|
ride
Aug 29, 2002, 10:55 PM
Post #26 of 44
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 16, 2002
Posts: 216
|
I'm glad to hear that none of you guys are getting jailed for not paying the fines, the only problem is what do I do when I get to one of those "stops" on the back roads (like going down into redrocks in SantaBarbara) should I just flip the person off and punch it?
how are you guys dealing with these?
|
|
|
|
|
ctrlaltdel
Aug 29, 2002, 11:24 PM
Post #27 of 44
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 37
|
My understanding was if you are just out driving than you don't need a pass. Do you drive a Volkswagen? Tell them you are there for the fahrvergnugen experience. I could be wrong about just driving through, I have never come across a road block before. Edit: I am not condoning or encouraging you to lie to any law enforcement or park officials nor avoid paying any assesment, tax, and/or fees as required by law. The above statement is made for comical reasons only.
Also I'm not sure if this applies to other places, but for Williamson Rock (Angeles National Forest) a pass is not needed on the last Saturday of each month.
[ This Message was edited by: ctrlaltdel on 2002-08-29 16:36 ]
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
Aug 30, 2002, 4:55 AM
Post #28 of 44
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
Folks who point to the affordability of the fees should look to the future. It's a slippery slope that induces the government to further cut the park's budget which leads to further increases in fees.
Much of the fees pays to hire folks to collect the fees. Folks who get the fee money dream up projects to spend the remaining money on so they also dream up new fees to keep the budget happening. This leads to excess regulation, construction and development.
In 10-20 years, you will pay a entrance fee, parking fee, wilderness permit fee, backcountry camping per night fee, rescue insurance fee and so on. Don't laugh, all these fees already exist here and there. There will be plenty of police watching you to enforce these rules and collect these fees. That will make your outdoor experience nice and pristine and adventurous, EH?
The campgrounds will be nicer, it's true. Lots of hookups for bigger RVs where a tent used to go
there goes the neighborhood.
Karl
|
|
|
|
|
fitz
Aug 30, 2002, 4:55 PM
Post #29 of 44
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 363
|
Karlbaba,
I don't disagree with your prediction, but I don't think that the slippery slope matters. Bottom line, population continues to grow, undeveloped areas continue to shrink, and demand on remaining wilderness areas has been rapidly increasing for 20 years.
Development will continue because it offers lower impact at higher visitation volume. Desperately needed pit toilets and pack-it-out policies are needed at some of the most remote and forbidding peaks on the planet. It is a sign of the times.
Fees will be there to support the development, and to artificially limit demand. As for 'discourage funding', the agencies in question have not been well funded in (some cases) over 100 years of existance. The huge slices of the Federal pie (military and medicare/social security) are both poised to explode, so there is little reason to believe that the public at large will favor taxes over usage fees anytime soon.
You might think this is disgusting and regretable. If so, I agree. But I don't see it changing anytime soon.
-jjf
|
|
|
|
|
addiroids
Aug 30, 2002, 9:48 PM
Post #30 of 44
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 11, 2001
Posts: 1046
|
To open: I oppose these fees.
I have been active in SoCali (Tahquitz mostly) encouraging people to not buy the Wilderness permit. I new about it a long time ago, and did find that wildwilderness.com site a while ago. Great stuff.
Most people have been receptive to what I have been saying and agree that it is wrong to doubly tax people. Elitism. That's what this is all about. The rich get to do what they want while screwing the middle and lower classes.
Remember, the reasons you are exempt for paying this fee are: Religious reasons, health reasons, or to protest the fee.
Now I ask you, doesn't hiking up a steep slope with 40 pounds on your back improve your cardiorespiratory fitness???
And doesn't crack climbing improve your hand-eye coordination??
You do have to pay the pass if you are there for recreation.
Recreation. Sure. If there's one reason I climb, it's surely not for recreation. I could easily convince any judge (not like I have the burden of proof on me) that suffering on the side of a cliff is not fun:
Dehydrated, soaked, freezing, starving, cut, bleeding, nauseus.
Sounds more like a crucifixion than a fun time. So call bullsh!t on this Fee Demonstration program. Demonstate that you like to suffer, not recreate. And in about 80 days at Tahquitz, I just recently recieved my first "Notice of Non-compliance" which I wrote back the reason I was there. No word from them yet, but I'm sure I don't have an APB warrent out for my arrest. At least not for that anyways.
TRADitionally yours,
Cali Dirtbag
|
|
|
|
|
pbjosh
Aug 30, 2002, 10:02 PM
Post #31 of 44
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 1518
|
I've received and not payed at least 3-4 if not more (can't remember) tickets.
I'd be less violently opposed to the "fee demo" program if they stopped building campsites with RV hookups and finally fixed the F*CKING NASTY ASS STINKY AS SH*T ONLY CLEANED OUT ONCE A WEEK PORTAPOTIES at humber park. If they can put running water in a campsite why can't we get at least pit toilets or preferably flush toilets at the trailhead?.
The only thing I've seen from the fee demo program are shiny new vehicles for the rangers and more rangers on horseback. YAY.
josh
[ This Message was edited by: pbjosh on 2002-08-30 15:03 ]
|
|
|
|
|
fitz
Aug 30, 2002, 11:43 PM
Post #32 of 44
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 363
|
addiroids,
I think you may have actually given me your take on the passes at Tahquitz quite awhile back. Like I said then, I hear what you are saying.
But, I think that saying the fees and any support of them is pure elitism is a little unfair. I support the fees, and I'm certainly not poor. But my motives certainly aren't to exclude segments of the population. I've actually put quite a bit of time, money, and effort into giving some of the most disenfranchised folks access to wilderness activities.
It actually can get pretty disheartening. Back in 2000, Climbing committed 3 pages to a 'humor' piece by Greg Child called Fools in the Gym, in which fictional, developmentally disabled, individuals with charming names like "Hungry", "Monster", and "Priest", are unwitting participants in the author's "experiments" with SSRI and benzine drug withdrawal.
Yet, when I wrote to point out that the first mountaineering team comprised entirely of developmentally disabled adults had recently summited Mount Whitney, it warranted not a peep. Frankly, in a sport where shaving minutes off a speed record during one's zillionth climb of the same route is considered newsworthy, I think that a blurb could be given to what was, in fact, a pretty substantial achievement.
There is a substantial population right here in Los Angeles that are, for all intent and purposes, excluded from the surrounding National Forests regardless. Try to reach Humber Park, Williamson, Ortega Falls, Horseflats, etc. by low cost public transportation. Then try it if you are handicapped and living on SSI (most the folks like this I know would rather work, but prejiduce and the system conspire against them).
Again, I respect people's opinions. But, after what I have seen with my kids long term commitment cooking breakfasts at Project Achieve, and my own experience setting up a computer learning center at the Koch Young Family Resource Center and volunteering to teach elective classes here in LA, it is a little hard for me to get worked up about climbers, backpackers, and mountain bikers whining over a $5 parking fee.
The government spends more money than it has now, and it doesn't spend nearly enough on some really important things. When honest, nice, working people are eating breakfast with their young children in a homeless shelter, or you teach a class in a school where four kids have to share each text book and you have to bring granola bars to each lesson because the kids are too hungry to think, something is wrong.
That's not going to get fixed overnight. And, even if gradual fixes in our priorities as a society can be made, I see a lot of things that I think are more important than the government subsidizing my (or other's) recreational activities on public lands. Others, such as yourself, are welcome to feel differently.
But, if kicking in a few dollars helps keep areas open and a little better preserved. I'm going to continue to be all for it. I don't call you names or project shallow motives on you for objecting. I would appreciate it if you would reciprocate.
-jjf
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 31, 2002, 2:50 AM
Post #33 of 44
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Quote:Quote:
jt512 you said
_______________________________________
I doubt that it ever was true. The fees are mandatory and at least one fee protester has been found guilty in court of a misdemeanor for failure to pay the fee.
_______________________________________
sounds like speculation on your part,
Speculation? No. I said that at least one person has been found guilty. How is that speculation?
Quote:
Quote:
you also said
_________________________________________
The wording of the law establishing the Adventure Pass is here. Note that the law establishes a maximum $100 fine for failure to buy the Pass. Sounds pretty mandatory to me.
_________________________________________
you mean you don't really know that it doesn't mention anywhere about mandatory law and that its still under demonstration.
What the f--- are you saying? Laws don't "mention" that they are "mandatory law." Laws are mandatory by definition. The Demonstration Fee law says that if you don't buy the pass, you can be fined $100, and the courts have upheld the fine. The fact that it is a "Demonstration" program has nothing whatsoever to do with it being mandatory. They can call it whatever kind of program they want. It's just a name. It doesn't mean a thing. The law that requires banks to turn over records of their customers to the government has the absurd name Bank Secrecy Act, for instance.
Quote:
meaning it still has to pass legislation for permanent law which it hasn't yet.
Right, it is not permanent law. But it is law right now, and will continue to be law until it expires (except that they keep extending expiration date).
Quote:sounds like your the one trying to mislead the public into buying the pass
Where in anything I have posted have I suggested that anyone actually buy the pass, Moron?
Quote:
are you a politition or what?
What's a "politition"?
Quote:
bend over jay the senaters are coming for you
What's a "senater"? A type of "politition"?
-Jay
[ This Message was edited by: jt512 on 2002-09-04 19:39 ]
|
|
|
|
|
mreardon
Sep 4, 2002, 5:32 PM
Post #34 of 44
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 1337
|
I've received 13 tickets so far and no enforcement of the tickets. Guess they're not tickets. One time at Williamson I walked in back of the rangers giving the "tickets" and took them off the cars they put them on. They didn't like that much and threatened me with giving more tickets. I mentioned I was a lawyer and would gladly take any further tickets they wanted to give and will see them in whatever court I'm supposed to appear in (there is no court to appear in if you read the ticket closely). They instead got into their car and left. Obviously the punishment they threaten is false.
If you allow it, it will become law. Once it becomes law, you have a basis for them to increase the fees and lower the budgets to the parks. It only gets worse from there. Don't believe me? Then why is it you have to pay an entrance fee AND a campsite fee at most of the major areas now? They used to be free as well....
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Sep 4, 2002, 6:10 PM
Post #35 of 44
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
I can vouche for Jay (jt512) that he does not "encourage" climbers to buy the pass. he is just giving information on the details of previous litigation involving non-compliance.
~Adam
|
|
|
|
|
drector
Sep 4, 2002, 10:16 PM
Post #36 of 44
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 1037
|
I'm for any law that protects the environment from the government or protects the people from the government.
This law seems to protect the environment from the poor. It doesn't matter how often rich people work in soup kitchens, the poor people will still not be able to go for a walk in the woods. Soon, they will be kept out of city parks.
I'm all for paying taxes to allow access for lower income poeple. It will make them happy and make the world a better place.
It's doesn't matter if the poor guy can't get to the forest. It's about if he has the right to. It's about freedom to use the land that is owned by the people, for the people, etc...
[ This Message was edited by: drector on 2002-09-04 15:18 ]
[ This Message was edited by: drector on 2002-09-04 15:30 ]
|
|
|
|
|
fitz
Sep 5, 2002, 12:52 AM
Post #37 of 44
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 363
|
drector,
Try working in a soup kitchen, or doing something active before you pass backhanded BS. Saving yourself $5 in the name of the poor is not much of a moral stance.
While you are at the soup kitchen, ask how many folks there give a @#$% about the adventure passes. Do you really care about the poor? Then acknowledge that they are citizens with rights and a voice. Ask the poor if public access to the national forests should be tax subsidized. You might find that most folks in the lowest %30 of the econony may have completely different ideas about what should be funded and what should require usage fees.
If it isn't about real access, what is it about? If you are simply enamored with a principle that does not tangibly benefit the folks you are 'speaking' for, aren't you really just rationaliztion the public subsidy of your recreational choices?
-jjf
|
|
|
|
|
boretribe
Sep 5, 2002, 9:23 AM
Post #38 of 44
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2002
Posts: 208
|
I'm with fitz on most of his points with the main exception being that I don't pay the fee. The $5 doesn't bother me so much as what it indicates. I see the fee demo program as yet another small step towards corporatizing our public lands and wilderness. Jody unfortunately this scenario is not at all antithetical to G.W. Bush's and the rest of the Republican party's agenda. They are openly advocating privatizing many public services (ie. schools, social security etc.) I'm not meaning to bash just the Republicans because the Democrats are also in the back pockets of large corporations, they just lie about it. If we let them get away with the fee demo it will make the next step easier. I would gladly pay the $5 fee if I knew it would stop there.
For all you who have shown concern for the poor, what have you done (besides saving $5 ) to help them? How about at least taking that $5 and donating it to something that would directly affect their lives? I wouldn't want to actually suggest that you might want to part with some of your precious time and volunteer at a community center, homeless center, drug rehab or soup kitchen.
My wife teaches sixth grade at a school that is literally 10 miles to the entrance of the Angeles National Forest (you can see the mountains from her classroom). Out of her 46 students (yes 46 - the government really does know how to spend our money wisely) only two of them are not a part of the school free lunch program (meaning they are very poor), and out of those 46 only one of them has been to the Angeles National Forest. Guess which one?
What am I doing with the money I didn't pay each time I went bouldering at Horse Flats? I'm paying for a school bus, getting some chaperones together and taking the kids hiking. A little time and a little money ($75) and maybe I can make a little difference. At least they won't have to sit in the classroom that day.
If you really oppose the fee demo program do something. Call and write to your representatives in congress, send that $5 you saved in not buying the fee to The Access Fund, Free our Forests or Wild Wilderness, and go to the protests when they take place. I posted a notice about the last protest (June 15th) in the access forum and I don't think anybody cared enough to to join me. Laziness and whining will not keep this fee demo from becoming permanent.
OK I'm off the damn soapbox, can I go to bed now?
Is not life a hundred times too short for us to bore ourselves?
-FN
|
|
|
|
|
fitz
Sep 5, 2002, 4:17 PM
Post #39 of 44
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 363
|
Boretribe,
I can think of lots of reasons to oppose the fees on principle, and I respect that. I let Drector get me worked up with his comment about soup kitchens.
To my way of thinking, when you take the only issues that matter to the poor enough for them to band together and use their collective political voice, like public transportation, and dismiss them as irrelevant, then your interests may not be theirs, and you should not say otherwise.
For some people issues like "public" land rights and access for the poor are fair weather friends. They are all for it when it coincides with what they want, but quick to abandon it when it either costs them something, or the democratically driven will of the majority is against them.
Also, there are simply some people who view everything as a God given right. Try taking away a particular free snack food at a business. It does not matter what legitimate reasons the business might have, you will always have some employees who feel cheated and loudly profess complex moral diatribes.
That said, I was too harsh in my comments to drector. I have no idea about drector's social status or philanthropic activities, so I shouldn't have made assumptions and judged.
-jjf
|
|
|
|
|
drector
Sep 5, 2002, 7:37 PM
Post #40 of 44
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 1037
|
fitz
I didn't say that I haven't worked in a soup kitchen. I also didn't say I wanted to save myself $5. I have no problem paying. At the moment, I'm still trying to formulate my opinion because there are so many issues involved.
To be perfectly honest, I'm not interested in giving money to the poor through removal of the fee. Taxes are a way to make me pay more and for the poor to pay less to use these lands just like it is a way for us to pay appropriately for roads, police, fire dept., etc...
And now that I wrote that, I see that gas tax, cigarette tax, toll bridges, paid public parking, property taxes? are all ways that the poor pay as they go instead of based on income. Maybe the governing bodies just need to decide which way they want to do it? what is subsidized and what is not. Maybe the conflicts of interest and the mismanagement of the land is a much bigger issue.
I still think that a person who cannot pay should be able to go into an area without using any maintained resources (roads, toilets) and not have to pay. being a citizen makes him part owner of that land.
Oh, and Fitz, Your were fair in your comments. I think that it is totally acceptable to judge someone (me) on what I say and imply in a forum post.
As for god given rights, what are they? Are there any? I'm closer to being an athiest so I think rights come from the rest of the population. I just hate to see one person loose out on something I think they should get just because the majority thought they should have to pay. Remember that some of the constitution in this country was written to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority. Our forefathers believed that there are rights to be protected regardless of what the majority thinks. I thought that access to National Parks were part of this.
[ This Message was edited by: drector on 2002-09-05 12:49 ]
|
|
|
|
|
sonofspork
Sep 6, 2002, 2:44 AM
Post #41 of 44
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 3, 2001
Posts: 171
|
Just pay and get one. The parks need the money. They need money to better the roads, facilities, pay the rangers to watch and make sure no bad s--- happens, work on trails, buy tools to work on trails, transportation (which includes gas and/or vehicles and their mantainence), snow plows (once again their mantainence and gas and such). They also need money to fight fires and do all that other stuff. Now when considering President Bush could give a rats ass about the forest, and therefore does not put a lot of dinero into it, I think this money could help. What's a few bucks, work a few extra hours and buy a year pass. I'm a student majoring in recreation management. There is a lot more to running a forest than you may think, and this money helps. Do what you will, but don't bitch about it.
-sONofSpoRk
|
|
|
|
|
christian
Sep 6, 2002, 7:14 PM
Post #42 of 44
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 6, 2002
Posts: 1
|
I don't beleive they have any rite to charge a fee to park. It is still public park land.
|
|
|
|
|
cyberhobo
Sep 7, 2002, 9:44 PM
Post #43 of 44
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2002
Posts: 8
|
I think its safe to say most of us want some money invested in the public lands we use. We may want different things - simple parking, RV hookups, visitor centers, trails, toilets, trash removal, etc., but we want some money spent in our area of interest. Where should that money come from? Is there any way to pay for the services we want, and not those we don't?
Use fees and taxes both fall woefully short, but use fees hit closer to the mark I'm looking for. Still, I will refuse to pay a use fee if I suspect it will be spent against my interests. Has anyone suggested a better alternative?
|
|
|
|
|
tigerbythetail
Sep 10, 2002, 6:25 AM
Post #44 of 44
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 514
|
Lots of good input, but some important info is missing...the Forest Service is under the auspices of the Department Of Agriculture, unlike the National Park Service which is governed by the Department Of The Interior. This alone is huge. The goals and objectives of the two agencies are not at all alike.
Wheras the Dept Of The Interior is concerned with preservation for future generations and education about the natural state of things the Dept Of Agriculture has a different agenda. First off, trees are a crop to be sold at below fair-market value to the logging company with backroom bro-deals. Second, the roads that need to be built will be paid for by the taxpayers- not the logging company. Third, all of this is done in the red...if the Forest Service were a privately owned company they would have been bankrupt long ago...but they aren't thanks to all the taxpayers.
If by chance the large companies that use our public lands for profit through logging, mining and grazing as opposed to recreation were to pay their fair share this discussion would be moot.
Payment of the fee is not a problem for most people on this site, it's the principle of the fee. It is a double tax without representation- the kind we rebelled against long ago. Personally I feel the rangers time would be better spent picking up trash or educating the public, not playing meter maid or cop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
