richard_boulware Posted August 21, 2001 Share Posted August 21, 2001 For those of you who like to back pack into your favorite scenic vista and make photographs....you need to read this. This mornings DENVER POST, page 7B....is an article by Post reporter and editorial board member, Penelope Purdy..a good friend. The article it titled,"Resounding uproar over fees". You need to read it!....unless you don't care about paying feed for access to the wild federal lands where you take your great photographs. If you don't care, this is what you can expect. You can expect to see a money drop-box at the wilderness sites you so revere, and carry alot of dollar bills with you. At the rate we are going, your going to have to backpack five five miles into the wilderness vista you want to record, and just at the perimeter, you will have to drop a few of your dollars into the box, get a permit, and pay your fee. This is YOUR land...federal land owned by US...THE PEOPLE. I strongly urge each of you to go on the Denver Post internet site, read this article, and understand the threat this project represents. Make your voices heard,...unless of course, you don't mind having a $$$ permit to access the wilderness you and other taxpayers own....and are willing to pay a fee to set up your tripod. THINK ABOUT IT! Richard Boulware - Denver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pat_krentz Posted August 21, 2001 Share Posted August 21, 2001 Richard, remember when we were young and you could go to a national park without paying a fee to get in or dues of any kind because you were a citizen of this country and the citizens were the government, well, that is not the case any more, we are still citizens, but we no longer run the country, the BLM, National Park Police, National Park Service and who knows how many other agencies run them for their own interests. Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_kadillak3 Posted August 21, 2001 Share Posted August 21, 2001 Here is the story address: <p> www.denverpost.com/stories/0,1002,154%257E111503,00.html <p> The more folks know about this subject in whatever state they live in, the better we all are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_whitman Posted August 21, 2001 Share Posted August 21, 2001 At the risk of getting crucified, let me say that I actually think the fees at US national parks are too LOW. While it's nice to say that every American should contribute equally to the tab for managing wilderness lands, as with any other realm in our society I don't think it's wrong for those who use something the most to contribute a few dollars more for its upkeep. <p> I know it's an unpopular position; I suppose I've talked with too many park rangers who relate endless stories of tourists who spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to travel hundreds or thousands of miles to a park or wilderness area and then balk at paying a $10 entry fee (for something far more fulfilling than any amusement park!). <p> ............. ............. ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_feldman1 Posted August 21, 2001 Share Posted August 21, 2001 The Denver Post article concerns fees for National Forests, not National Parks. National Parks have for a long time charged fees for entrance. A one-year pass allowing entrance to all US National Parks is $50 per vehicle (or at Rocky Mountain National Park, $30 for an annual pass, or $15 for a 7 day pass). For $15 additional ($65 total), a Golden Eagle Yearly Pass can be obtained to also include fees for all sites managed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U. S. Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. If a "per person" fee is charged instead of "per vehicle," the pass includes all persons in the immediate family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayne_crider3 Posted August 21, 2001 Share Posted August 21, 2001 I guess their not making as much money bringing drugs into the country as they use to.... Thanks for the heads up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pat_krentz Posted August 21, 2001 Share Posted August 21, 2001 I pay my fee every year, its called taxes. Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_feldman1 Posted August 21, 2001 Share Posted August 21, 2001 We all pay many "taxes" or "fees" that are based on "usage" rather than income or headcount. These include fees (or taxes) on gasoline, automobile licenses, toll roads, public museums, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_boulware Posted August 21, 2001 Author Share Posted August 21, 2001 WAKE UP YOU CLOWNS! Have you even read the article? WE are talking about fees on BLM land, National Forests etc. NOBODY is talking about an entrance fee for "JELLYSTONE NATIONAL PARK"! WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ANY FEDERAL LAND! ANY Federal land. Purdy says in her first paragraph...." national forests and other public land"! I've got it!How about you treking for ten miles with your view camera into a remote site of a pristine water fall on federal land controled by the BLM. You get to your site, and you see a yellow Kodak arrow that says this is a greap "Photo OP'! Right next to the Kodak sign, it says, "Please deposit five dollars as a fee to place your tripod in the ground, and help us prevent soil errosion. PERMIT REQUIRED FOR TRIPOD"! WAKE up and smell the coffee, boys. Sorry for the nasayers who responded without even reading the article by purdy, but, like others, I think I paid my fee on IRS DAY, APRIL 15th! WHAT YOU NOW TAKE FOR GRANTED, WILL SOON BE LOST, UNLESS YOU PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR POSTERIOR AND MAKE YOUR VIEWS KNOW TO YOUR REGIONAL U.S.REPRESENTATIVE. I figure a spot at Yosemite, and an Ansel Adams spot will be at least $20...just to plant your tripod. THINK ABOUT IT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_feldman1 Posted August 21, 2001 Share Posted August 21, 2001 Yes Richard, we read it. I mentioned that the fees are for National Forests (not National Parks) in my post above (Didn't you read it!). Speaking of user fees, how come you are not complaining about the $300-500 in fees (over and above the sales tax on gasoline) you pay each year for gasoline? What about fees to attend public colleges, toll roads, etc. Do you object to these fees also? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_klein1 Posted August 21, 2001 Share Posted August 21, 2001 As a concept, I don't have a problem with "user" or "impact" fees. I believe that MAINTENANCE of public lands is an appropriate use of our tax dollars, but I believe that users of a resource should bear the burden of repairing damage and making improvements. Many heavily used public lands are suffering horribly from overuse, and I suspect that most reasonable people would agree to a small fee if they knew that the money would be recycled back into the area in the form of restoration and improvement efforts. Unfortunately, as is often the case with government solutions, this program doesn't work that way. <p> I've heard varying figures about how the money from this experiment is distributed; The referenced article says that only 2% goes towards "trail" improvement. The figures I have (US Forest Service figures from 2000) claim between 6% and 9% goes towards improvement of all "facilities" (including trails) and list only a miserable .5% towards habitat improvement. <p> Best case, that's less than 10% for improvements. Repair figures tend to get thrown in with the maintenance costs, but as near as I can calculate, the repair costs can't total more than another 10% to 12%, which means that less than 25 cents on the dollar goes to what I would consider reasonable. <p> On the other hand, the referenced article states 30% goes towards fee compliance and enforcement (the figures I have say it's closer to 20%). Government sources admit that fully 25% goes towards planning and administration at this point, which puts basic overhead costs at 45% to 50% or more than twice the amount of repair and improvement! <p> I've already written both of my (Colorado) senators, and I'd encourage everyone who disagrees with this program to do the same in their own home state. Governmental inertia will probably still extend this woefully inefficient program, but it can't hurt to make your voice heard. Ultimately, the "people" will end up having to pay more and more to visit the "people's" land. <p> See you all out in the wild during the magic hour.... <p> (... but don't forget to bring your wallet!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_boulware Posted August 21, 2001 Author Share Posted August 21, 2001 No Michael, your Liberal philosophy betrays your logic. Let me put it this way. When I buy a college education for my kids, I pay a fee for services delivered. When I pay to use my car, I pay for licences and a data base for law enforcement to catch bad guys who break the law. By your logic, every car load of four people should have three passenger blindfolded, and the toll keeper says the driver is charge $5 for SEEING. The rest of you...if you keep your blindfolds on are free of charge. SINCE WHEN IS GODS KINGDOM AND THE VISUAL ENJOYMENT OF SAID EXPERIENCE TAXABLE. GET A LIFE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_feldman1 Posted August 21, 2001 Share Posted August 21, 2001 Richard, lets not get personal about this. I don't know how you are able to determine my "philosophy" about these things, but you are mistaken in your assumptions. I simply pointed out that we all pay many user fees, many more than we all realize. For example, on my Qwest monthly phone bill I pay over $3.00 in state and local fees (in addition to sales taxes). None of these phone access fees has anything to do with improving my phone service. I share your concern about over-taxation in all its forms. But what I can't understand is why the user fees charged for federal lands are any different in concept than the user fees charged for all the other things we get charged for. The bottom line is that the cost of the management and maintenance of these lands is far more than the fees that are (or will be) collected, so if user fees do not pay part of the cost, citizens are going to pay anyway via income taxes. Regardless of what happens with regard to user fees, you might want to check into the Golden Eagle yearly upgrade. For an extra $15 (over the National Park Pass) I believe that you gain access to all Federal lands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chad_jarvis1 Posted August 21, 2001 Share Posted August 21, 2001 I don't think this is the forum for demonstrations against the United States government's policy on revenue generation. Perhaps Mr. Boulware should contact his congessional representative or senator. Perhaps we all should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_boulware Posted August 21, 2001 Author Share Posted August 21, 2001 Mr. Michael Feldman: If you took my comments to be a personal attack upon you, I extend my most sincere apologies. My intent was to attack your ideas...not you personally. I am confident that you are a skilled LF photographer or enthusiast, and a nice guy. My point on all of this is that things have been taken to the extreme here! Yes, we pay tax on a bunch of BS charges on our telephone bill that stem from the old days when a telephone was considered a luxury. What nonsense. You are absolutely correct in your assertion that those taxes do nothing to improve your local telephone service. I could not agree with you more strongly. Those taxes are a political compromise by those who need the tax $$$ to promote more of their own social agenda. Prying those $$$ out of the hands of a politician is like trying to pry the cold-dead-hands off a pistol in the hands of a deadzealot. (and I AM an NRA member). User fees on federal lands are a scam. We already pay those fees every April 15th when we pay our income tax. Jellystone National Park is another matter. Over use and high concentrations of visitors puts financial pressure on the managers to upgrade rapidly deteriorating infrastructure...caused by those hoards of visitors. No problem.With regard to the Golden Eagle Pass.....for special upgraded facilities....I have no problem with that....but you are still missing the point. ALL federal lands is the issue. Sorry, but I am part owner in those lands and have paid for that ownership by my income taxes....every year. I can go places to shoot where the last person there happened twenty years ago. Should I be charged a user fee for making no mark, leaving no trail? I think not. Your comment that management of public lands is akin to managing Jellystone National Park, is simply not true. Most public land is cost free in terms of upkeep. Nature just does Her thing...and we enjoy it and protect it. I already have access to federal land, especially BLM land and I exercise that right months out of each year, and I pay no fee, except my own code that says I pack out what I pack in...and leave no trace of my being there. If you opt to send your $300 tax refund back to the Feds...be my guest. Tell them it's your 'tripod fee', in advance. I am tired of being taxed to death, and being taxed on viewing and photographing wilderness, it going to damned far. The great thing about photography, like Canon says in their commercials...is that you can go there, do that, and leave it the way you found it. I'll be damned if I am going to be taxed for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn_kroeger Posted August 21, 2001 Share Posted August 21, 2001 If you read the "horror stories" following the article, you begin to sense that one of the reasons these fees are so irritating is that, unlike NPS admission, they are much less uniformly imposed and much more poorly advertised and understood. If you are unlucky, you get nabbed, but most of the time, there is no clear "entrance station" or fee area boundary. <p> I was in Ouray in July, and luckily had read about the fee for driving offroad around Yankee Boy Basin. I was able to buy the pass ($5) at my lodging. If I hadn't seen the USAToday note about the arrests, or inquired at my lodge, I am not sure that I would have seen the poorly placed fee box on the way up to the basin. Even when I read the information at the box, it wasn't really clear what areas required a fee, and what areas did not. <p> I am willing to pay modest fees, but I expect the following in return: <p> 1. Clear and unambiguous description of what the fee is for, and where it is paid. This includes signage at the fee site, and on all USGS and USFS maps. <p> 2. Fair and uniform enforcement of the fees. <p> 3. The fee to be used for maintenance and PROTECTION of my lands. <p> Unfortunately, given the current administration, I think protection of my lands is a pipe(line) dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_hennessy Posted August 21, 2001 Share Posted August 21, 2001 I propose a tax on those who use all caps; not to mention those who rant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_munson Posted August 22, 2001 Share Posted August 22, 2001 This kind of thing really does irk me. These charges are totally illogical and a complete load of BS from where I stand. I get really tired of all these federal agencies "protecting" our land from all these nonexistent threats and slipping my $5 in their back pocket. Federal lands, parks, etc should <i>not</i> be run like a business. Now, if there was some sort of (reasonable) flat usage fee for federal lands and such, and I could be <u>guaranteed</u> that every cent of that would go towards protecting, restoring, and properly managing the land, I wouldn't have any problem with it. However, seeing as such a set of circumstances has about a snowball's chance in hell of ever coming to be, I must wholeheartedly oppose the policies either currently in effect or soon to be so. <p>Not to raise any other issues here, but the US government is getting too big, too powerful, and above all, far too stupid. This is a perfect example of how things are getting out of hand. This is a matter of pure mismanagement of lands and how the big kids in DC feel like ruining the game for everyone else on the playground for no good reason whatsoever. Our supposed representatives are greviously misrepresenting us and I think that we really need to do something about it. Whether that means writing letters, joining a protest, or engaging in a bit of civil disobedience will vary from person to person. However, this is one of those things that, given that we take the proper steps, we can do something about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_kwiatkowski Posted August 22, 2001 Share Posted August 22, 2001 On it's face, it sounds reasonable... Gee, those who use it should pay for it. How nice, how fair. The reality is, we have become complacent, soft and numb. We have been conditioned by clever spin words like contribution and investment when it comes to taxes and government spending. We all just lay back and turn our brains off and get the big screwgie. We are taxed in total right now at the highest rate in this countries history! We are told there is a great surplus (yeah, I know it's just phoney accounting). And now we should pay more? Yes, I love the federal lands. And I go to them quite often around here. But the fact of the matter is the money is already there. I have worked on capitol hill and dealt with budget matters. It would make you sick to see the ineptitude with which federal agencies deal with money. These agencies are not concerned with spending money wisely, they are concerned with spending every penny they have so they can prove they need more the next year. The spending frenzy that goes on within federal agencies near the end of the fiscal year is a sight to behold. At some point we need to say enough. And that time is overdue. If the people who started this great experiment 225 years ago (based in part on a tax of less than 1%) could see the happiness with which some people open their wallets and give money to the government at the point of virtual gun....It would be as shocking as landing on the planet of the apes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_whitman Posted August 22, 2001 Share Posted August 22, 2001 It was my understanding that the check I wrote on April 15 went entirely to the missile defense program, not to management of public lands. <p> ................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_whitman Posted August 22, 2001 Share Posted August 22, 2001 ...but I shouldn't be overly flippant about an issue that is real (and clearly elicits real passion!). I think Glenn Kroeger's post above is eminently sensible, and I second the points he makes: if there are to be fees, they should be fair, modest, and well accounted-for. <p> ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
struan_gray Posted August 22, 2001 Share Posted August 22, 2001 You mean, you're supposed to put money *into* those dinky little wooden boxes at the park entrance? <p> Where's the fun in that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5 Posted August 22, 2001 Share Posted August 22, 2001 Taxes {income and sales} are lost money. There is no use in crying or complaining about it because it is the government we chose. If you do not like the policies do something to change them rather than typing out your aggravation. In your cushy computer chair. On an impartial keyboard. Burried under your security blanket. Bythe way this is a photograpic fourm not a political one. BACK TO THE REAL SUBJECT. I would like to quote an earlier post "I pack out what I pack in...and leave no trace of my being there" well some people do not always follow this philosophy. I know that as hard as I might try I have lost a few items one is a Nikon 35mm F2 if you have found it please send it back. IMHO it is worth helping to pay a living wage to people to keep up the parks or forests or whatever. Keep in mind that most of us pay incredible amounts of money to ruin the environment with film and paper developing chemicals. I haven't heard any of the photographers even mention this little photographic secret. Bitch all you want but photographers are the biggest hypocrites and should be charged if not double what the public viewer is charged to clean up their well hidden trash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_klein1 Posted August 22, 2001 Share Posted August 22, 2001 As an aside - I believe the assertion that the Golden Eagle Pass covers these fees may not be entirely true. It was explained to me (at Rocky Mountain National Park headquarters, late last year) that the Golden Eagle Pass only covers ADMISSION type fees. Fees that are specified as usage fees are not covered (except in the case of several, specifically mentioned National Recreation Areas). <p> My understanding of the this program is that it can also include user fees, and that the Golden Eagle Pass would not exclude you from owing a fee of this type. Several government websites specifically mention confusion surrounding who and when the fees are due as one of the improvements that must be made. <p> Several highly used Colorado areas are actually under contract to private companies to manage, maintain, and collect usage fees. My Golden Eagle Pass has not consistently been accepted at these sites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manuel_johnson1 Posted August 22, 2001 Share Posted August 22, 2001 Thanks John for your excellent reply!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now