Permits required
Olympic Games
vehicle at a wilderness trailhead, or within 20 miles of a wilderness
trailhead in the state of Oregon.
You can get your permits by sending $65.00
to any ticketmaster outlet, and the permits are
good through April 2000.
So, take a nice hike, eh?
Also, the permit system is being expanded to include all public
lands such as BLM, National Forests, Wilderness areas, etc.
The USFS administration are Reagan throwbacks, and are in the
process of making a grab for public lands that will redefine the word
"GREED"!
Lee
David or Jo Anne Ryeburn
> vehicle at a wilderness trailhead, or within 20 miles of a wilderness
> trailhead in the state of Oregon.
Can you provide a reference for the "within 20 miles of a wilderness
trailhead in the state of Oregon" business? That would include an awful
lot of Oregon. Do people who live within 20 miles of wilderness trailheads
have to purchase the permits to park in their own driveways?
David
--
David or Jo Anne Ryeburn
rye...@sfu.caz or rye...@netcom.caz
Canada should be abbreviated "ca", not "caz", in my address.
Liberty OrDeath
but if you park your car by the side of the road, it gets a hard to
remove sticker that indicates the car will be towed to an impound lot by
the next available tow truck.
A trailhead is every place a vehicle could pull off the road.
If you leave your car unattended for a minute you'll get a ticket, even
if you're just passing through.
No, the money is not spent on wilderness preservation. The FS has some
bizarre concept of "wilderness improvement" that calls for a lot of
chainsaw noise. Most of the money is spent for "administration" I
suppose.
The government is completely out of control.
BK
Olympic Games wrote:
> "Snow park" and "Forest Service" permits are required to park your
> vehicle at a wilderness trailhead, or within 20 miles of a wilderness
> trailhead in the state of Oregon.
> You can get your permits by sending $65.00
> to any ticketmaster outlet, and the permits are
> good through April 2000.
> So, take a nice hike, eh?
> Also, the permit system is being expanded to include all public
> lands such as BLM, National Forests, Wilderness areas, etc.
> The USFS administration are Reagan throwbacks, and are in the
> process of making a grab for public lands that will redefine the word
> "GREED"!
I must say that I don't mind paying for "Adventure Passes", "Annual Park
Passes", etc......because I feel that a good percentage of the funds goes
into the Forest/Park Service(s)......also because I know a few people who
don't pay due to financial circumstances....I am picking up the slack...(
the penalty for working hard ? )....I am not rich, but I pay for what I
want/need/have...that is the old fashioned European-American in me....
BUT I do get PISSED OFF when the whores in federal agencies let
corporations do whatever they wish with OUR lands.....for next to nothing !
CounterPunch does some great investigations into the scams on our
wilderness areas:
http://www.counterpunch.org/
--
"You should be women, and yet your beards forbid me to interpret that you
are so."
------Taken from Macbeth
BK
http://home.earthlink.net/~bjking/
ICQ # 4557591
Adam Marx
> "Snow park" and "Forest Service" permits are required to park your
> vehicle at a wilderness trailhead, or within 20 miles of a wilderness
> trailhead in the state of Oregon.
> You can get your permits by sending $65.00
> to any ticketmaster outlet, and the permits are
> good through April 2000.
This is simply not true. My "Sno-Park" permit cost me about 15 dollars and
is good November through March. Sno-Park lots are free during the rest of
the year. Vehicle permits are required within a *half-mile* of selected,
heavily-used wilderness trailheads in Oregon. Permits are 3 dollars per
day, but this is easily avoided by parking farther away and hiking the
extra half-mile to the trailhead. Better yet, avoid the heavy-use areas
and hike some of Oregon's lesser-known but equally beautiful wilderness
trails.
--
Adam
Jeff Wilson
use in specific parking lots. It appears that the money is used to
keep the lots plowed and the porta-potties services from November to
May. I only with they would add a lot more lots because there are
only 5 from Casson Pass to Yuba Pass. CA also has snowmobile permits
which pay for their lots and to maintain the trails. For a nice
groomed trail experience, ski a snowmobile trail mid-week. OR used to
have the same set up. The post by "Olympic . . ." sounds odd. Anyone
else have first hand info? We all tend to get a lot of hearsay in
this group.
--
Jeff Wilson
jrwi...@thegrid.net (yes, a real address!)
"And now these three remain; faith, hope and love. But the greatest
of
these is love."
...... Seek harmony and balance in the mountains.
Find harmony and balance within.....
donut
without a permit.
David or Jo Anne Ryeburn wrote:
>
> > "Snow park" and "Forest Service" permits are required to park your
> > vehicle at a wilderness trailhead, or within 20 miles of a wilderness
> > trailhead in the state of Oregon.
>
Ulrich Prinz
> the penalty for working hard ? )....I am not rich, but I pay for what I
> want/need/have...that is the old fashioned European-American in me....
Please delete the word "European" in this sentence.
There are no fees to go to any nature-area in Europe.
I don't understand the way the US is limiting the access to the *public*
land. This means that the rich are allowed to go and enjoy nature and
the poor are not :-(
IMHO very sad ...
Ulli Prinz
Stefanie Bruninghaus
>
> Hi BK,
>
> > the penalty for working hard ? )....I am not rich, but I pay for what I
> > want/need/have...that is the old fashioned European-American in me....
>
> Please delete the word "European" in this sentence.
> There are no fees to go to any nature-area in Europe.
Well, that's not completely true. We had to pay a pretty stiff fee for a
Dutch Nauture Reserve.
> I don't understand the way the US is limiting the access to the *public*
> land. This means that the rich are allowed to go and enjoy nature and
> the poor are not :-(
There are more public lands without use fees in the US than in Europe.
In Pennsylvania, where I live, I can find within a few hours drive two
National Forests (Allegheny and Monongahela), where backpacking is
allowed and absolutely free. These forests are just amazingly beautiful.
Overall, I think that THE best thing about living in the US is that
there is so much more free and less restricted access to more beautiful
nature.
-- S. (German who likes living in the US)
Schmoe King of the Bears
Games) wrote:
> The USFS administration are Reagan throwbacks, and are in the
>process of making a grab for public lands that will redefine the word
>"GREED"!
>
None of the top Forest Service administrators, from the Chief down to
the Regional Forester level, are from the Reagan/Bush administration.
Very few Forest Supervisors survive from that era. Any actions you
perceive as "a grab for public lands" are the work of the Clinton/Gore
administration and their political appointees who now run the Forest
Service.
Tom Kenney
<snip>
>There are more public lands without use fees in the US than in Europe.
>In Pennsylvania, where I live, I can find within a few hours drive two
>National Forests (Allegheny and Monongahela), where backpacking is
>allowed and absolutely free. These forests are just amazingly beautiful.
>Overall, I think that THE best thing about living in the US is that
>there is so much more free and less restricted access to more beautiful
>nature.
[soap box mode ON]
Heh Heh...Not for long. The Wreck Fee Demo program has been forced upon
southern Californians, and covers an area that is probably half as big as
Pennsylvania (I'd have to check the numbers to be sure). Tendrils of Fee Demo
are already invading the Sierra Nevada, and the White Mountains, and much of
what's left of Oregon and Washington.
Here's a (brief) list of previously free areas that have gone bad:
1) $5-day/$30-year to hike in the Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres, or San
Bernardino National Forests (covers all NFs between San Louis Obispo and Joshua
Tree, and between Gorman and San Diego - basically ALL of So Cal)
2) $15 per party to reserve a permit to hike Mount Whitney (walk-ups are free,
but non-existent for Whitney)
3) $2 to visit the Schullman or Patriarch groves of bristlecone pines in the
White Mountains
4) $15 to hike above 10,000 feet elevation on Mount Shasta - ostensibly a
'climbing permit'
5) $5 to visit some sites in Mono Basin, including some areas near Mono Lake
6) $5 to enter Yosemite by foot or bycicle, $5 to drive through (no stopping!),
per-vehicle entry fee raised from $5 to $20
7) Entry fee for Joshua Tree National Monument (Park?) raised from $5 to $10
(but still no water anywhere in the park)
8) Proposed $5 day-use fee for picnic areas around Horseshoe Meadow trailhead
near Mount Whitney
...and that's just in California.
All of the above are recent changes (within the past decade). Go to a search
engine and look up "Fee Demo" or "Adventure Pass" or "Recreational User Fee."
You will find that many formerly free lands across the country have gone the way
of the Angeles.
The best thing you can do is tell Congress that you don't want rec fees in your
state, before you show up at your favorite trailhead one day and have to pay $5
or more if you wanna hike there.
[soap box mode OFF]
Tom Kenney
tke...@bearcomp.com
t...@fluxtech.com
Dennis P. Harris
tke...@bearcomp.com.REMOVE_THIS (Tom Kenney) wrote:
>The best thing you can do is tell Congress that you don't want rec fees in your
>state, before you show up at your favorite trailhead one day and have to pay $5
>or more if you wanna hike there.
no, the best thing we can do is to not vote for any more
repugnicans for congress. this fee thing is a repugnican idea,
pushed by the 3 alaskan stooges i never have voted for --- dumb
young, ted stevens, and frank murkowski. another idea promoted
by the unwise use nuts.
the democrats have almost all voted against these user fees and
in favor of raising timber prices in the national forests so that
us taxpayers are no longer subsidizing big timber.
==============================================================
Stumps don't lie...
Dennis P. Harris NO_SPAM_T...@alaska.net
Virtual Juneau http://www.alaska.net/~dpharris
spambots can reply to senator...@stevens.senate.gov
Dr Propane
former is an annual permit, $20 before 1/1 and $25 thereafter. You
need it to park within 1/4 mile of designated trailheads, which
include all of the Mt Hood trailheads and several of those in the
Gorge. The snopark permit is a completely different beast. It is for
parking in designated snoparks around Mt Hood from 11/30 to 4/15. The
fees for it are used to pay for plowing these snopark areas in the
winter. I usually just buy the day permits ($3.50) or 3 day ($7.00)
and not the annual permit, I believe $35. I know there is a
philosophical argument against these, but I for one have been buying
the annual trailhead permit and have noticed a substantial improvement
in the trails, so I do believe the money is going back into the
system. For two years I never saw a ranger in the wilderness area,
except for Glen up on Hood. Now we will see one about every other
trip, and either the presence of the rangers or the increased
maintenance has caused trash and vandalism to go way down. Yes, I
would like to see timber sale money used instead of fees, but I don't
think this is a system that anyone is getting greedy over.
So, was this a legitimate complaint, or SPAM for ticketmaster?
On Sun, 16 Jan 2000 13:08:21 -0800 (PST), Olym...@webtv.net (Olympic
Games) wrote:
> "Snow park" and "Forest Service" permits are required to park your
>vehicle at a wilderness trailhead, or within 20 miles of a wilderness
>trailhead in the state of Oregon.
> You can get your permits by sending $65.00
>to any ticketmaster outlet, and the permits are
>good through April 2000.
> So, take a nice hike, eh?
> Also, the permit system is being expanded to include all public
>lands such as BLM, National Forests, Wilderness areas, etc.
Tom Kenney
>On 19 Jan 2000 15:59:07 EST in rec.backcountry,
>tke...@bearcomp.com.REMOVE_THIS (Tom Kenney) wrote:
>
>>The best thing you can do is tell Congress that you don't want rec fees in your
>>state, before you show up at your favorite trailhead one day and have to pay $5
>>or more if you wanna hike there.
>
>no, the best thing we can do is to not vote for any more
>repugnicans for congress. this fee thing is a repugnican idea,
>pushed by the 3 alaskan stooges i never have voted for --- dumb
>young, ted stevens, and frank murkowski. another idea promoted
>by the unwise use nuts.
Many democrats were for it, too, until they heard about it from their
constituents. Even Mr. President himself was/probably still is a supporter.
>the democrats have almost all voted against these user fees and
>in favor of raising timber prices in the national forests so that
>us taxpayers are no longer subsidizing big timber.
Yep. Nice, isn't it?
But now we have the onerous problem of a Forest Service that is trying to find
another body of funding to which it can attach itself - certainly a critter to
be watched.
Tom Kenney
tke...@bearcomp.com
t...@fluxtech.com
RAllenAL
is an effort to limit access to whoever the government deems is worthy.
Richard Allen
Eugene Miya
>Hi BK,
>> the penalty for working hard ? )....I am not rich, but I pay for what I
>> want/need/have...that is the old fashioned European-American in me....
>
>Please delete the word "European" in this sentence.
>There are no fees to go to any nature-area in Europe.
There are some.
>I don't understand the way the US is limiting the access to the *public*
>land. This means that the rich are allowed to go and enjoy nature and
>the poor are not :-(
>
>IMHO very sad ...
The US is not limiting access. Not directly.
The problem is that the costs to these areas is not keeping track with
inflation. The urban majority in the US is under some economic pressure
and those things which are out of sight tend to be out of budget.
So there are arguments that those things which tend to get used by
"special interest" groups have to make more money for themselves.
In addition to any money they get from taxation, etc. Additionally, land
use policies in the US aren't the same as in Europe. Private property
is sometimes strictly enforced: no trespassing means NO trespassing.
Sometimes, this is enforced at the point of shotgun.
The poor in Europe, and I saw beggars on a recent trip, don't enjoy the
outdoors anymore in Europe than in America.
An example of this was my father. He wanted nothing to do with the
outdoors especially after his time in the US Army cutting across France
and Germany. Which is strange because he wanted me to make a career of
the Army. Consistency,.... Anyways, he did not believe in things like
snowplowing for recreational purposes. That's why Snow Park Permits exist.
Those people who don't use Snow Parks, don't pay for them. And those people
are in a voting majority. And you won't find them posting on this list.
This will be even more interesting in the future.
Most permiting right now is oriented to tally.
Eugene Miya
Most permits which I am aware are on a first-come, first-served basis (FIFO).
Some heavily used areas use a lottery system which is large part is random.
Now there are certain situations like the situation of commercial permits
which I can see as perhaps less than fair. One problem comes of the
behavior of the recreating public: the percentage of no-shows is high in
some places (thus invoking fees), but in certain activities, the level
of inexperience and trouble gives strong evidence to commercial guiding
situations. It's to be expected if people really wish to choose to go
with inexperience (and many do). You guys are more than happy to pay
for guides and packers (numbers show this). All this then provides fuel to
the 90% of the US people who don't visit Parks/Forests/etc.,
like my old man, who wants NPS/NFS budgets slashed even more because of
"foolhearty people in need of rescue" (he doesn't even want to pay for
snowplowing: why should he have to pay for someone elses snow plowing:
they can move to a God-damn warmer climate).
If you die, that's tough, we might record
your final words over the cell phone or radio. Oops, some one has to
pay for the tape. I can assure you that Congress-critters get letters
like that.
If people were more skilled going in, the commercial/non-commercial
permit situation would be different.
There's an intermediate problem that you did not mention beside the
permit and the fee, and it's in between, and that's quotas, and some
places have permits with quotas and some without quotas.
Useful to learn about carry capacity.