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

Re: Gifford Pinchot fees

Post by BigBear » July 25th, 2022, 8:44 am

drm, you must be hiking in a whole different dimension than the rest of us.

Trail maintenance is not going on, at least in any meaningful way. This past weekend we hiked up the Newton Creek Trail and the cutting of fallen trees extended only 1/2 mile. After that, it was rather obvious from the beaten down vegetation that the fallen trees had been down for a couple of seasons.

In the twin Lakes area, the trees have been cut southbound on the PCT until the Palamteer Point cutoff but not on the cutoff itself. From the Wapinita Pass side, there were trees down on the PCT, some had been cut but not all, and none of the trees on the trail to Bird Butte.

The Salmon River Trail has a few areas that could use some work, and the Old Salmon River Trail looked okay.

The Falls Creek Falls trail is in terrible need of work, having been eroded by heavy use.

All of these trails have the "unambiguously prohibited" trailhead fees and these are all June-July hikes I've done this summer. Perhaps you could be specific as to which trails you are finding that have been worked this summer. They most-certainly aren't the ones the rest of us are walking.

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

Re: Gifford Pinchot fees

Post by jdemott » July 25th, 2022, 4:37 pm

In my experience, there is a world of difference in trail maintenance levels between Mt Hood NF and Gifford Pinchot NF, with GPNF trails generally much better, although you can find examples of well maintained and poorly maintained trails in both forests.

When I hiked Falls Creek Falls on June 22 this year, the trailhead was NOT posted as a fee area, apparently because the toilet was closed. There was a sign noting that they were attempting to schedule pumping of the toilet as soon as possible, but it was clear that the signs for Northwest Forest Pass had been removed. The trail to the falls, number 152A, which is heavily used, was a little beat up, but no downed timber or significant slides--nothing that was a problem for two mid-seventies seniors. The upper trail, number 152, was in remarkably good shape, especially for a lightly used trail.

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 25th, 2022, 4:52 pm

BigBear wrote:
July 25th, 2022, 8:44 am
drm, you must be hiking in a whole different dimension than the rest of us.
BigBear - The subject of this thread is Gifford Pinchot fees, not Mt Hood fees. I don't know if the difference between the two is fees or just the priorities of the leadership. But I acknowledge there is a difference.

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

Re: Gifford Pinchot fees

Post by BigBear » July 26th, 2022, 7:53 am

Now who's cherry picking. It's all Region 6 and its all the same NW Forest Pass. Sorry I've only hiked Falls Creek Falls in the good ole GPNF this summer, but its road and trail are in great need of improvement. It's really gone to hell in the past decade. However, the parking lot is in great shape. I think a lot of us have noticed that parking lot enforcement is the priority, not trails.

On that note, readers might take note that 5 vehicles were broken into Friday night/Saturday morning at Hood River Meadows. On a personal note, my car and others had been broken into during a 11am-2pm stretch on a Sunday two weeks ago at a church parking lot, so parking lot break-ins are a big issue no matter where you park your car.

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

Re: Gifford Pinchot fees

Post by jdemott » July 26th, 2022, 8:43 am

I'm sure we would all like to feel that our vehicles were secure while we are out hiking. I don't know if anything can reasonably be done to make trailhead parking truly secure, but any level of enforcement would be welcome.

Sorry to hear about your experience at church. As you say, it seems that no place is exempt from the problems of the world.

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 27th, 2022, 6:10 am

"Gifford Pinchot Fees." It says it there right in the title. I didn't create it. Mt Hood has less fees apparently, and worse trail maintenance. Hmmm.

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

Re: Gifford Pinchot fees

Post by Water » July 27th, 2022, 3:24 pm

drm wrote:
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.
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?
re: trail maintenance

You say this, but the FS puts out a report yearly about where recreation fee dollars go. Have you read them over the years? https://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/r6/p ... ev2_026999

trails were clearly a focus of where money went. Now the reports specifically highlight 'amenities and services' and specifically do not mention trails. I know I'm biased but they clearly still love to report metrics like how many pounds of trash were removed or how many puppet shows were conducted, or presentations at JRO, etc. So it seems especially odd to entirely omit how many miles of trail were maintained, after there was specific efforts to showcase it as a primary usage of funds.

front page
2003: Maintenance on 364 miles of trail
front page
2004: Maintenance on 175 miles of trail
second page on all reports hereafter.
2005: Provided routine maintenance at all trails
this year is suspect..i have my doubts
2006: performed basic trail maintenance on over 113 miles of trail.
2007: Provided routine maintenance at all Gifford Pichot NF recreation pass sites, including 21 trailheads, 3 picnic, 1 boating, and 13 interpretive sites.
no trail maintenance, sounds like trailhead work, hard to determine
2017 Operated and maintained 27 day use interpretive sites, picnic sites, boat launches, and trailheads using about $35,000 in recreation fee funds. In addition, maintained about 50 miles of trail.
2018 MSHNVM: Maintained 25 miles of trail. GPNF: restored 425 feet of braided trail
2019
the word trail is not mentioned, other than south climb trailhead and some library trail
2020
the word trail is not mentioned, other than south climb trailhead and some library trail.

clear shift to lots of facility upkeep and programming delivery. not trails.

re: bathrooms

is this really that hard? I didn't say one can for the entire district. Hood, Giff, else. Could do one off Lolo Pass, one on 26 east of Rhododendron, one on 26 Just after Warm Springs, One on 35 by Parkdale. Yes the North side maybe a little iffy since state lands come up higher.. Maybe put it on the North end of Lolo Pass rd. There's ODOT rest area at Govy. Done? I mean I'm throwing an idea out there to an agency so hard pressed to maintain things, vs having to do pump outs, stocking, repairs, etc at places like High Prairie and Top Spur. Call me crazy but it seems like it would be more efficient to have them at core locations.

The giff, south of Randle, South of Packwood, North of Carson, North of Trout Lake, East of Cougar, One in Amboy at the HQ. That's 6 facilities. Does this not cover like 90% of the access routes into the Gifford's core and put you within 30 minutes of many trailheads?

I guess it's more efficient to build a pit toilet at Snowgrass Trailhead. Though it seems the FS has gone towards the portapotty which... possibly a cost savings? Not sure. Are they preferred over a better facility 30 minutes before?
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 28th, 2022, 7:10 am

Water - There seems to be a subject switcheroo here. You said that the FS doesn't do trail maintenance, volunteers do it. That is what I was saying is not true, as I know for a fact that - at least in the GP - they do a lot of trail maintenance.

But that leaves open the question of what bucket of money pays for that. As far as I understand, NWFP pays for trailhead maintenance, which to most hikers is just as good, but not everybody thinks so. I don't know what bucket of money specifically pays for GP trail maintenance teams - whether it comes from fees or passes of some sort or something completely different.

So I would offer this as a peace offering for this debate: The Forest Service has a bunch of money buckets which come with all kinds of strings and rules attached, many of them highly ambiguous or otherwise poorly designed. Then they have a bunch of needs to pay for, and that varies a lot by individual NF based on the priorities of the leadership of that NF. Some prioritize trails, some do not. But they are then forced to try and connect the available funds to the needs, keeping in mind the rules and strings, and it is one hell of a jig-saw puzzle. The NWFP is a great example of this because it requires amenities to charge the fee but there is no practical way to determine who uses those amenities, which turns the NWFP into a kind of de facto parking fee, which technically is not allowed, but it's a de facto parking fee only in the presence of amenities. But this (mis)matching extends way beyond NWFP. There are also buckets connected with environmental restoration that present similar issues. And lording over the whole thing is the cost of fighting fires.

One more thing I would add is don't blame the local FS staff for this. They didn't create those ambiguous or unworkable rules. You can blame them in places where they don't care about hiking or recreation (presumably). But I know these folks (at least in the GP) and they are dealing with the hand dealt to them. Some of the fault lies with Congress and some presumably with bureaucrats much higher up than the local rangers.

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

Re: Gifford Pinchot fees

Post by BigBear » July 28th, 2022, 10:20 am

volunteer trail maintenance: Washington Trails Association

More trail usage in recent years has resulted in more (ambiguously prohibited) fees generated, but according to the USFS own annual report, a decreasing number of trail miles maintained.

There's one big defender arguing how great GPNF is at maintaining trails, but for some reason the hikers are arguing that the trails are not being maintained. This seems to be perception outweighing, well, not reality, but merely claims that aren't measuring up to expectations.

I've been hiking USFS trails in MHNF and GPNF since the late 1980s and it is very clear to me that the trails today do not measure up to the quality they were 30-35 years ago. As the fees increase, the quality decreases. One person is claiming that this isn't true, but the rest of us walking the trails are scratching our heads wondering how the claim can be made. PS - I don't consider the opportunity to crawl over and under years-old blowdown to be any kind of amenity.

On amenities, the Federal courts have said a restaurant can't charge you for the fine champagne unless you actually order it. So, we have the courts on our side of the "earning the fee" discussion. But, USFS charges TH fees regardless of whether you visit a site that even has amenities. Certainly drm isn't arguing a toilet which has existed for decades (before the NWFP) is such an amenity... or a worthless picnic table tossed out near the trailhead on an uneven slope (that absolutely no one uses) is some kind of amenity? When I hear the phrase "amenities" I'm thinking of the visitor center at Johnston Ridge. That's an amenity. State parks rangers encourage the use of their toilets without paying the fee because they wisely have considered the alternative. Maybe, having a ranger (or concessionaire) come out to the parking lot and check passes is an amenity in the eyes of USFS...but not in my eyes do I see this as any kind of benefit.

For concessionaires, we ALL know that cleaning the restrooms and doing trail maintenance aren't done, ever. So, these fees are 100% not going toward either the maintenance or parking lot amenity concept. This is just an out-right money grab by the concessionaires.

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

Re: Gifford Pinchot fees

Post by jdemott » July 28th, 2022, 12:57 pm

BigBear wrote:
July 28th, 2022, 10:20 am
I've been hiking USFS trails in MHNF and GPNF since the late 1980s and it is very clear to me that the trails today do not measure up to the quality they were 30-35 years ago. As the fees increase, the quality decreases.
I've been hiking here since the late 1970s and I agree that the state of trail maintenance has generally declined. There are a variety of reasons, which don't include user fees:

1. We are the beneficiaries of many trail building projects that were funded during the New Deal--projects that came not from USFS budgets but from programs intended to put people to work. Those projects have naturally depreciated and require maintenance.

2. From the 1950s through the 1980s, the USFS was awash in money from timber sales, and some of that money was used for trails. Timber sale revenues are greatly decreased, as are the funds for trails.

3. There are many more people using the trails today than forty years ago, so the trails get beat up faster.

4. Many trails are now in designated wilderness areas, meaning that maintenance is more expensive since trail crews can't use power equipment.

5. Much more of USFS budget now goes to fire fighting.

I'm sure there are many more reasons, but they mostly come down to money. User fees are one way to get more money for trail maintenance.

Post Reply