Mt. Whitney Portal Store & Hostel Forums General Mt. Whitney Portal Store Message Board Quitting Whitney 4 Awhile/Bear Shot @ Portal

Bob, I don't.

Actually, the "Adventure Pass" program is a part of the "Fee Demo Program", not the other way around. The Adventure Pass was only a program done in the LA-area Nat'l Forests, but as far as I know, nowhere else in the nation. The Fee Demo Program is widely used.

We are not talking about personal expenses. To put on a weekend trip for 100 volunteers costs thousands of dollars for food, tools, gas to transport the huge amount of gear, etc.

Assurances are great, but are not legally binding. Something could come up unexpectedly...like a war in Iraq or something.

The frustrating thing is to have on paper, that funds will be coming through for a project in 6 months, but the funds actually do not become available for 8 months. Several people wrote personal checks for $1000, so that trips could go forward. We had chain saws budgeted, but the the money became available AFTER the summer had ended.

On a related note, I just ran across this site which list the fee demo accounting for Inyo for 2005:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/inyo/projects/feedemo/recfee2005.pdf

Ken,

Thanks for posting that website. It seems even the FS cannot drop the term "FeeDemo". As I have pointed out in several posts, the Fee Demo Program was superseded by FLREA in 2004 as part of the 2005 Ominbus Appropriations Act. I guess names are hard to drop when used for 10 years.

It was very interesting to read the Inyo's report on the fee program in their jurisdiction. I made special note of at least twice where funds were disbursed for garbage collection and four times for human waste removal. One can evaluate whether an appropriate amount of funds went into the endeavors but it is clear that the fee program is funding some of the "trash" issues.

It is also apparent from reviewing the receipts versus the expenditures that they are spending almost all they are collecting. You can see that the vast majority of receipts is from recreation fees of which the Whitney reservation system makes up a large part of that. I'm sure reservations fees for other Inyo trailheads is included in that $983K.

At the risk of making a huge error in assumptions, adding $5 to the reservation fee would add $325K in revenues which should be more than enough to improve waste removal from trailheads; not the outrageous numbers thrown about in other threads. I'm sure I have a calculation problem since $15 into $983K represents 65K reservations and that just seems too high to me.

One last observation is that the list of accomplishments seems like a lot considering the amount of funds expended. There may be some redundancies and embellishments on the activiites side.

David,

You make some pretty damaging allegations in your post. I for one would be interested in any documented evidence you have that you can point me towards.

Actually privatization generally results in improved services with modest fee increases. I believe that as more campgrounds have been placed under private management, they are cleaner and better maintained and the reservation system is far superior to it's predecessors.

Memory Lapse, I'm not sure what you are referring to when you mention "damaging allegations" or who you consider is being "damaged."

But as far as facts go about the problems with the Fee Demo program, there is probably no one more knowledgeable than Alisdair Coyne of the Keep Sespe Wild Committee, based in Ojai, CA. If I'm not mistaken, Coyne (along with others) has testified to Congress on the issues I have mentioned. So you might check the Congressional Record.

The Keep the Sespe Wild Committee has only recently gotten a website together: www.sespewild.org but is still under construction and as yet doesn't have the documentation you might want to see. But a phone number is there and I'm sure Coyne can give you plenty of documentation if you are interested.

But you (and everyone else) might also want to check out this website that also speaks to the issues I brought up:

www.freeourforests.org


Here are some other websites that delve into this issue:

www.wildwilderness.org

www.westernslopenofee.org

www.aznofee.org

There is more documentation but that should get you started.

"...Does it take any stretch of the imagination"
Ummm, yes. More imagination than I have.

there are certain forces happy to see or even encouraging the deterioration of services and funds to our parks and campgrounds to soften us up so we will welcome privitization.

That is a wild accusation. But none of the web sites you listed has anything concrete to prove it. They are just against charging fees for access.

Actually, I don't mind paying a fee if that is what it takes. We all enjoy an activity that 99% of the public does not. If it takes a little dough to keep things running, so be it.

In fact, I would welcome trail quotas raised (maybe not the Whitney overnight) if access fees would put some rangers on the trails to help keep the impact to a minimum.

Steve C, I think you might need to dig a little deeper into those websites and follow some of the document links. But in any case, I think what we are running into in this discussion here, with your's and Memory Lapse comments, is a philosophical difference.

Some people truly believe it would be best to follow a "he-who-plays-pays" fee model, rather than having taxpayers as a whole pay for trail upkeep, etc.

Undoubtedly some folks would like to see higher fees and more limited access. There are some people who could easily afford and would not mind paying $50 to $100 or more to climb Mt. Whitney, especially if it meant not having to share experience with others who they might consider undesirable. Hey, people pay more than that for a single bungee-jump, right?

But I consider our national parks and forests national treasures of multi-faceted importance, spiritually, practically, and symbolically, which deserve as much respect and attention and adequate funding as the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, the Vietnam Wall, etc. To pass them over to Disney or whoever and have them run with a bottom-line profit incentive and dilute or erase the sense that these resources are indeed equally owned by ALL citizens would be unhealthy on MANY levels.

The fact is that the United States through tax payer funding can afford to adequately fund our national parks and forests. In the scope of the overall national budget, adding more funds to adequately care for our parks and forests is not that big of a deal. Do I have to trot out the cliche about "one month of funding the war in Iraq would pay for..."?

It's a shame when people buy into this "scarcity" idea and believe that we "can't afford" to take care of these treasures. The money is there. We need the will to make it happen, but unfortunately there are private interests that like to see that will broken so that they can move in and turn these treasures into profit centers and skim off money to pay CEOs and stockholders.

I believe the government can run these parks and forests the best if the right people are in charge. But it does seem that a shake-up is needed of some kind, but not the kind that leaves our parks and forests in the hands of Wall Street. The government does a good job running fire departments, what is stopping it from running parks well?

What would John Muir do? I don't think he'd want to turn Whitney over to Disney.

David Ciaffardini

Dave,

If I own these lands I want to know where I can sell my share? The government decided to either buy these lands or keep them and have asked us to pay that burden.

I proposed a $250 fee to hike/climb Mt. Whitney because if the government does not get it house in order with the trash at Whitney Portal and human waste along the trail there will be limits put on this area. $250 is not outrageous when you consider the amount of money you are going spend on food, lodging, transportation and gear to do peak. At $250 it is going open the peak to more people...I for one would other adventures because at $250 Mt. Whitney would not interest me. This would more new people on the mountain rather the I've done Mt. Whitney 150 years in a row crowd.

We support our government universities with taxes but we ask the users for reasonable fees to defray the costs. Based on your model for the forests a student should have to pay any fees, we all should be able to go to government build facilities to watch government support sports teams for nothing. My view is forests and parks are no different. You want to play, you should pay, not Joe Sixpack who has been to a park or forest in his life.

You make a decent point wbtravis5152. We don't really "own" these forests and parks in the sense of personal property we can sell. Rather, they are in our trust, under our stewardship. It is our responsibility, our priviledge, our honor, to take care of them, help them thrive, not sell them to the highest bidder.

As far as you wanting to charge people $250 to hike Mt. Whitney, or charge steep fees for other parks, I don't see that as a practical and equitable solution. If we want our forests and mountains to thrive and remain beautiful sanctuaries, it is more vital that we raise our collective consciousness and sense of aesthetics, rather than raising fees.

But like I said earlier, we are dealing with a philosophical difference here. I happen to think my vision is more beautiful than yours as well as more practical in the long run.

And, although you may find it difficult to comprehend from where you are, even your "Joe Sixpack" who has yet to visit a park or forest, benefits in the long run from the proper and caring stewardship of all of our public lands. And, by the way, it is usually not Joe Sixpack who is trying to defund our parks and forests or trying to turn them over to corporations.

I'm cool with Joe Sixpack. It's folks who want to charge $250 to hike Mt. Whitney that I'm concerned about.

David Ciaffardini

Quoting David Ciaffardini: As far as you wanting to charge people $250 to hike Mt. Whitney, or charge steep fees for other parks, I don't see that as a practical and equitable solution. If we want our forests and mountains to thrive and remain beautiful sanctuaries, it is more vital that we raise our collective consciousness and sense of aesthetics, rather than raising fees.

I'm not sure the way that you put it, that it must be a choice between the two, is true.

I'm also not sure that your assertion itself, is true. After all, have we, in the last 200 years, raised our collective consciousness and sense of ethics, not to engage in war to gain our political ends? With that 200 year history of failure, I can't be optomistic.

While you wait for the next two hundred years to pass and this aesthetic change to happen, a fee change can produce a change in the next twelve months. While I don't agree with the specifics of the $250 fee, I don't disagree with the concept. Unlike your ethics approach, with it's 200 year track record of failure, we can look at the $30 permit fee on Mt. Rainier, and how well that has worked, and how well it has been received by the relevant public.

But like I said earlier, we are dealing with a philosophical difference here. I happen to think my vision is more beautiful than yours as well as more practical in the long run.

I think if you want to convince anyone, you will need to give examples of the success of your vision in other areas, and the failure of other's vision, likewise. Theory is great, but it is much more convincing to see examples. You might be right.....but you might be wrong.

And, although you may find it difficult to comprehend from where you are, even your "Joe Sixpack" who has yet to visit a park or forest, benefits in the long run from the proper and caring stewardship of all of our public lands.

Shouldn't Joe get to make that decision, not you? He gets to do that via his elected representatives. It is surprising (at least to me) how "middle America" votes on these issues. When I visit the rural areas of the Sierra, the sentiments I hear don't at all support your assertions.

And, by the way, it is usually not Joe Sixpack who is trying to defund our parks and forests or trying to turn them over to corporations.

You'd be surprised. Most average people want jobs, security for their families, a feeling of safety. They do not view those who are trying to provide those things as antagonists. They view them as their friends, and they vote for them.

I'm cool with Joe Sixpack. It's folks who want to charge $250 to hike Mt. Whitney that I'm concerned about.

Nah, it's those folks who are willing to be innovative, creative, discuss the problem, understand the issues, debate approaches. The vast majority of folks do none of those things, and will never hear your arguments, nor care what they are.

Ken, in fact, collective consciousness has risen in the last 200 years. In fact, it is rising at this moment, though not as quickly as some of us would like. But I see it happening everyday. Some people see it, some don't. Some see it, but don't get it.

And even if I point out specific examples, with your attitude I'm sure you'll be able to pick them apart in an effort to defend your point. If there was an absolute, easy way to convince you and others with your mindset, then we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. It comes down to different ways of approaching the world and our expectations and assumptions.

I remain an optimist. And, please do not take it personally, I believe that pessimism, and the public championing of it, is a big part of the problem. Among other things it adds to the fear, and fear breeds contempt and selfish attitudes, and perhaps accounts for some of the reactions you get when you speak with some of those folks you mention in the rural areas of the Sierra.

I don't automatically and absolutely oppose all fees, but (here's some examples you asked for) the public no-fee scenario works pretty well for fire, police, elementary education and military. But, undoubtedly you know folks who want to see fees charged for those services as well. I just happen to disagree.

And, bottom line, I don't believe corporate takeover of the national parks and forests is the proper or prudent approach, nor is it necessary.

Where DID that corporate takeover idea come from? Nobody here proposed it.

The unfortunate fact is that our current federal representatives are far more willing to spend billions of dollars in places like Iraq and at the same time continue to cut the national forest budgets. It seems like the realistic thing to do is pay reasonable fees for use of the forests, so that they can be managed in spite of the federal budget.

Proposing NO fees because the money is not spent the way you think is should be is about as wise as continually cutting the FS budget.

Ken, I don't understand your point. You're quite energetic about trying to argue against my points, but what are you advocating? Charging fees to enroll in public elementary schools?

In any case, I think we are getting a little off track there.

Despite all your wordage, I stand behind my original statement on this thread: I don't like the Fee Demo program as it is currently structured. Lots of people don't like it for various good reasons, including the fact that without question it has been shaped with the help of commercial interests that are using it as a wedge to privatize more and more of the management of our public resources, the net result being more fees, more structure (and more structures), less freedom, with money siphoned off as profit that WILL NOT go back into making our forests and parks the kind of places I would like them to remain.

A certain amount of private concession businesses are fine within the public parks and forests. I don't have anything against that. But that is not what is being aimed at by large corporations.

Higher fees discourage more public involvement with the out of doors. I happen to believe that if more people spend more time in nature, learning to appreciate it, learning to live with it rather than conquering it, our society will be better off and there will be more political will to preserve our wildnerness areas. But it is obvious that there are many people who take an elitest or selfish view and would just as soon see fees that discourage wider participation and involvment in our public wilderness lands and parks, etc. Or they justify their view that the less public participation, the less our wildlands will be damaged, but go on using the land themselves while hoping others will be discouraged (or priced out) from doing likewise.

I don't believe the myth that government cannot run things intelligently and efficiently under the proper leadership. And God knows we need better leadership. But it is coming. And the sooner people open their minds to it, and the poor leaders move on, the sooner we will see the positive changes. But placing all your hopes on the solutions being found soley through gathering more and more fees is misplaced and will lead to disappointment in the long run.

Oh yeah, you can't seem to come up with ANY examples on your own that suggest that human collective consciousness has evolved in a positive way in the past 200 years?

There are plenty, but how about we start with this one: slavery was outlawed in the United States where it is now generally considered socially unacceptable, even in regions where, just a few generations ago, was extremely common, embeded in both the social and economic structure of the community. I'd say that represents a positive, more enlightened approach by an entire society.

I'd like to consider that example as counting for something, though I won't be surprised if you come up with energetic ways to argue against it.

I'm going to rest on this topic/thread for a while. I've made my points, I've supported them, given examples, given links to people and websites that lead to more information, welcomed counterpoints. I could go on and on. But I won't. You either get it or you don't. And even those who don't, most will eventually. I have no doubt. We are entering a Golden Age. See you on the trail!

How very unfortunate. You don't understand my point, probably several, but you are stopping the conversation.

You cite the change in civil rights, but you are obviously too young to remember it. It did not occur because the "right people" got elected, it happened because people took responsibility THEMSELVES to change the system.

I've lived long enough to encounter several of the Golden Eras, and they never actually seemed to result in what anyone thought, and another generation of idealists became disillusioned and bitter. I hope that is not your fate.

Two years from now, I wonder if I'll still have to buy a shovel, for the privilege of paying to shovel dirt on *your* national forests?

Wow, I go away for a day and this thread has taken on a life of it's own.

Thanks David for answering my questions and pointing to your sources. I did read many of them and you were accuarate in one of your answers that the discussion in this thread is philosophical but I will add political as well.

I understand what people are talking about when they complain about privatization but I don't agree with them. Privatization is just taking advantge of an economic model that has made this the greatest and most efficient and productive country in the history of man. I take issue with those that like to take a name like Disney and use it to support their argument and do not provide substantial evidence that Disney is at the root of a privatization conspiracy to take away from the poor and reward the rich.

Let me give you some real facts, the now superseded "Femo Demo Project" was enacted in 1996; a program actively supported and promoted by the Clinton administration. I'm not placing blame, I'm merely stating fact. In 2004, the FLREA was enacted to supersede the FDP with modifications under the Bush administration. Again not placing any blame here either. As part of the FLREA, the five agencies were required to evaluate all facilities under their jurisdictions with the states involvement to determine which facilities met new regulations for charging fees. New criteria was established as a result of numerous public complaints about fees being charged just to park at a trailhead. Here in Colorado we saw quite a few areas where fees were eliminated. One of your sources points to the Mt. Evans road as an example of a site that was under attack by these changes. As a result, if you travel all the way to the top to the scenic overlook, you travel for free. If you stop along the route, you pay a $10 per car user fee. Is this not the dumbest thing you've ever heard? That fee has been the same for a number of years; not increased as forecast by organizations you use as sources.

The fee to enter Yosemite has been $20 for as long as I can remember, I think it was $10 in the mid to late 80's. Again not significantly raised like some have forecasted and this is one of the most visited National Parks in the system. I have seen it undergo tremendous changes and impacts as a result of this visitation. It is overcrowded and abused by the general public. Many areas have been eliminated because of overuse(two campgrounds below the Merced River bridge across from housekeeping camp to name examples). Oh, and by the way, it hasn't been that long ago that concessionaires took many of the facilities in the park and as a result of that take over, the NPS has been able to make improvements that have had a positive impact on the park. The new Yosemite Falls trails and overlook is a much improved area.

After reading all of your posts I can see you are a serious minded person and I admit that my original reply came from what I thought to be an overuse of generalizations and hypebole to make a point. I like to deal in facts. So with that in mind I offer this.

The Main Mt. Whitney quota system has slots for 29440 reservable spots from May 1 to November 1. That's 184 days at 160 spots per day. Of that, I will assume that only 135 days are fully reserved making the total 21,600. Okay, now if they raised the fee $5 per reservation, they would receive an additional $108,000 to go toward trail maintenance and upkeep(they actually can't use the funds for this under FLREA because there are no improvements past the trailhead). I think they could then afford to hire a trash collector with more reliable vehicles. Pretty straight forward and $5 isn't going to eliminate anyone from reqeusting a spot. However, that small an increase would bring out more opposition groups and distractions for the Forest Service than either of us can imagine. But ask for that amount from taxpayers through the budget process and you will get just as many in opposition.

To wrap this up. I say while everyone is arguing about the money, I will ask people be aware of their personal responsibilities towards the notion of community which is a concept that has struggled in this "New Age" of collective conciousness.

Our trust, our stewartship? I ain't drawing a paycheck for trusting or stewardship. My contract with the Inyo National Forest is to follow their rules and to pay my taxes to federal government in a timely fashion so they can hire competent professionals to manage the forest. Sell what to the highest bidder...than is something I haven't mentioned at all.

Life is neither fair nor equitable. I don't expect to be. Consciousness and aesthetics don't pay the bills...fee for services pays the bills.

My vision brings less people here, improving the aesthetics since the trash cans won't be overflowing any longer. Practical is bring 200 people up the trail with a suspect human waste management plan?

Why am I a concern? I answer people's questions here and at my website so that their journey up this mountain is a pleasurable experience. I write the forest with comments yearly, it seems, and offer one of my opinions for discussion, an opinion that does not have a snowball's chance in Hades to ever be enacted, which I have stated.

I didn't know that they have bears in Glendale!

While I was riding up to Mt. Wilson this morning, I noticed a Lexus with the driver's side window smashed. All I saw inside, as I blazed past, was a water bottle.