By Nathan Hindman (Nathanh) on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 01:06 pm: Edit

While surfing around Expedition Exchange, I noticed in one of the "Area 51" pics that the Forest Circus has instituted a "Forest Adventure Pass" out in California. I was curious what you west coasters thought of this.

So far the trails are all free and open here in Colorado, but I wonder if the Adventure Pass is in our near future....

Nathan Hindman

By Ho Chung (Ho) on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 01:49 pm: Edit

the adventure pass is needed for camping.
if you hit the trail and no camping, then it's still free.

the adventure pass is pretty cheap, so it doens't bother many people... at least the ones i know.

By L_Tilly on Friday, August 17, 2001 - 02:52 am: Edit

The White Mountains here in NH were one of the "pilot" program sites for that. As mentioned, these are really only "parking" permits. As long as you don't stop and get out of your vehicle you don't need to pay. Personally I'm very much against them because the US Park Service is supposed to be supported out of our taxes. My opinion is that its bad enough our money is being spent on some programs I am SO against, but then to have them collect additional fees for something I am HAPPY to pay taxes for is just salt in the wound. I'd rather have our public services be fully funded and have social service be more voluntary. Sorry, this isn't the right forum for that discussion...

I buy the anual permit up here. You don't need it to ride, but we also enjoy hiking and don't want to come down from a trail to find a $20 ticket on the truck.

PS: Ask your candidates where they stand on these thigns, and VOTE!!

L_Tilly lnctilly@mediaone.net
96 Disco "Beowulf" - NH, USA

By Moe on Friday, August 17, 2001 - 04:54 am: Edit

In Washington State there are Forest Passes and Snow permits that are only really needed if you park the car or camp. I think the price is $20 a season--summer and winter, which is not quite enough for me to change my vote on a candidate for office.

"I'd rather have our public services be fully funded" and pay less taxes too Some wishful thinking gong on here

By Jeff Bieler (Mrbieler) on Friday, August 17, 2001 - 05:01 am: Edit

If you could actually count on the services being properly funded, I would agree, but it's not the case. The small fees charged help keep trails, ranger stations, etc. open and I am OK with that.

As an added side bonus, it tends to piss people off and it keeps them off the trails which tends to keep things cleaner and less crowded and I am definately OK with that as well.

It only really applies to regularly traveled trails/parks anyway and those sites do tend to need "protection". If you're way off the beaten path, you won't run into rangers and you won't run into fees.

By Nathan Hindman (Nathanh) on Friday, August 17, 2001 - 07:18 am: Edit

I noticed down in Ouray a couple of weeks ago that they're doing a test "pay station" on one of the popular 4WD passes (Pougkepsie IIRC).

I'm still up in the air about how to react for a "4WD pass". On the one hand it is public land and tax dollars pay for it. But on the other hand, the Forest Service is massively underfunded and understaffed, and the extra revenue could help mantain trails that may otherwise be closed due to disrepair.

I seem to remember reading in one of the 4WD mags that alot Cali. people were pissed with some of the areas becoming "pay to play" sites (Hammers and the place where 4Wheeler does the Top Truck Challenge IIRC).

On a related note, how many people out there actually spend time doing trail maintenance?? Our 4WD club (Rover Riders) does adopt-a-trail, any other clubs participate in it?

nathan hindman

By L_Tilly on Friday, August 17, 2001 - 08:32 am: Edit

I think I might have been mis-read earlier. I do pay the federal parking permits, just like I pay the fees to use our local State Parks. Our family is also a member of several environmental and ecological protection groups. When I visit those public lands we almost always bring out more trash than we took in. And I have no objection to paying a little extra above-and-beyond our tax contribution. Some public places we visited used to have "donation" boxes we would try to put something into.

What does get me upset is that these programs, which I feel are important not only to myself and our country, but to the world as an environmental whole, are underfunded in the first place. I'm not a big fighter for more taxes or less taxes, just how those are spent. I disagree with the political priorities of the people spending the money.

BTW: Don't get me wrong...I'm NOT an eco-terrorist or an enviro-egangalist. I just feel we live in a beautiful country and I get a lot of pleasure out of that beauty, wheter I'm Rovering, hiking, canoeing, snow skiing or just walking my pooch by a nearby river. Easy access to these are the main reason we're NH residents.

"Live Free or Die!" :-)

L_Tilly lnctilly@mediaone.net
96 Disco "Beowulf" - NH, USA

By Wes Munch on Friday, August 17, 2001 - 09:08 am: Edit

While wheeling in Soth Dakota this past summer met some very cool friends who are heavily involved in land usage and management issues. While this is not exactly what your thread is about I think you might want to check out www.sharetrails.org this Blue Ribbon coalition is all about keeping land open for the public.

By Nathan Hindman (Nathanh) on Friday, August 17, 2001 - 10:20 am: Edit

My club is a member of Blue Ribbon as well as COAWDC, and while I do agree with what they're trying to do, they seem a bit militant at times. Almost like the 4 wheelers equivilant of the Sierra Club. They act as though ANY trail closure is an affront to our rights as Americans, despite the fact that there may be a good reason behind it.

Case in point: There was a great trail about 15 mins. away from my house that they closed this spring (Jamestown Creek Trail for those in CO). I hated to see it close, but the 4 wheeling was kicking up ALOT of sediment into the Jamestown Creek which was the primary source of water for a town downstream. As a result their water was failing EPA minimum standards for water quality. Hated to see them close down the trail, but it was a good reason. Meanwhile Blue Ribbon acts as thought it's some kind of conspiracy crap.

By Wes Munch on Friday, August 17, 2001 - 11:20 am: Edit

I agree that extremism isn't good but I also strongly oppose urban eco-warriors/ who don't have a clue what they are talking about and think I shouldn't be allowed on any trails whatsoever. Unfortunately organizations such as the Sierra Club have money and the ears of urban politicians and constituents. So I will continue to support the Blue Ribbon Coalition
and also the UFWDA, not trying to start an argument just think they are on "our" side of some very important issues

By Blue Gill (Bluegill) on Friday, August 17, 2001 - 11:48 am: Edit

all it takes is one sky-high jeepster spinning his 44's up a hill and ejecting turf into the stratosphere to turn any sane person off to four wheeling...

OK, I'll be totally PC and admit that one spinning Rover could do the same PR damage. My social worker would be proud.

most fees are nominal, but its tough to stomach any more forced donation when good old uncle sam is already getting more than enough from all of us hard workers. Oh, wait a minute, let me rephrase that: unless you release stockholder dividends to yourself from your own company, the govt takes what they want BEFORE you get yours...that means they don't get their share, they take what they want and give us what's left. Joy.