E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFor years, hikers across the country have had to pay a fee to park at U.S. Forest Service sites and trail heads. A federal court last month called into question parts of the fee structure, but the service on Thursday emphasized that while the program has been under review the fees remain in place -- at least for now.
"Visitors to national forests should continue expect to pay the established recreation fees that are currently in place," the Forest Service said in a statement. "The U.S. Forest Service has charged user fees since 1965 and, since the mid-1990s, more than 90 percent of those fees have been used for improvements to the areas where the fees have been collected."
A federal court last month concluded that parking fees in the Coronado National Forest in Arizona were improper and ordered a lower court to review its ruling.
The fees are $5 for a daily vehicle pass or $30 for an annual one.
Some hikers have accepted the fees as a way to maintain trails, while others complain that the federal government should fund those services as it had in the past. The debate has gone on for years at online forums like nwhikers.net.
The Forest Service said it is reviewing the court order but that in the meantime would continue to collect fees as well as continue a review that began two years ago.
That review last January led to preliminary proposals whereby "26 national forest areas will still require visitor fees, down from the current 90 areas nationwide," the service stated.
The Los Angeles Times reported that proposed changes include charging for use only at some busy sites that have six specific amenities that require maintenance -- among them toilets, interpretive signs, trash cans and picnic tables.
Service spokesman Larry Chambers told msnbc.com that the proposals would limit fees to a "much smaller area ... essentially just around the specific site where the amenities are offered."
The service said it expects to have a final decision after this fall and that public comment will be sought during that time.
Some $60 million in fees were collected across the national forest system last year. The service says most of the revenues are kept by the forests where they are raised in order to provide maintenance and improvements.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News
- Limbaugh: Contraception advocate should post sex videos
- 2012 tornado disaster relief: how to help
- Conservative firebrand Andrew Breitbart dies at 43
- Man who jammed cell phones: 'People are extremely loud'
Leave a Comment:
The government takes way to much money they shouldn't have their hand in your pocket if you want to take a walk.
Yes and no. Trail maintenance and parking facilities aren't free and not everyone uses them. I can see a user fee for upkeep, especially in these days of reduced govt revenues, but it shouldn't be prohibitive.
A $30 annual pass seems to be more than fair, A $5 daily vehicle fee for someone on vacation is an even better deal. Lots of bang for the buck here.
I kind of agree with common man but also think that the $30 annual and $5 daily fees are exceptionally fair. As American stated, in this day and age, lot's of bang for the buck.
Besides, those people complaining about fees would probably be the first ones complaining about trash in the parks or parking facilities in disrepair, etc.
Those who want it for free, come up with a maintanance plan and administer it.
Don't want to do that? I didn't think so. PAY UP! LOL!
These are tiny fees. Anyone who objects to this way of helping maintain the areas is petty.
The government doesn't have lots of money, the government has lots of debt. So if somebody thinks 5 dollars to spend a day in the park is too much they should think about how much dinner cost the last time they went to a restaurant, how much a movie costs to see in theaters, etc. And for the avid hiker $2.50 per month seems more than reasonable to me, what can you even get with that much in this day anyways?
In Washington state the parks fees are bogus! You have to buy a national park pass in certain national parks, but at the really popular ones like Mt. Rainer and Mt. Adams you have to buy a different pass! In some areas of the parks you even have to buy a one time trail pass and pay reservation fees! So we got parking passes, trail passes and reservation fees. Here is the kicker. Most of the trail maintenance is done by volunteers.
I feel that those who use it should pay. There are to many who abuse things that ends up coming out of everyones pocket.
User fees make perfect sense. They should likely be higher and expanded in area rather than reduced.
I dont think Teddy Roosevelt had this in mind when he established National parks. That notwithstanding, I also dont think he anticipated the huge, high-strung and oblivious citizenry of the current nation. Users of the park before the invention of styrofoam, plastics and combustion engines were a genteel folk, who did not rampage across the land like today's oblivious American, leaving empty water bottles and weekend-warrior damage wherever they go. So, unless, and until, Americans stop devolving and return to some level of thoughtfulness and common courtesy to enjoy parks without trashing them up, fees seem like a necessary evil.
Srength in numbers are you baked? Genteel didn't rampage across the country side? Read your History all of it they left piles of Buffalo carcasses across the entire Great Plains. Forced the Native Americans to resort to terrorism to even attempt to exist in their own Country. Genteel my ass.
But I don't have a problem with keeping the cash for maintenance of these Parks and National Forests, that is a simple users fee. I have been a hunter and fisherman all my life. These people pay their way with dedicated funding by taxation of all the various hunting and fishing supplies used for our sport, and additional licence fees in every state where we hunt or fish, and use National resources. An for the record I am a liberal Democrat, who enjoys God's green earth. What is fair, is fair. Pay to play is absolutely not unfair in my opinion.
StrengthInNumbers,
Here's a little bit of administrative history. The National Parks have a different mission and history from the National Forests. The National Parks began with the creation of Yellowstone National Park about 30 years before TR was born, and they are kept as natural as possible, "where man is only a visitor." The US Forest Service came into being under Teddy, and the National Forests are maintained for multiple-use including recreation, mining, logging, grazing and other activities. It is National Forests to which this article is addressed.
Even aside from what Sully has said about how un-genteel the pioneering settlers were, it is also true that the more recent users of both National Parks and National Forests up through the 1960's left a large imprint on the land. They simply left the tin cans, glass bottles and uneaten food behind wherever they happened to camp. They cut trees for fires and shelters. The woods was simply a place to tame with as much of civilization as they could carry by backpack or horseback. The concept of a "protected wilderness" had very little viability before the 1960's.
Today's outdoors men and women are far and away more conscience of, and committed to, preservation of a totally natural wilderness than prior generations could even imagine. The mantra of todays outdoors people is "Pack it in, and pack it out." In other words, take nothing from the wilderness and leave nothing behind, or take only photographs and leave only footprints. All the hotels and lodges in the western National Parks were built for the generations before World War II. The ATV-ers have their areas, too, which they completely trash, but they are forbidden in most of the National Parks and Forests.
Thanks for your comments. I hope you will get out of the car and enjoy the trails of the Parks and Forests in the near future, and note how close to nature they are preserved. Your use-fee will go towards preserving it for your great grandchildren to enjoy.
I have hiked over 30,000 free trail miles in my life time.. I hear about all this money being used to maintain the trails but find most of the work being done by Volunteers like the Pacific Trail Conference. Rarely have I ever seen a Forest Service Person on the trail doing any work. Same with the Sierra Club, which hosts a large number of paid Backpacking and hiking trips,, with few actual payback trips comparatively to what they have made..I heard it was something like for every $10 the Sierra Club takes in on the trips they payback something like 1 cent and try to get Volunteers to pay their own way on top of it....
I was told the Forest Personnel are to good for that now, so they "Contract" out all the trail work...But then again I see them doing a controlled burn on Sunday where the Forest Personnel were being paid Triple time.
Meanwhile down at the Forest Service Office it was closed. They used to be open on weekends so people could access them and the Rangers..but now they have a Banker mentality their only open from 9-5, Monday through Friday...I tried to buy a Map the last time in was in the Office and well the Office Manager had to walk around to the desks of the 5 Rangers sitting around playing on their Computers at 1 in the Afternoon to get change for a $10 Bill because they no longer actually support their own sales...
So if our Taxes are paying for all the Amenties the Forest Personnel Enjoy why are we again paying taxes which the fee really is, it is another tax on a tax which only a liberal Demoncrat could have thought up...No we already paid for the right.....
I do see the Forest Service Personel riding around the Forest Roads in well decked out GM 4x4 trucks which is probably how GM and Obama made the Company Solvent again, if it is true that Obama ordered all Government Agencies to buy only GM Vehicles.So on top of the Taxpayer Money to keep them in business. they are now giving us the business and I doubt if we the Taxpayers are getting a discount for the thousands of GM vehicles the government has been buying...which would explain the huge Profit GM was just crowing about....
And I know for sure the MSNBC Staff writers surely will not be looking into that situation..It might embarrass Obama if it were true...
Amen!
And Amen!
I'm a conservative, but user fees like this don't result in taxes. They are simply a hidden tax increase disguised as personal responsibility (something the government abhores BTW).
If you think I believe even $1 is used to fund local trails I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. It probably funds booze and hookers for the lazy park "workers'. I use asphalt that was paint for 20 years ago (and isn't plowed), and a trail that the AMC maintains. There is no reason to charge a fee for that. The rangers don't do anything Fire them and save some money.
You know, a ranger got murdered not long ago. Just because you do not see rangers doing anything does not mean that they do nothing. Just because life guards principally sit on their fannies in elevated chairs does not mean they are doing nothing.
However, fine. Let's get rid of all the rangers so that transients, criminals, and child sex offenders can easily make their way into the public parks and use them as hide-outs. As I don't go to such places, it really is no skin off my rosy nose if your happy little trail turns into something akin to Sherwood Forest, only the people would be stealing from you to keep for themselves--and perhaps leave you alive and perhaps not. Makes no never mind to me, LB.
Again--as I do not use these trails (I don't even think that there is one near where I live), and have neither the free time nor the money to waste on such excursions, I really do not have any interest in whether there is a fee or not. But, it seems fairly clear to me that the main purpose of rangers is to rescue stupid people who get lost in such areas, to find children that stupid people do not keep track of, and to represent something of an impediment to lawless individuals. And, it is clear to me that the fees pay mostly for things like trash removal and parking lot maintenance. I am fine with the stupid people paying $5 a day or $30 a year for the privilege of having the equivalent of a lifeguard and garbage collector--but I am also fine with such people dealing with trash build-up on trails and self-interested Robin Hoods.
Wow, for someone that never uses the public trails, you are pretty opinionated. Lay off the booze, it may help you to think clearly, not to mention helping your "rosy nose"...
If Walmart wants to charge a cover fee to enter its stores it may and no one can complain about it. If the US Gov. wants to increase its parking fees or the cost of admission at its parks it becomes a court case costing the taxpayers millions of $ in administrative and legal fees. (So how do you make a small increase in fees to "balance the books" -- the Fed. Parks are all losing money). The parks should be set up as private not for profit corps., owned but not controlled by the feds (w/ limited compensation to their directors so we don't run into another Fannie and Freddie rip of) and allowed, within stated limited parameters what expenses they are allowed to incur. (Regulated spending reduces excessive fees to cover pipe dreams of administrators) BTW: Did you know that because of Fed. Regs. there are"wheelchair" accessible toilet booths in parks in places where no one in a wheelchair could ever get to.
once caqmped in national park got $25 ticket for not camping in designated spot. Moved 1 mile down road and camped for free in Nat'l forrest for 2 weeks. no tickets and ranger stopped to see if every thing was ok. lol
Government = Taxation = Paid in Full !
Hit the nail on the head Lee..... Taxation goes up but statistics show because of the depression, pay has gone down, how much more can the working class endure in fees.....give us a break
It's really funny it is the self proclaimed Republicans who want everything for nothing and complain that everything is not done for them. Why is that? All I hear from that party is whining and more whining, wake up and support yourself, cheap basturds!
What planet are you from??????
It's interesting that those who oppose higher general taxes are often the very ones who oppose user fees. Putting aside the issue of wasteful spending (a big issue, I admit)...I would think that user fees are the ideal approach to supporting maintenance of the public backcountry. I spend a lot of time up in the White Mountains of NH and the Green Mountains of Vermont. I hike, ski, climb, fish, take photos, have mountaintop picnics with friends, kayak, paint, play music and just generally hang out in those public wild places. It's an important part of my life, but I know that its not as important to others. Yet, I pay no more than anyone else. I, for one, would be fine with paying an annual fee to support it. Seems fair to me.
It's interesting that those who oppose illegal immigration ae often the very ones who oppose user fees
How do you know this????
Since when did the parks become government property and since when did the government become a business that owns anything? I've always thought the government was of the people by the people. If I own all this property where is my cut of the fees? This land is only set aside for all to enjoy and monitored by people we hire. I never gave anyone permission to rent out any of my land and why should I pay to walk on my land?
Nothings free! Raise the fee to $50.00 annual fee. Cheap Americans.
Cheap Americanos, Mexicans don't pay no stinkin' use fee.
I ride horses all over the mountains of Utah, Idaho and Wyoming. It's a great past time. When I go to places like Bryce Canyon or Yellowstone park, I have to pay and entrance fee to enter the park. I'm OK with that. As long as there is a service provide. If the trails are maintained, if water is provided in remote areas, maps available for pickup. Somebody has to pay for that.
There are thousands of miles of trails, The forest service can't possible maintain all of those. So volunteer groups do a lot of the work. And that is great that people are willing to give something back. I just wish that more of the money collected as fees was spent on improvements and maintainence vs repair or vandlism or repairing something that people just didn'tcare enough about to take care of.
If I stop and use a camp ground, Then yes I should conribute to its upkeep. If I pull off into the trees and use no services, I'm less inclined to want to pay.
Who collects the use fee for illegal aliens from Mexico who take over US National forests in their unending drive to bring in the good stuff from Mexico?
There are a few reasons why I am against user fees. 1. I pay taxes. 2. The perception that other forest users such as loggers and miners are not paying their fair share. 3. The fear that decreased funding and more user fees are a way of determining the profitable of the forests and parks with the idea of someday turning over their management to resort companies and allowing them to be commercialized and developed.
Also, I have been to numerous parks and forests and all of the Park Rangers that I have ever met have been extremely helpful and courteous.
Hmmmm, to the freebies, why not just have the land sold to the highest bidder and use the proceeds to pay down the natioanl debt.
This past October I spent a few days in Northern California and had the opportunity to vist the Redding BLM Office and the Yreka and Redding National Forestry Offices. The people I dealt with were very friendly and informative. They helped me with my problem and I have made plans to return to the area this spring. I will be renting an RV and spending time in the Klamath National Forest. Everything I take in will also be taken out by me. I would be happy to pay a $30 annual fee if that what it takes to keep these people available to answer my questions and help me with my problems.
Yours is the voice of reason. Thanks for a sensible post...
You should have to pay to feed the bears.
If the fee I'm paying goes directly to help the park/trail I'm enjoying then I see no problem with it. The fact of the matter is that many people don't clean up after themselves and we need to pay people to clean the trails, maintain the parking and other facilities etc.
eddie`s --phsssssssstt idiot
Last year during a family emergency, the good folks of the National Park Service went above and beyond to assist me. Every employee I came in contact with showed courtesy, compassion, and professionalism. Over the course of weeks as the situation played out, they stayed on top of it and kept me abreast. Granted this is not the same governmental agency as mentioned in the above article, but I wanted to give recognition to the National Park Service employees who are worth their weight in gold--unsung heroes!