permits, money straight to Booz Allen Hamilton.. Same for Central cascades permits.

So we are already there.. Private entities are already siphoning funds from the public to access public lands. And the drive to monetize access to public lands only makes an absolute portfolio and gives the empirical backing to eventual outsourcing.

You're not going to avoid concessionaires and pay to play scenarios by paying the FS's fees today. Edit: Supporting and paying fees sends the message you're a customer in a capitalistic society ready to buy a product. I think most of us would recognize this is the antithesis of why we go to the woods.
Last edited by Water on July 21st, 2022, 6:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Feel Free to Feel Free

User avatar
Bosterson
Posts: 2317
Joined: May 18th, 2009, 3:17 pm
Location: Portland

Re: Gifford Pinchot fees

Post by Bosterson » July 21st, 2022, 10:33 am

John, I do want to make clear that my "no new fees" (read my lips!) quip was meant to take advantage of a GW Bush joke. But beyond that, I'm not saying that fees are universally bad and should be opposed in some libertarian sense, but rather that given the history of the last few years, I am expressing a no confidence vote in the FS's pay-to-play system. I am advocating opposing all fees categorically until the FS is willing to negotiate and codify a strategy that does not trend in the direction of ubiquitous fees. The "amenity fee" portion of FLREA should probably also be repealed or significantly amended. This is about putting our foot down until renegotiation happens.

I could go through your arguments point by point. Managing public forest lands is not comparable to owning a private home. (By analogy, your argument would support all roads being toll roads because they require repaving.) The "modesty" of fee amounts is irrelevant to the argument of whether or not some/most places should be free to access. (By analogy, take the absurd contention someone else here made a while back that the NPS's suggested increase of National Park entrance fees to $70 was completely reasonable given how much one would spend on gas to drive to them - and that low income people who might find this burdensome should manage their money better. Not that you were saying the latter, but anything that isn't free isn't free.) Your concern about concessionaires is ironic considering the fees filter through the "middleman" of a government contractor (Booz) who takes a cut. (The Central Cascades permit fiasco resulted in a system that provides no funding to the USFS but diverts our personal dollars to Booz in exchange for access.) The idea that the Gifford NF, which has a $10M maintenance backlog, would pay to build new facilities (which would then presumably further contribute to the backlog) in order to justify charging a fee at them is ludicrous. I understand your preference for user facilities, and they are sometimes nice to have, though installing them just to legally justify fees seems a bit like gaming the system. (The Coldwater Lake boat launch has a bathroom and there is no justifiable reason to put another bathroom right down the road at South Coldwater and yet another one in between them at Hummocks, especially considering neither of those trailheads is ever crowded. Neither of those trailheads needs a picnic table because no one would "picnic" there when other places that actually have views are nearby - the only reason to drive to them is to park your car while you hike. I have never seen "security services" at a trailhead in my life.) Etc.

The current mission creep of fees everywhere, on everything (again, this is a zero sum game - eventually we will run out of free places to go), is what I oppose, given that it's pretty clear that is going to be the end result unless we start pushing back against it. This is a question of what we want public lands access to look like 20-40 years from now, assuming the planet doesn't burn down before then.
#pnw #bestlife #bitingflies #favoriteyellowcap #neverdispleased

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

Re: Gifford Pinchot fees

Post by Water » July 21st, 2022, 4:46 pm

also to clarify, these fees were never ever intended to actually support the facilities. It was entirely a supplemental revenue in addition to existing funding. And if you look at the original publications from almost every National Forest in the PNW you'll see 'trails' are a front and center highlight of where fee money ostensibly is spent. These days trails are not even mentioned. https://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/r6/p ... ev2_026999
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DO ... 024179.pdf
Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area - Recreation Fee Program 2003
Fees collected through the program supplements our appropriated recreation dollars to help maintain trails, campgrounds and picnic areas and enhance visitor services at many of these sites.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DO ... 024179.pdf
Deschutes National Forest - Recreation Fee Program 2003
Recreation fees continue to supplement appropriated funds and volunteer efforts in providing trail maintenance to protect our resources while providing quality hiking experiences for forest visitors as well as supporting 80% of operations and maintenance costs at Lava Lands Visitor Center and Lava River Cave in Newberry National Volcanic Monument,” Mark Christiansen, Recreation Fee Program Coordinator.

All other collections (private vendors, self-serve pay stations, and Forest Service offices) are used to supplement appropriated funds to complete trail maintenance. In 2003, this amounted to approximately 40% of all available funds for trail maintenance.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DO ... 024798.pdf
Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest - Recreation Fee Program 2003
The Northwest Forest Pass is a Fee Demo project for use at highly developed trailheads, some boat launches, and picnic areas. These funds supplement congressionally-appropriated dollars that maintain the forests’ trail system.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DO ... 024412.pdf
Siuslaw National Forest - Recreation Fee Program 2003
When Congress passed the Recreation Fee Demonstration authority in 1996, it was with the intent that the fees would supplement the appropriated budget and allow forests to catch up on deferred maintenance and provide more and higher quality services to people paying the fees.

I know it's a lot of effort but Scott Silver of Wild Wilderness worked on this 20+ years ago.
https://web.archive.org/web/20090130023 ... rness.org/

I don't think most people realize that the legislation of FLREA was promulgated and developed with lobbying interests to commodify nature and extract money from the public. Fees today are the brainchild of corporate America. I'm appalled about how fees for simply parking and hiking on trails is so tolerated and accepted. It would be a different discussion if the money went to maintaining the trails, but we all know the FS does minimal work on that these days. It's almost entirely volunteers. Hearing people like a toilet at a trailhead is great, but the FS could make a few of them at some strategic spots where one enters the National Forest and people could go.. like 10-30 minutes before they arrive at their trailhead. I mean I could say a cold drink kiosk would be really nice to have at the trailhead too, there's ways to deal with having a cold drink at the TH. Or needing a restroom.

https://web.archive.org/web/20040110210 ... k/gov.html
ARVC is the only national trade association representing the interests of all commercial RV park & campground owners and operators. Its strategic location in the Washington, DC area places it in close proximity to the US Senate and House of Representatives and all federal regulatory agencies that impact the industry. ARVC’s Washington activities are designed to assure a positive climate and understanding within the federal government of industry needs and interests. ARVC is currently engaged in lobbying efforts on many issues, including:

* Proposed legislation to grant new fee authority to public land agencies
* Reducing the estate tax burden on family-owned businesses
* Reauthorization of federal highway programs to assure a sound highway transportation system, protect necessary access to highway signage and continue the successful Scenic Byways Program
* The Freedom from Government Competition Act
Feel Free to Feel Free

User avatar
drm
Posts: 6133
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: The Dalles, OR
Contact:

Re: Gifford Pinchot fees

Post by drm » July 24th, 2022, 6:05 am

It would be a different discussion if the money went to maintaining the trails, but we all know the FS does minimal work on that these days. It's almost entirely volunteers.
I wish you would stop saying this when it has been repeatedly proven to not be true. It is true in some places, but definitely not all, and definitely not the Gifford Pinchot, the subject of this thread. Particularly in the Mt Adams District of the Gifford Pinchot, a paid Forest Service trails team most years clears every maintained trail of fallen trees. This year they may not get to all of them. They are understaffed this year, like just about everything everywhere, but they are out there. I have run into this team twice so far this year on my hikes, on Trapper Creek and the Lewis River Trail. The FS trail team focuses on logs and tends to leave tread work to the WTA in this area.
Hearing people like a toilet at a trailhead is great, but the FS could make a few of them at some strategic spots where one enters the National Forest and people could go.
Please identify where such a spot would be for hikers on Mt. Hood. What one spot - on Forest Service land - does everybody drive by on the way to their trailhead? Maybe there could be a spot on Hwy 26 for the south side, but there are far too many access spots on the north and east sides. For Mt Adams, the spot most people drive by is well below FS boundaries. But then there are almost no toilets at Mt Adams trailheads anyway (nor fees).

Post Reply