Mt. Whitney Portal Store & Hostel Forums General Mt. Whitney Portal Store Message Board Permit process, my two cents.

Would implementation of a self regulated parking fee work?

I've seen this work in several Calif. State parks. And they do this at many camps, private state or national operated.

Just up the coast they collect anywhere from $6 to $12 for people just stopping in for a short look or picnic. Cannot see why this couldn't but help fund local maintenance issues without much risk or overhead.

How about this: Raise the reservation fee to $25/pp.

The reservation fee is part of the "fee demo project", familiar to all of us in SoCal in the form of the "adventure pass".

In this program, 95% of the money stays on the Inyo, it does not go into the federal coffers.

As regular readers know, one doesn't need to make a reservation to get a permit. However, those who don't, which would tend to include people from "far away" will want to assure a permit, so, they will make a reservation.

I would guess that it would cut down the number of people on the trail...what is bad about that??? It would probably encourage smaller sized groups. It would probably make permits more available.

While not a FS property, one pays something like $30 to climb Rainier.

Perhaps the number is not right. Perhaps one would phase it in......but I think it would work, without any more admin, and would spare the locals to a large extent. And the money would stay on the Inyo.

God only knows what has to happen to put it into operation. Probably an act of congress.

I'm totally against raising fees on anything.

Ughh, I hate Fee Demo and the Adventure Pass. We shouldn't be paying a fee just to take a walk in the forests on our own land! Half of the Fee Demo money is wasted in administering the program anyway. If you want to read more about opposition to Fee Demo, I urge everyone to go to this site: http://www.freeourforests.org/

The idea of raising the reservation fee to cut down on the number of people on the trail is really disturbing. You're essentially discouraging people from going if they can't afford it. Isn't this fundamentally wrong? I think all citizens of this country, regardless of if they can pay $25 or not, has an equal right to access our public lands.

Raising fees to keep people out is like people paying extra money to skip ahead in line at theme parks. Something about that just doesn't seem fair because we all paid the same price to get into the theme park in the first place.

Tim,

We pay additional fees all the time. We in California support two university systems and ask those that use them to pay additional fees. Based on you model these schools should be "free" and none of us should have to pay to for a ticket to USC-UCLA basketball game at Pauley Pavilion.

Therefore, I do not have a problem with additional fees for government things I use. I do not like the government waste and I have stated here what I consider wasteful spending in the Whitney area.

I'd actually make it a lot more...in the $250 range between 7/1 and 9/15, and make everyone pay it. However, this would take an act of congress, if I'm not mistaken, and that ain't going to happen. With the condition these funds stay at the trailhead/trail.

I always find it both amusing and disappointing when people ask the government to restrict access and charge them more money.

1. The solar toilets were removed not because they didn't work; though not perfect, they worked well enough. They were taken down because there wasn't enough money for their proper upkeep. At some premium above $15 there would be enough money generated to hire an outside contractor to keep toilets operational--or even to install and maintain more sophisticated toilets. If the fee were raised just $10, during the busy summer months an extra $48,000 would be generated each month, surely enough to keep toilets in repair.

2. As for a fee increase making a hike too expensive for some people, I doubt that that can be demonstrated to apply to anyone who, say, doesn't live in Lone Pine. Almost all Mt. Whitney hikers come from relatively far away. Many fly in from out of state. Others drive for many hours to get to the trailhead.

In my case, to reach Lone Pine I drive 300 miles from San Diego. At today's rates, gas costs me $65. I also need to factor in wear and tear on my vehicle ($175 when amortized over its expected total mileage). Then I need to add lodging, whether at a campground or at a hotel. Then there is food on the journey and on the hike, plus other consumables. Then add the $15 for the current permit. The total is something over $300, and this doesn't include equipment or clothing I may buy for the hike. Many people, especially those from out of state, will pay much more overall.

If I'm willing to pay several hundred dollars to hike Mt. Whitney, would I change my mind if I had to pay $10 more? Of course not, and I doubt that anyone else would. And if that incremental $10 is truly a hardship for someone, then he probably shouldn't be thinking about spending the several hundred anyway.

I still believe the main Whitney Trail should be managed like the Bright Angel Trail in the Grand Canyon. Real restrooms at the Outpost and Trail Camps and a fee sufficient to cover their maintenance. Strict quotas on overnight use, perhaps with assigned campsites. No quota on day use, with ample signage (already at the Portal IMO) warning of what is required. As I've said before, Whitney attracts many who will never hike another Sierra trail in their life. Let them have it, maybe even make a little extra to fund maintenance in the backcountry.

The “Fee Demo Project” was originally enacted in 1996, amended in 1997 with a three year term, revised in 1998 allowing agencies to retain 80% of the collected fees for projects within the fee area , and renewed in 1999 through 2001. The original purpose of the program was to increase revenues due to increasing levels of visitation, unfunded infrastructure repairs, and rising operating costs. In 2004 the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act was adopted making many provisions of the “Fee Demo Project” permanent. This new law superseded the original RECREATIONAL FEE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM but kept intact the fee retention portion of 80% of collected fees.

An added provision of this legislation required a review of all areas where fees were collected and limited the collection of fees to those areas that have improvements. In many cases, fees were removed from many access points much to the delight of many.

The current law is here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:1:./temp/~c108jmHw3i

There have been several investigative articles written since these laws were passed and the results show that the program has resulted in increased collection of fees but many of these funds have NOT been spent. One such article is:

http://www.newwest.net/index.php/topic/a...clined/C41/L41/

So more fees have been collected but not spent for reasons the article states.

Ken’s reference (in another similar discussion thread) is a 1996 GAO report that refers primarily to fees for rental of government property to commercial operations(ski areas, fishing operations, concessionaires, etc), not fees collected from visitations. Increases in these fees would have the result of increasing services provided by those renting such government lands and facilities such as the rent paid by Doug Sr for the Whitney Portal store concession (an assumption on my part).

So any discussion of money as an answer meets with all sorts of implications, many of which most of us do not fully understand.

I have spent time in Europe, some in the Interloken area of Switzerland and was completely and utterly impressed with the respect the Swiss have for their country. Everything has it’s place and I would bet they all attended formal wood stacking training somewhere. I spend a lot of time in South America and they are exact opposites of the Swiss.

I think one solution to this problem is to have a large dumpster at the Ranger Station and that one of the instructions to permit holders is to empty your vehicles of all trash there as the facilities at the Portal and other trailheads is limited.

I recall a few weeks ago someone posted a picture of a fellow headed up the trail with his gear still in it’s original packaging. I wonder where that box ended up. This is an example of ignorance and indifference I cited earlier in another thread.

Another solution is to extend the campground hosts responsibilities to include some policing of the area at the trailhead such as examining bear box contents and removing old or undated materials. There are campground hosts all over the country performing collection and cleaning actitivties despite other opinions.

I believe that the “Leave no trace” policy should extend from the trailhead into the parking lot, not just reserved for backcountry.

Hi Sierra Stryder,
I made a couple of phone calls to Switzerland (Tourism Office and Mountain Guide Association of Zermatt) and they confirmed that there are no permits required and no fees charged for any mountains or trails anywhere over there. I will be leaving for Switzerland in two days with plans to do part of the Haute Route. It never occurred to me to inquire about fees or permits. However, your post had me a bit worried. I immigrated to the US form Switzerland 14 years ago and I wasn't sure if a permit system was implemented since. I was certain that there was no such thing before 1993.
Kurt

KKeating,

Your number one is only partially correct. When Gary Oye, the Ranger in charge came here from Mt. Shasta five or so years ago he said in an interview in the Los Angeles Times late lamented Outdoors Section that he wanted to do away with the solar latrines to make MMWT a true wilderness experience.

In correspondence with Mr. Oye he stated didn't like asking forest service personnel having to handle hazardous waste.

The solar latrines were doomed the day Mr. Oye arrived at the Inyo.

Hi Kurt,
That's interesting information. Makes me wonder then what my buddy actually had to pay for when he and his group went to climb the Eiger some eight years ago now. Perhaps a local "contribution" to the climbing authortity for the right to enjoy the climb? I don't know. Regardless, enjoy your hiking.

No hut system. Never. The glory of the Sierra is to a great extent, its rugged isolation. Huts would be, over the years, justification for improvements designed to make "wilderness" life more gentrified. The first step in LA-fication.

Tim, you are saying that you are in favor of a new tax to pay for this, not only in the Inyo, but all of the deferred maintenence throughout the Nat'l Forest and Park Systems?

No?

Well, what is the logic of what is going on? We are not talking about basic protection of the forest. To see the perspective on that, one only needs to read the EIA for the toilets, and you can see where this will go.

We are talking about *conveniences*. Who should pay for your conveniences? You think that I should? You think that you should pay for mine?

How about we should pay for our own?

Those of us who choose to climb Whitney, are reasonably asked to pitch in to create the conveniences that allow us to go, by the thousands. If those conveniences are not there, the quota should be about 30/day--day hikers AND overniters.

I am NOT suggesting raising the RESERVATION fee to discourage people from hiking. I am suggesting raising the fee to raise money that everyone agrees is needed. There MAY be some people who choose not to hike, because they cannot have the CONVENIENCE of an advanced reservation, guaranteeing a CONVENIENT time. There will be plenty of permits.....there are plenty NOW, and they are now, and will be, free.

Your argument about the fee demo infrastructure cost is inapplicable. The infrastructure already exists and is being used, right now. There will be no incremental expense. Any additional money will be available to make the improvements that everyone, including you, wants, but doesn't want to pay for.

Ken, I do pay. I pay income taxes to the Federal and State governments every time I get my pay check. If I've already paid once, why should I pay again? If I recall, the American Revolution started partly because we were fed up with double taxation.

Also, I see no reason why we should be raising money for the government when they they are so careless with our money to begin with. I will once again point to these extraordinary cases of huge government waste:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm839-list.cfm

Instead of being upset with me for making the government accountable, why not be upset with them for not accounting for $25 billion, wasting $100 million on unused flight tickets, and never bothering to collect refunds even though the tickets were reimbursable, and Air Force and Navy personnel using government-funded credit cards to charge at least $102,400 for admission to entertainment events, $48,250 for gambling, $69,300 for cruises, and $73,950 for exotic dance clubs and prostitutes.

Restrooms are not conveniences. They are necessities to contain human waste to reduce impact to the lands we are trying to protect. The crap has to go somewhere, no? The Forest Service and National Parks are charged with maintaing our public lands and preserving them while allowing people to access them. Therefore, they have a duty and a responsibility to maintain these facilities.

If Mt. Whitney is in such disarray then I suggest everyone call or write the responsible agencies and Representatives and demand that they take care of the problem. Here's their contact info:

http://www.inyocounty.us/representatives.htm
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/inyo/contact/index.shtml#admin

If they say there is no money then point them to where they lost track of $25 billion and tell them they have no right to say they have no money.

Although people may not want to admit it (but yet they secret do know), raising fees to astronomical levels obviously has the side "benefit" of excluding people who are unable or unwilling to pay, therefore making it more exclusive to those who can. It will keep the rift-rafts away so that we can play.

Instead of raising fees to astronomical levels, I propose we raise the fine for littering, not using wag bags, or not packing out wag bags to astronomical levels, say $10,000. Then get more rangers out there and start laying down the law. At $10,000 a pop, they'll have enough money to send that trash lady to the Portal everyday in no time. There should also be a way for fellow hikers to snitch on violators like the way they do on Denali. This way, it's the irresponsible people who are paying instead me, the responsible one, having to pay some stupid $250 permit fee just to have clean facilities.

I did get a 1-person 1-night permit last week. Oddly in actuality it was for one person to do FOURTEEN nights! I kindly declined and said I'd be there one night, hopefully this gives 14 more people a one-night chance. Due to lack of any sleep, I didn't use the permit and phoned it back in as cancelled.

BeachAV8R: Going to Nepal in Oct. For a person who hates rollercoasters I'm sure the flight to Lukla will be a nail biter. That scream heard round the world will be me. I read that this is one of the shortest runways in the world with a mountain sticking straight up at the end and the pilot has to turn real quick after the landing. If I survive this flight, the rest is a piece of cake!

> Oddly in actuality it was for one person to do FOURTEEN nights!
> I kindly declined and said I'd be there one night, hopefully
> this gives 14 more people a one-night chance.

Your permit only counted on the entry date. EVERY overnight permit is good for 14 nights. But nobody ever uses that many.

"Ken, I do pay. I pay income taxes to the Federal and State governments every time I get my pay check. If I've already paid once, why should I pay again?"

Because you want conveniences beyond basic service. You started out your argument by saying that you didn't want to pay to walk on "your" land. Now you are saying that you don't want to pay for the conveniences of a reservation system that allow you the convenience of planning far in advance. You want concierge services! Fine. Stay at The Four Seasons, not Motel Six.

"Also, I see no reason why we should be raising money for the government when they they are so careless with our money to begin with."

Ah, I see. You want to depend upon the efficiency of the gov't to arrange for your conveniences. Other than being a ridiculous expectation, we'll let your heirs know when it is finished. On budget.

"Restrooms are not conveniences." One wonders if you have ever taken a backpacking trip? I cannot conceive of defining them any other way in a wilderness area.

"If they say there is no money then point them to where they lost track of $25 billion and tell them they have no right to say they have no money."

This is ridiculous. I have no idea what work you do, but this would be like demanding that you take a pay cut, because the Chief Executive has outrageous perks and benefits. You want to hold some district ranger on the Inyo responsible because some other agency lost money?

"Although people may not want to admit it (but yet they secret do know), raising fees to astronomical levels obviously has the side "benefit" of excluding people who are unable or unwilling to pay, therefore making it more exclusive to those who can. It will keep the rift-rafts away so that we can play.

Instead of raising fees to astronomical levels, I propose we raise the fine for littering, not using wag bags, or not packing out wag bags to astronomical levels, say $10,000. Then get more rangers out there and start laying down the law. At $10,000 a pop, they'll have enough money to send that trash lady to the Portal everyday in no time. There should also be a way for fellow hikers to snitch on violators like the way they do on Denali. This way, it's the irresponsible people who are paying instead me, the responsible one, having to pay some stupid $250 permit fee just to have clean facilities. "

I get the feeling that you are having some sort of comprehension problem with what I propose. I DO NOT advocate raising the permit fee. The permits are free. They will remain free. I am talking about the RESERVATION fee. The "riff-rafts" will be able to get as many permits as they want.....for free!! Just like now!

I am talking about increased charges on those who want the concierge services, which many do! I'm curious how you think you are going to collect $10,000 fines on your "riff-rafts". Do you take their children away, if they don't have it? Do you throw them in the klink (wasting more taxpayer dollars?) Execute them on the spot? (who pays for the bullets?)

Ken, obviously we are just going around and around so we will just have to agree to disagree.

However, paying $250 for taking a reservation is nuts. The motivation for such a high fee is clearly to discourage the number of applicants so that you or anyone else who is willing to pay will have a better shot at it. I've made my point that it's not about funds because the government already wastes plenty of our money.



Huh? Where do you get this? I'm saying to call your Senate and State Representatives (you know, those guys and gals in Congress that approve the budget) and tell them to fund the Forest Service properly instead of wasting billions of our dollars.

You make it sound like the permit reservations are just a mere convenience. The fact is, ALL permits within the quota period are reservable. So I guess if all the rich people have reserved all the permits then there are none left for all us poor folks. And if there are some left, people would have to drive all the way to Lone Pine just for the chance (a chance, not even guaranteed) that someone has cancelled their reservation. I guess all of us who can't afford the $250 "convenience" will just have to drive back home if there are no scraps left for us. I find it offensive that the determining factor for who has a better shot at our public lands is money. We should all have an equal shot.

It also doesn't take a rocket scientist, or backpacking credentials, to know you need clean, working, restroom facitities at high use areas such as the Portal and possibly Trail Camp. No one is suggesting you put them every 100 feet on every trail in the wilderness.



Tell that to the Forest Service. please read the General Accounting Office's report on Fee Demo ( http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-470 ). See page 32 where the Forest Service admits they spent $10 million from appopriated funds (that's general tax revenues) to pay for administering this program.

Tim,

I agree with you that we shouldn't have to pay any more than we do in taxes to walk on "our" land. We also shouldn't have to pay to camp, climb, or just sit anywhere on any mountain, even the Whitney zone. If the only thing that anyone left was footprints, it should all be free, but I don't think it's unreasonable to think that people should have to pay for someone else to carry their feces off of the mountain for them.

Using the cost of a permit to limit traffic to the area is wrong as well. I, however, would have no problem if the permits were free, but the lottery and application process was long, difficult and they handed out very few permits in the end . . . if we're trying to cut down on the number of people that can come. Let the people who really want to be here put in their permit requests in November, but cost should never be a limiting factor.

Again, in the perfect world everyone would be able to come whenever they wanted, stay as long as they wanted, and pay nothing, but then again they wouldn't rely on anyone else to repair the damage they've done, or clean up their mess once they leave.