New & Increased Fees in Mt. Hood National Forest

General discussions on hiking in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest
User avatar
Water
Posts: 1355
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

New & Increased Fees in Mt. Hood National Forest

Post by Water » August 1st, 2022, 10:42 pm

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/mthood/r ... PRD1042889
Climbing permit & fee proposal
Mt. Hood National Forest is proposing to charge new and increased fees at 26 developed recreation sites. Included in the proposed changes will be a climbing permit for those traveling above 9,500 feet. Fee changes are being considered to allow the forest to continue to provide services, such as clean restrooms and trash collection, and to provide for the health and public safety expected by visitors at recreation sites. These fees will also be used for larger scale maintenance and improvement projects at sites where fees are collected.

Key Points
  • Visitors to areas where the Forest is charging a fee will see increased visitor security, improved trail connections, degraded/inaccessible amenities such as picnic tables and fire rings will be repaired or replaced with accessible amenities, and many other improvements.
  • Proposed fee prices are based on a market analysis of similar sorts of opportunities within Oregon and Washington.
  • Most Forest sites do not require a fee.
  • New day use fee sites will honor the NW Forest Pass as payment.
  • Included in the proposed sites is a brand new rental yurt at Trillium Lake.
  • Among other improvements, climbing permit fees will be used to provide daily patrol along the climbing route, improve climber education, support search and rescue, and reduce human impacts on the natural landscape
  • The two-day climbing permit will only affect climbers above 9,500 ft., which is well above the ski areas and the Timberline Trail.
  • The current climbing permit proposal does not include a limit on permits issued.
  • Some of the proposed fees would start in 2023, with others being implemented later. The climbing permit would be required starting January 2024.
We want to hear from you!
We are now accepting feedback and comments on recreation proposed changes. Comment period ends Sept. 30, 2022.

Proposed changes include new, increased fees at recreation sites and for certain recreation activities. These changes will help improve and maintain recreation facilities, routes and help create new opportunities!

Provide your coments:

Email: [email protected]
Paper comment cards available at local Forest offices during open hours
Mail: Mt. Hood National Forest; Attn: Recreation Fees; 16400 Champion Way; Sandy, OR 97055
Public Meetings: A virtual public meeting will be held in early September. Watch this space for details!
There's more details on the page.

My points are as follows:
1. The Pacific Northwest Region (R6) Resource Advisory Committee https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/r6/recreation/racs has not met since 2010!? Or at least no meeting notes since then. As of 2018 all board member spots were open: https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r6/recre ... ev2_027001
If the Gifford and Mt. Hood National Forests are both doing this, a RAC has to approve the fees before it goes to the regional Forester for final approval. It's a bad look having this board supposedly meet and vote but we can't even see who is on this public, volunteer board. I've tried reaching out to FS personnel on this and received no replies to emails or voicemails and cannot seem to get a human on the phone at numbers provided.

2. Both National Forests do not suggest or even hint whatsoever that fees will not be implemented. At best they are enthusiastically letting the public know they are going through their legally required public comment period. Like the Central Cascades, even if there was 100% opposition in all comments, it would not appreciably change the FS's proposal.

3. The suggestion there will be increased visitor security is... truly laughable. Before the Circus trots out lines like these, it would be great to see their current data on security incidents and how this proposal will measurably address security.

4. "improved trail connectors"; is this some creative way for trying to say trail work but not actually doing trail work? For a public facing announcement, this is not common lexicon. Maybe junctions that are unsigned or with poor signage. But I don't think this is talking about that.

5. The "current" climbing permit is hugely crouched in language that it will roll to a limited quota in the future. Also it runs April through July, so expect an increased zoo like atmosphere artificially created for the month of March. And much consternation from the FS about the additional issues caused. There are no metrics provided by which the climbing permit will reduce human impacts on the natural landscape. As an example I've been to the Lewis River the last two weekends. Despite a robust ranger presence I still saw trash on the ground and TP in the ferns near the permit only parking trailhead. It's amazing a permit didn't stop that from happening. The FS keeps saying permits fix human impacts.

6. Charging fees for places like Keeps Mill is borderline criminal, I'd like to see proof they'd make it accessible. Security services there? :lol: seems the FS can't tolerate any rustic free First Come camping other than fully dispersed.
Feel Free to Feel Free

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

Re: New & Increased Fees in Mt. Hood National Forest

Post by Bosterson » August 2nd, 2022, 7:10 am

Just like with the rest of these stories, the metastasizing blitz of new permits/fees is emblematic of the FS's vision for the future of access. And agreed - these permit proposals are all foregone conclusions with the end result determined before comments are even filed. With CC permits, there was no indication that the establishment of permits was ever in doubt; I was physically in the FS headquarters downtown during the final objection interviews, and they patiently listened to us in order to perform their legally required due diligence, but they weren't receptive to our comments at all. (And predictably, the objections produced almost zero changes in the final draft of the permit plan.)

Re the Hood climbing permit, there are so many things about this that are laughable. They contend that making someone buy a permit on Rec.gov will make climbers confront "education" in some hypothetical way that makes me think of how much attention we pay to terms of use agreements we click online. The idea that they will have a ranger "patrolling" the route all night, every night is ludicrous, and what would these patrols even accomplish? (Aside from enforcing permit requirements, natch.) Supporting SAR is a red herring, as even though SAR teams may get federal funding, the teams themselves are volunteer outfits, and SARs are run by the county sheriff, not the FS. I am not sure what "human impacts" the FS plans to address on the climbing route, considering that the lower part of it is a ski resort; I have never seen any human impact aside from footprints on the route above that.

The 9500 ft boundary is super arbitrary - that means that you would technically need a "climbing" permit to walk up to Devil's Kitchen or the Hogsback, even if you had no intention to continue to the summit. (It would make more sense for it to begin above the Hogsback, so above 10,500 ft. With the current limit, you would also need a permit to climb Illumination Rock!) It also makes no sense to subject the rest of the mountain to the same regulations as the part of it that is accessible by chairlift; comparatively, zero people climb any other route compared to the south side routes - is the 24-7 ranger going to patrol the whole mountain in a circle?

Climbing permits for technical mountains create perverse incentives - as you note, the pre-permit season will be slammed, meaning we'd expect a higher chance of accident then. People who have sunk money into a permit (especially if/when permits are quota'd and therefore scarce) are more likely to continue into dangerous conditions rather than turn back. And if the rest of the mountain is either not permitted or not enforced, then will that encourage people to venture onto harder and more dangerous routes to escape the permit requirement?

The FS has contended that climbing permits are needed due to higher use during the pandemic, and rising rates of accidents, which as far as I can tell hasn't happened; this is a solution in search of a problem. I would be in favor of a $5 suggested donation to Timberline if they reopen the bathroom in the climber kiosk.
#pnw #bestlife #bitingflies #favoriteyellowcap #neverdispleased

User avatar
adamschneider
Posts: 3710
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm
Location: SE Portland
Contact:

Re: New & Increased Fees in Mt. Hood National Forest

Post by adamschneider » August 2nd, 2022, 7:39 am

FYI, they said they're not going to limit the number of Hood climbing permits.

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

Re: New & Increased Fees in Mt. Hood National Forest

Post by Water » August 2nd, 2022, 7:49 am

adamschneider wrote:
August 2nd, 2022, 7:39 am
FYI, they said they're not going to limit the number of Hood climbing permits.
Not immediately, sure. But they've discussed doing this on Adams. It's done on South Sister. It's implemented on St. Helens. It's not credible to make a case that the FS won't limit Hood climbing permits. As their PR person states, they're going to be talking about it once they see their numbers.
Ibsen declined to say whether the number of permits would be limited in the future, as a tool to limit crowding, which has occurred in a number of places across Oregon and the West. But it would give the agency the numbers to make that case in the future.

“That conversation is probably down the road but there won’t be any limit in 2023,” Ibsen said.
source: https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/ ... 359879007/
Feel Free to Feel Free

Limey
Posts: 706
Joined: December 19th, 2012, 2:34 pm

Re: New & Increased Fees in Mt. Hood National Forest

Post by Limey » August 2nd, 2022, 6:32 pm

Maybe someone in the forest service should take a drive to Little John sno-park. They have it on the list here as a campground which it certainly isn't. It's just a sno-park with sledding hill. Be nice if they got their facts straight.

User avatar
pinecone
Posts: 47
Joined: August 26th, 2021, 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: New & Increased Fees in Mt. Hood National Forest

Post by pinecone » August 3rd, 2022, 8:53 am

Edit - whoops can't share those photos yet. I'll see about hosting them differently later-
Maybe someone in the forest service should take a drive to Little John sno-park
I'd love to believe this is part of a plan to redevelop disintegrating sites and help spread out use, but I'm probably too cynical for that.

There are a few actual campsites around at Little John Sno-park, with old picnic tables and identified with a placard with #s. Pretty much just dispersed sites with pits and tables.
Image

It's the "Polallie Campground" they are going to charge for that they really need to swing by. There's a couple of disintegrated "sites" left there and a picnic table or so, and some breaking down billboards. But hey, they put a portable toliet at the Pollalie Trailhead, so now it's got infrastructure! Here's what that 10$ will get you currently:
Image

They also need to go to the "East Fork Trailhead" which they are proposing charging at, that I can only determine is the graveled spot off 3500650 at the south end of the East Fork Trailhead with room for three cars, (It's not the East Fork-Tamanawas Falls Trailhead, as that already is a fee site, with real infastruture) near where the very gone Robinhood Guard Station/campground was decades ago. No signs, no nothing, although the start of a beautiful section of trail that could have been easily reconnected to the north section avoiding the washout by going into the roads in Horsetheif Meadows area. Few go there anymore, although people park out on the wide area of the shoulder along 35 that is across and south of the Gumjuwac Trailhead.
Image

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 14395
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: New & Increased Fees in Mt. Hood National Forest

Post by retired jerry » August 4th, 2022, 6:17 am

Related to this:
https://www.outsideonline.com/culture/o ... solutions/

It talks about how National Parks are being over-run. Requiring reservations which are limited. One problem with this is it favors people with high speed internet and flexible schedule who can get in at the exact moment reservations are opened for the next day.

A better solution - in Zion they are opening an Eastern portal - visitor center, trails,...

Of course you have to consider wildlife and make sure they're not being squeezed out. But I think they're more affected by logging and expanding human development into the wilderness

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

Re: New & Increased Fees in Mt. Hood National Forest

Post by Bosterson » August 4th, 2022, 9:32 am

“The initiative behind the Outdoor Adventure Commission is that we can’t kill the goose that lays the golden egg,” says Pitt Grewe, the director of Utah’s Office of Outdoor Recreation, who also oversees the commission. “People are coming to Utah to recreate. If our public spaces are too crowded, they won’t come, and that will hurt us economically.”
This part of Jerry's article reminds me of the Mt Hood Forest and their complaints about overcrowding - after they did an intensive advertising campaign ~ 10 years ago in other states to try to attract tourism...
#pnw #bestlife #bitingflies #favoriteyellowcap #neverdispleased

Webfoot
Posts: 1759
Joined: November 25th, 2015, 11:06 am
Location: Troutdale

Re: New & Increased Fees in Mt. Hood National Forest

Post by Webfoot » August 4th, 2022, 10:39 am

"Nobody goes there anymore; it’s too crowded." Satire has become reality.

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

Re: New & Increased Fees in Mt. Hood National Forest

Post by Water » August 4th, 2022, 12:23 pm

Bosterson wrote:
August 4th, 2022, 9:32 am
“The initiative behind the Outdoor Adventure Commission is that we can’t kill the goose that lays the golden egg,” says Pitt Grewe, the director of Utah’s Office of Outdoor Recreation, who also oversees the commission. “People are coming to Utah to recreate. If our public spaces are too crowded, they won’t come, and that will hurt us economically.”
This part of Jerry's article reminds me of the Mt Hood Forest and their complaints about overcrowding - after they did an intensive advertising campaign ~ 10 years ago in other states to try to attract tourism...
Was it Mt. Hood NF that did it? Travel Oregon had the 7 wonders. Visit Bend had their campaigns..I still see these things being advertised. These travel organization should have some direct tax or required contribution to land management if they're going to talk all about them.

Moreover can you imagine the horror if Utah had wild lands that weren't able to be monetized somehow?

This is largely what Scott Silver of Wilderness Wild wrote and spoke on when he was fighting the Fee Demo. Things have pivoted from the extraction/resource economy to the 'outdoors economy', even in common language used by environmental organizations as a counterbalance to resource economy. You know, because nothing could simply exist for it's own sake, without needing to serve a bottom line for someone somewhere.. and certainly not just plain Wilderness!
Feel Free to Feel Free

Post Reply