Forest Service ending fees at 10 NH locations

[MichaelJ]

From Fosters:

The New Hampshire sites are in the White Mountain National Forest. They are the trailheads at Townline Brook, Blueberry, Blueberry Mountain, Elbow Pond, Tunnel Brook North, Tunnel Brook Road South, Kinsman Notch, Ravine Road and Breezy Point; and the Long Pond picnic area.

 

[RoySwkr]

Thanks for the info

From Fosters:

The New Hampshire sites are in the White Mountain National Forest. They are the trailheads at Townline Brook, Blueberry, Blueberry Mountain, Elbow Pond, Tunnel Brook North, Tunnel Brook Road South, Kinsman Notch, Ravine Road and Breezy Point; and the Long Pond picnic area.

"The Forest Service says the fees also could disappear at other recreation areas among thousands operated by the government but remain at those with parking lots, restrooms and other amenities."

Most of those on the list are remote locations with few visitors, probably too much trouble to collect. But I'm surprised about Kinsman Notch, it's on a main road with a relatively new paved parking lot & restroom. [Oops, why am I looking a gift horse in the mouth?]

 

[David Metsky]

Interesting that all the trailheads around Moosilauke are going to be dropped. Some of them (like North-South and the Ravine Road) are only winter ones, so they may easy sense, plus some are a long drive from other FS sites so they probably weren't worth the effort. I'm surprised at Beaver Brook as well, but I'm not complaining.

This sounds like a positive step.

-dave-

 

[patrickbrusil]

There must be an "official" reason why the USFS is making these cuts especially in am economic time in which money is clearly tight.

If someone happens to find a statment online or something of the sort I would be interested in reading it.

that seemed like a pointless two cents to add.

 

[DougPaul]

There must be an "official" reason why the USFS is making these cuts especially in am economic time in which money is clearly tight.

Don't forget that it costs money to collect money. Perhaps the net profit from those sites is too low (or perhaps a loss).

When the fee demonstration program was originally proposed, the issue of it collecting fees solely to fund itself came up. IIRC there were assurances that such would not happen.

Doug

 

[Waumbek]

2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act

It has to do with the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (part of the 2005 CAA). That act appears to require dropping various recreation-related fees in less popular (revenue-producing) areas of national forests that lack certain amenities (beyond toilets). It is impacting NF lands throughout the country not just in the WMNF or specific parts of it. So, if you bought a pass for this year, maybe you should get a prorated refund?


UNION-TRIBUNE
June 15, 2005

The Forest Service announced yesterday that the controversial Adventure Pass no longer will be required in 90 percent of Southern California national forests.
But the Adventure Pass will be required in popular locations (about 10 percent), according to a statement from forest officials. The pass will be required in areas such as Laguna Mountain, Orosco Ridge Shooting Area, Wildomar and Corral Canyon Off Highway Vehicle Areas, Ortega Corridor Highway, Noble Canyon, Trabuco Canyon and Tenaja areas.
Also, forest users will need the Adventure Pass to camp and picnic in the more popular areas. Remote areas of the forest will be free. Prorated refunds are available. Call (858) 673-6180.
The pass fees are being dropped to comply with the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, which passed as part of the 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act, the Forest Service statement said"

And, just for the record, Beaver Brook Wayside (summer) and Tunnel Brook (112 to Noxon Rd) have been exempted for a while now. Who could know why.

 

[RoySwkr]

The Mountain Ear had some comments from Forest Supervisor Tom Wagner, I could not find them on the WMNF site and the Mountain Ear site isn't quite up to date

This paragraph was in the midst of his quote but not in quotation marks?
"The basis of the new act is to provide a set of amenities within a recreation area. Those include toilets, picnic tables, interpretive or educational information, trash receptacles, designated parking, and a level of security."

Improved security will be popular to some people here

It's easy to see how the S end of Tunnel Brook got removed as it doesn't even have a parking place, just a narrow road shoulder. The Mountain Ear list says Hancock Overlook was removed although it hasn't been a fee site for quite a while - there was a money tube there with a sign about how the money was spent but nothing actually saying that you had to pay.

 

[HikerBob]

Like it or not, the $20 ($25 for two vehicles) fee is really a very small price to pay. I spend more on gas for a single trip to the Whites.

I consider it a bargain.

Bob

 

[dave.m]

Like it or not, the $20 ($25 for two vehicles) fee is really a very small price to pay. I spend more on gas for a single trip to the Whites.

Right. But remember, the point about these USFS fees has never been about the size of the fees nor the use of the fees to provide extra services. The point has been test the public's reaction to paying for access to the public's land and the acceptance of more amenities in USFS recreational areas, which have been traditionally on the low end of amenties compared to, say, the DoA's National Park system. This is why the head of the USFS when the fee demo program was launched said that the USFS wanted its logo to become *the* known brand for outdoor recreation with as much recognition as McDonalds. It is also why the industrial camp ground concensionaires like KOA have been major backers of the Fee Demo program. They want to take over the running of the traditionally rustic USFS campgrounds. Lastly, remember the that "cuts" in USFS funding came at a time when we were running surpluses in the government. It has been argued by many that the cuts were pushed for by Gingrich and company in order to set the stage for the fee program. The fees were supposedly correcting a problem that was entirely manufactured.

A great read on the use of fees for public services is Garritt Hardin's "Filters Against Folly". Fees are merely tools for enforcing public policy decisions. They rarely, if ever, are related to the actual costs for providing the public service in question. Tolls, parking meters, bus fares, subway fares are all examples.

-Dave