Angeles National Park?

[PackerGreg]

From San Gabriel Mountains Blog http://sgmountains.blogspot.com/...

You Didn't Challenge The Legality Of Adventure Passes, Now Bend Over!

May I remind you people that you ARE the government? And that the Angeles National Forest is YOUR land? For over a decade now, you have been quietly paying your five or thirty dollars to park alongside a road or in a parking lot that you built with your own tax dollars without ever asking whether it is legal, or why the other 151 National Forests in The Country, besides the four in Southern California, don't require an Adventure Pass. And what did all that money get you? The biggest F-ing fire in 111 years!

Now they want to take the money and run. They want to take one of the last strongholds of democracy and turn it into a money making opportunity; a revenue office with the acreage of Rhode Island. They want to turn the San Gabriels over to the National Parks system. This would effectively take away many of your rights while turning our mountains into another Disneyland. Look at Yosemite National Park. Do you think it jives with John Muir's vision? It is now just another tacky California tourist trap.

Why do they think they can get away with this? Because you have proven to them that you will happily pay what ever they ask to access your land. Don't let it happen again. It is currently your right to freely access the Angeles National Forest, but it would be your privilege to pay to access the Angeles National Park.

DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN!! READ & RESPOND TO:
http://parkplanning.nps.gov/showFile.cf ... ter4%2Epdf

[RichardK]

Give a thought to decaf.

[lilbitmo]

Give a thought to decaf.

Does that mean the message will come across this board slower? If he does change to decaf:?

Or that it's ok to speak ones opinion in a tone less agressive?

Either way we are the government, except most of us don't get paid to lie, cheat or steal from the rest of the public for a living

[RichardK]

lilbitmo - since you asked...

I found the post to be offensive.

For starters, there is the headline "You Didn't Challenge". When did it come down on stone tablets that I was supposed to challenge anything? And the consequence of "Bend Over"? You get bent, Mr. PackerGreg.

I hate these anti-Adventure Pass rants. Time for a reality check. The politicians don't want to put up enough money to run the National Forests. So, they tell the forests to make up for it with a parking fee. You can pay higher taxes or you can pay a parking fee. By the way, the state and county parks collect parking, too. Why does no one every rant about that?

If the ANF were administered by the NPS, exactly how does that turn it into some kind of revenue machine? I paid Death Valley $20 to get in last March. Over the past few years, DV has lost 45 paid staff positions. Maybe their revenue machine needs oiling.

I utterly fail to see the connection between the Adventure Pass and the Station Fire. You lost me completely on this one.

What rights am I going to lose? Could some one post a list?

I spent a week last September in Yosemite. In no way did it resemble Disneyland. The developed part of the valley is only a tiny piece of Yosemite's 1200 square miles. What are you supposed to do with the thousands who want to see Yosemite? Either you make some effort to deal with mass visitation or go to a Whitney style permit system and let in only 160 per day. I thought the developed part of the valley was rather well done under the circumstances.

The point that is being lost is this: It is not "your" land and it is not "my" land. It is "our" land, all 300 million Americans. How do all 300 million of us decide what to with the Angeles National Forest? Hold a giant town hall meeting? No, we elect a government and they decide. If you differ with the decisions, elect a different government (it happened last November) or run yourself. Or try a place where there is no government like Ethiopia or Somalia.

[simonov]

The point that is being lost is this: It is not "your" land and it is not "my" land. It is "our" land, all 300 million Americans.

Actually, it's the government's land. It's just like private property, except it's owned by the government. The government can - and does - do anything it wants with the land.

The next person who insists he has the "right" to do anything he wants on government-owned land should attempt to exercise that "right" at Camp Pendleton.

[AW~]

I hate these anti-Adventure Pass rants. Time for a reality check. The politicians don't want to put up enough money to run the National Forests. So, they tell the forests to make up for it with a parking fee. You can pay higher taxes or you can pay a parking fee. By the way, the state and county parks collect parking, too. Why does no one every rant about that?

My gripe is that the cost of the adventure pass falls on the user...same goes for state and county parks parking.

1) Angeles Forest expenditures predominately benefit property owners on the outskirts since most of the money spent is on firefighting related expenses. The next major expense is replying to forest related projects..for example the building of a transmission line across the north western portion...is it fair for the typical Angeles forest user to pay all of the cost of responding to a proposal by a private company? It should be a public expense which it would only be pennies per person compared to 1 person paying $30.

2) Not enough money is being raised by users.....pretty much tapped out.
Project list is like 25 pages long(probably just jumped to 125 pages )...and the users are paying for it slowly but surely...beneficiaries? see #1

3) Preservation - just the users cant preserve the forest, requires the entire public...and weve seen it with the latest fire...the thing is no one was complaining about high forest costs and congress just took the money for their own pockets. Now in just the last 10 years, almost the entire forest has been torched. Los Padres, Clevleand,etc have not fared much better. Yes it will begin to regrow...in time for the next arsonist to light another one.

[AlanK]

The next person who insists he has the "right" to do anything he wants on government-owned land should attempt to exercise that "right" at Camp Pendleton.

[simonov]

My gripe is that the cost of the adventure pass falls on the user...same goes for state and county parks parking.

So the cost should instead fall on people who don't use the national forests?

I'm not sure I understand.

[Mike P]

PackerGreg: I was at the meeting on Monday in Glendora. The information that you are spouting is simply FALSE!

Dude, you almost deserve a "Troll Alert" for that post

[Tim]

We've argued about this before but I never miss an opportunity to disparage the Adventure Pass and our incompetent and corrupt government ( http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090821/ap_ ... ns_bonuses ).

I hate the Adventure Pass with a passion. I hate that they charge you to enter a National Park. Not just by car, but in some places that charge you even if you walk in or ride a bike! WTF?

To me, it's reasonable to expect that care of our public lands falls under the category of general tax fund. It's also logical because funding by user fees would favor some places over others. Also, these are large scale operations that require a minimum level of funding. Therefore, there should be no user fees because that's double taxation.

Things like the forest, the beach, public parks, police, fire, rescues, etc. are what I consider for the benefit of the common good. I have not once called the fire department but I don't expect other people to have pay a user fee with each call.

What's really messed up is how when things go bad (as in trillions of dollars bad) or we need some new social program, the cost is spread around to everyone, even the ones that were responsible and did nothing wrong. But when it comes to public lands and $30, you're expected to pay your own way. Pay up dude! Nature is a revenue source and having fun is taxable.

I guess you could say I'm a little bitter. I spent my whole life being responsible and sacrificing to do the right thing and then I get saddled with this shit: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The USDA Forest Service budget is about $5 billion and the NPS budget is about $2.4 billion. The national debt is increasing by the total of those two in just in 2 DAYS!! One year the Pentagon lost track of $2.3 trillion in transactions. That's $8,000 for every man, women and child in this country. They have no idea where it went. So why again should I trust the government with $30 for an Adventure Pass?

[Ze Hiker]

Things like the forest, the beach, public parks, police, fire, rescues, etc. are what I consider for the benefit of the common good. I have not once called the fire department but I don't expect other people to have pay a user fee with each call.

What's really messed up is how when things go bad (as in trillions of dollars bad) or we need some new social program, the cost is spread around to everyone, even the ones that were responsible and did nothing wrong. But when it comes to public lands and $30, you're expected to pay your own way. Pay up dude! Nature is a revenue source and having fun is taxable.

so you don't want to contribute to social programs (which some may believe are for the common good), but you want others to fund your ability to enjoy a maintained forest?

many people don't use the ANF. why should they get taxed to fund it?

(i'm not saying this is my belief, but I'm always interested in how people tend to separate in their minds what is okay to 'socialize' and what isn't.)

[AW~]

My gripe is that the cost of the adventure pass falls on the user...same goes for state and county parks parking.

So the cost should instead fall on people who don't use the national forests?

I'm not sure I understand.

It should fall equally on everyone...hard to know how much the Angeles takes in, but say a million dollars...a comical % of Angeles expenses. Top of the list of expenses is fuels reduction...thus the deferred maintenance list never really gets done...unless they close out permanently some of the list...which costs money..its not a good policy IMO.

FEMA to the rescue, but I dont see why they didnt just fund the Angeles properly in the first place.

[Tim]

so you don't want to contribute to social programs (which some may believe are for the common good), but you want others to fund your ability to enjoy a maintained forest?

many people don't use the ANF. why should they get taxed to fund it?

(i'm not saying this is my belief, but I'm always interested in how people tend to separate in their minds what is okay to 'socialize' and what isn't.)

Not all social programs are bad but most are. They're riddled with fraud and corruption and are often counter-productive to making anyone truly better in the long run. So I wouldn't consider that a common good.

I do want others to fund my ability to enjoy a maintained forest...because I'm also funded their ability to enjoy a maintained forest in their area! Same thing with my taxes funding fire and police that I never call and yet others are able to enjoy their services.

Here's how I separate what should be "socialized" and what should not: Generally, what I consider okay: large scale operations that can benefit everyone in a direct and equal way and that cannot possibly be funded by any single individual. This includes police, fire, military, large land management, infrastructure, etc. I consider public land part of infrastructure. It's part of the physical make up of the country and was set aside for the enjoyment and benefit of all citizens today and in the future. Even if someone never visits a forest, at least it will be there for their kids to visit if they want to. The government therefore has a duty to take care of these lands because that's why we have governments in the first place.

On the other hand, a lot of social programs give out benefits that could have or should have been the responsibility of the person. Of course, there will be the argument that if you don't help, they will be a bigger drain on society. I have a rebuttal for that, but I better not get into that.

Also, in practical dollar terms, the cost of managing the forest is minuscule compared to size of these other programs (not just social programs but all the other crap that the government wastes our money on). Like I said, it's no more than $10 billion a year for the FS and NPS (that's only 0.3% of the total tax revenues---A THIRD OF A PERCENT, A FRIGGIN THIRD OF A PERCENT!!). And how much of that tiny amount is actually for recreation? Hell, they probably spend 10X that much in "foreign aid" *bribes* to some countries.

[simonov]

It should fall equally on everyone...

I'm not sure I can agree with that, especially with regard to a resource, such as a national forest, which is used by a tiny fraction of the taxpaying public (compared to, for example, a freeway).

The Adventure Pass is a parking permit. There are few places anyone can go anymore where you can get free parking. And at $5 per day, or $30 per year, it's hardly onerous.

[Ze Hiker]

I do want others to fund my ability to enjoy a maintained forest...because I'm also funded their ability to enjoy a maintained forest in their area! Same thing with my taxes funding fire and police that I never call and yet others are able to enjoy their services.

you could say that about any service. some are using it more than others

Here's how I separate what should be "socialized" and what should not: Generally, what I consider okay: large scale operations that can benefit everyone in a direct and equal way and that cannot possibly be funded by any single individual. This includes police, fire, military, large land management, infrastructure, etc. I consider public land part of infrastructure. It's part of the physical make up of the country and was set aside for the enjoyment and benefit of all citizens today and in the future. Even if someone never visits a forest, at least it will be there for their kids to visit if they want to. The government therefore has a duty to take care of these lands because that's why we have governments in the first place.

On the other hand, a lot of social programs give out benefits that could have or should have been the responsibility of the person. Of course, there will be the argument that if you don't help, they will be a bigger drain on society. I have a rebuttal for that, but I better not get into that.

why does a government have a duty to take care of lands, but not take care of people?

actually there are plenty of programs that are terrible inefficient. probably the forest service too. I hate that as well.

accounting for personal responsibility should always be a part of the picture, doesn't mean its the whole thing.

if certain users of a forest are more prone to create 'wear and tear' of it (i dunno, like mtn bikers, hypothetically), then they should be charged more.

if you are going to use the forest to hike more than someone sitting on their ass at home, you are creating more wear on it and one could say there is a personal responsibility on your end to pay back. $30 adventure pass, for example

[Rumpled]

It should fall equally on everyone...

I'm not sure I can agree with that, especially with regard to a resource, such as a national forest, which is used by a tiny fraction of the taxpaying public (compared to, for example, a freeway).

The Adventure Pass is a parking permit. There are few places anyone can go anymore where you can get free parking. And at $5 per day, or $30 per year, it's hardly onerous.

I pretty much agree with you there. But, and there's always a but; this "demonstration project" was supposed to fund improvements in the local forests. Seeing various reports that 60-70% or so of the income goes strictly to enforcing the parking permits shows the original goal is not being accomplished.

[edenooch]

non sense. its not even that big an area. they should just leave it as it is!

[Tim]

why does a government have a duty to take care of lands, but not take care of people?

I never said the government shouldn't take care of the people. But my idea of "taking care of" is probably different than yours. This now gets into the area of what the role of government should be, which is another whole can of worms.

To me the government should "take care" of people by providing basic functions like police, fire, defense, justice system and infrastructure. If you don't believe that then you are probably either an anarchist or a nomad. Most of us are not nomads and I am not an anarchist, at least not today. So it's understood that these basic functions are pooled resources that will not be used equally, but they still benefit us as a whole.

I believe public lands fall under this category because we, as a people, decided that some lands needed to be preserved (kept from private ownership) in order to allow access to ALL people now and in the future. Therefore, it makes no sense to me and is actually offensive to limit who can access these lands by whether or not you can pay a user fee.

if certain users of a forest are more prone to create 'wear and tear' of it (i dunno, like mtn bikers, hypothetically), then they should be charged more.

if you are going to use the forest to hike more than someone sitting on their ass at home, you are creating more wear on it and one could say there is a personal responsibility on your end to pay back. $30 adventure pass, for example

So where does it end? Should we put GPS trackers in our cars and tax people by the mileage they drive? How how about CO2 detectors to tax you on your carbon footprint. Then tax sodas because they make people fat, which puts a burden on the health care system. Should you pay $20,000 for a helo rescue because you wanted to hike a challenging off-trail route but misjudged the weather or got hit my a 20 lb rock? Should New Yorkers (or any large city) pay more taxes because they're a bigger target for terrorist attacks and therefore create more wear and tear on our defense department?

[Tim]

I'm not sure I can agree with that, especially with regard to a resource, such as a national forest, which is used by a tiny fraction of the taxpaying public (compared to, for example, a freeway).

Not sure if it's tiny.

White Mountain National Forest: 6 million visitors a year
Angeles National Forest: 3.2 million visitors a year
Great Smoky Mountain National Park (they have no entrance fee): 9 million visitors a year
The entire National Parks System: 275 million visitors a year

To put that into perspective:

US population: 307 million
California population: 36.8 million
Number of federal tax returns filed in California: 17.6 million
Federal income tax paid in California: $148 billion
Federal income tax paid per capita in California: $4000
Greater Los Angeles Area Population: 17.8 million
Federal income tax paid by Greater Los Angeles Area (based on per state per capita average): $71.2 billion

Angeles National Forest Budget: $28 million (in 2003)
Angeles National Forest expenditures for "Public Use and Enjoyment": $3.7 million (in 2003)
Cost of new ANF Supervisor's Office: $5 million

Percentage of ANF budget with respect to federal income taxes paid in the Greater Los Angeles Area: 0.04%
Percentage of ANF budget for "Public Use and Enjoyment" with respect to federal income taxes paid in the Greater Los Angeles Area: 0.005% (yep, 5 thousandths of a percent!)
Percentage of ANF visitors with respect to Greater Los Angeles Area population: 18%

Financial bailouts so far: $11,973,681,500,000 ($12 trillion)

Percentage of ANF budget for "Public Use and Enjoyment" with respect to financial bailouts so far: 0.00003% ( 3 hundred thousandths of a percent)

Volunteers who get paid squat and still help the national forest despite all of the above: Priceless (but messed up that the Feds have to resort to free labor)

The Adventure Pass is a parking permit. There are few places anyone can go anymore where you can get free parking. And at $5 per day, or $30 per year, it's hardly onerous.

It's not just a parking permit. It's a user fee specifically for recreation. You don't need it if you stop at a turnout and take a picture or use a restroom. According to their site: Since these are recreation "use" fees and not fees for "entry" to the national forest, no pass is required for travel through, nor for activities that are "incidental" to thru-travel, such as stopping to take a photograph, use of developed overlooks or use of a restroom.

Also, this is public land, not a private business. If a business wants to charge parking, I can choose to do business elsewhere. I can't choose to not pay taxes. I already pay income taxes for management of this country and it's not unreasonably to expect that includes management of our public lands put in trust by the people.

So now they tax us again with a user fee? That's crazy. I don't know why people are okay with that just because it's only $5 or Disneyland charges you $15. People let them get away with $5 and next year it will be $10 then $20 and before you know it, it's $12 trillion going on to $20 trillion. That's already reality, not an exaggeration. This government is a disaster. If my son or daughter was this bad with money and asked me for even more, I wouldn't give it to them.

[AW~]

I'm not sure I can agree with that, especially with regard to a resource, such as a national forest, which is used by a tiny fraction of the taxpaying public (compared to, for example, a freeway).

Not sure if it's tiny.
Angeles National Forest: 3.2 million visitors a year

Actually 3.2 million only includes 'recreationialists'....if you look at how many people really use the forest its much higher. For example, water,utliities,lumber,mining,firefighting etc everyone is tied into the forest.
Fall Creek fireroad for example...maintained by 'adventure pass' dollars...the result is the closure of Fall Creek camp as theres not enough money being collected to keep that fireroad in perfect shape. Whos using the 'trail'? Hikers,bicyclists..yes...but the purpose of the road also serves Edison transmission lines and firefighting efforts.

Also, the effect on the economy. Mt.Baldy likely brings in more money to the local economy(aka the public) than the entire forestwide adventure pass brought in......without maintanance of the trails, these businesses would suffer...but they benefit I would say mightly from adventure pass buyers.

If you want no one to pay anything and no work is done period, thats good too...see what happens ....seems the work is being put on the recreationalists who already pay taxes.

[simonov]

Not sure if it's tiny.

Angeles National Forest: 3.2 million visitors a year

That 3.2 million figure is not unique visitors. If I visit the National Forest 20 times in a year, I am counted 20 times. Where something like 20 million people live within two hours. Tiny.

It's not just a parking permit. It's a user fee specifically for recreation.

It is only required if you park a car in a National Forest. You don't have to buy one if you carpool with someone. It's a parking permit.

Also, this is public land, not a private business.

I have no patience at all for this argument. Again, anyone who thinks that land owned by the government is "public land" should prove their point by trespassing on a military base. "Publicly" owned land is just like privately owned land, except title is held by the government. There are no other special obligations associated with that title except what have been enacted through legislation or regulation. And I bet you will be hard-pressed to find any such legislation that says any "public lands" anywhere should be freely open and available to anyone without charge in perpetuity.

As long as I can remember I and my family have paid to visit National Parks. Everyone on this message board is aware of how recreational services in National Forests are significantly underfunded compared to National Parks. Why shouldn't National Forests charge the way National Parks do?

In general, I have never objected to paying for something I use or consume.

[edenooch]

Not sure if it's tiny.



As long as I can remember I and my family have paid to visit National Parks. Everyone on this message board is aware of how recreational services in National Forests are significantly underfunded compared to National Parks. Why shouldn't National Forests charge the way National Parks do?

In general, I have never objected to paying for something I use or consume.

The angeles just doesnt compare to some thing like yosemite, grand cyn etc!!

[RichardK]

The angeles just doesnt compare to some thing like yosemite, grand cyn etc!!

Isn't this the same thing that the LA Times said and everyone objected to: dissing the San Gabriels???

[edenooch]

The angeles just doesnt compare to some thing like yosemite, grand cyn etc!!

Isn't this the same thing that the LA Times said and everyone objected to: dissing the San Gabriels???

im not dissing it. but i dont put it on a grand scale either!
not that it aint significant....but there is bigger forests out there

[Ze Hiker]

To me the government should "take care" of people by providing basic functions like police, fire, defense, justice system and infrastructure. If you don't believe that then you are probably either an anarchist or a nomad. Most of us are not nomads and I am not an anarchist, at least not today. So it's understood that these basic functions are pooled resources that will not be used equally, but they still benefit us as a whole.

Many people could easily say that some fundamental coverage of other things would be 'basic functions' that would 'benefit us as a whole'.

How does funding parks benefit this country as a whole? I know it benefits me. Tourism?

So where does it end? Should we put GPS trackers in our cars and tax people by the mileage they drive? How how about CO2 detectors to tax you on your carbon footprint. Then tax sodas because they make people fat, which puts a burden on the health care system. Should you pay $20,000 for a helo rescue because you wanted to hike a challenging off-trail route but misjudged the weather or got hit my a 20 lb rock? Should New Yorkers (or any large city) pay more taxes because they're a bigger target for terrorist attacks and therefore create more wear and tear on our defense department?

Interesting. So things that the government does provide, you want it to be totally socialized. But anything you don't want the government to get involved in, you want it to be all individualized?

Fall of Triplet Rocks, get a $20,000 dollar helo rescue, pay minimal because its subsidized. Go to the hospital for multiple surgeries, pay it all. Interesting.

I get you on corruption and inefficiency. Drives me crazy too. In fact, instead of thinking black or white about what the government should do, how about we focus on making sure whatever they do, its done right?

Defense is a basic cost in your mind, so you don't get upset at any inefficient spending in it?

Everything should be partly subsidized. The inherent need for us to pay a little more to go in the mountains is fine, since we use it more. We just want that money to be spent properly.

[Tim]

That 3.2 million figure is not unique visitors. If I visit the National Forest 20 times in a year, I am counted 20 times. Where something like 20 million people live within two hours. Tiny.

That's true, those are not unique visitors. I wonder how many people actually visit the forest on a regular basis like the hardcore hikers on this message board? It can't be very many, based on talking to people and other hikers.

It is only required if you park a car in a National Forest...It's a parking permit.

That's not entirely true. The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act states:

(d) Limitations on Recreation Fees.--

(1) PROHIBITION ON FEES FOR CERTAIN ACTIVITIES OR SERVICES.--The Secretary shall not charge any standard amenity recreation fee or expanded amenity recreation fee for Federal recreational lands and waters administered by the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, or the Bureau of Reclamation under this Act for any of the following:

(A) Solely for parking, undesignated parking, or picnicking along roads or trailsides.

The list continues with ten other prohibitions on fees. The way I understand it, they have to prove that you were "recreating" after you parked your car. Of course, if you get a ticket and you want to challenge it you'll have to go to court. Here's the law if anyone wants to read it: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/program ... ation.html

I have no patience at all for this argument. Again, anyone who thinks that land owned by the government is "public land" should prove their point by trespassing on a military base.

A military base is "owned" by the government but so is the White House and the Capitol. It's obvious you can't just walk onto those installations and why! But here we are talking about public land with a history of public access and some specifically set aside for conservation and the enjoyment of the public. I don't see how that's the same thing as a military base. Equating the two just because they are both "owned" by the government is not valid at all.

In fact, people should feel that they do OWN their public lands. When someone takes ownership of something, they will take pride in it and be more likely to take care of it. That's why the Forest Service often says this is YOUR forest.

There are no other special obligations associated with that title except what have been enacted through legislation or regulation. And I bet you will be hard-pressed to find any such legislation that says any "public lands" anywhere should be freely open and available to anyone without charge in perpetuity.

True, I have not found that exact language in any legislation but maybe I haven't looked hard enough. I did find this:

National Park Service Organic Act

The service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations...which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

Multiple Use - Sustained Yield Act of 1960

It is the policy of the Congress that the national forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes.

As long as I can remember I and my family have paid to visit National Parks. Everyone on this message board is aware of how recreational services in National Forests are significantly underfunded compared to National Parks. Why shouldn't National Forests charge the way National Parks do?

In general, I have never objected to paying for something I use or consume.

It's pretty obvious that one must pay for something they use or consume. Your last sentence seems to suggest that those of us who oppose user fees don't want to pay for something we use or consume (i.e. we are cheap). That's not true. I don't mind paying. I want to pay. The point is I already pay. I and many other people pay income taxes for the goverment to do its job. The laws above state what job the FS and NPS must do. Therefore we shouldn't have to pay them again.

[Taco]

The angeles just doesnt compare to some thing like yosemite, grand cyn etc!!

Isn't this the same thing that the LA Times said and everyone objected to: dissing the San Gabriels???

im not dissing it. but i dont put it on a grand scale either!
not that it aint significant....but there is bigger forests out there

Beauty is all in the eye of the beholder.

The San Gabriels are still my favorite place on Earth, even when you include all the unfavorable things that happen up there.

Yosemite might have big walls, but this place has my soul.

The more people DON'T like the SG's, the more us SG folks can enjoy the peace! 8)

[simonov]

A military base is "owned" by the government but so is the White House and the Capitol. It's obvious you can't just walk onto those installations and why! But here we are talking about public land with a history of public access and some specifically set aside for conservation and the enjoyment of the public. I don't see how that's the same thing as a military base. Equating the two just because they are both "owned" by the government is not valid at all.

It is valid because it cuts to the core of what we are talking about here: the notion that "public"lands are somehow open to the "public" because they are "publicly" owned. That's simply untrue in fact, however people want to dress it up (as with the Adventure Pass; it doesn't matter what the enabling legislation says, it is de facto a parking permit, a pretty cheap one, too).

There are no "public" lands anywhere that are open to the public in an unrestricted fashion. We hikers often get the illusion there are, but motorcyclists and ATVers and snowmobilers certainly understand their "public" lands aren't "public" to them (despite the fact they pay taxes too). And there are many, many people in this country - taxpayers - who are unable to venture more than a few feet from an automobile. "Public" lands without road access are no more "public" to them than the moon.

If the Federal land management agencies want to bracket access to the lands under their control with all kinds of restrictions and fees, that is their prerogative, within boundaries set by legislation and regulation. The only difference between a military base and a National Forest is the enabling legislation for the former allows all non-authorized access to be prohibited; while that of the former says some access is prohibited. Again, hikers and climbers may not be as aware of the many restrictions that already exist on "public" lands as other potential users, to whom millions of acres of "public" lands are completely closed off, fees or no fees, no matter how many taxes those potential users already pay.

It's pretty obvious that one must pay for something they use or consume. Your last sentence seems to suggest that those of us who oppose user fees don't want to pay for something we use or consume (i.e. we are cheap). That's not true. I don't mind paying. I want to pay. The point is I already pay.

You don't actually pay. That's why we have taxes, so that revenues can be raised from the collective for collective benefits.

Every American with his hand out for something (and that would be about 95% of them as far as I can tell) justifies it by insisting he "already paid," through taxes. But our tax revenues are senselessly squandered, mostly on brainless foreign wars, a bizarre quest to continue to outspend, militarily, the entire world combined, and other horseshit. That's reality. With that sort of reality, not much of your taxes are going to pay for National Forests; I calculate maybe 0.0012 of every cent of every dollar you pay in Federal taxes goes to the ANF. If 3.2 million annual visitors really means 800,000 unique visitors, and the ANF has an annual budget of $35 million (a guess based on earlier figures), you would have to be paying annual Federal taxes of $3,625,000 to be covering your fair share of the ANF's budget (which at $44 annually, isn't that much).

If you look at the National Forest budget reports, what the government is actually doing with the Adventure Pass revenues would - or should - warm the heart of a traditional small-government conservative: Adventure Pass revenues are being used to offset budget contributions from the general fund (except with regard to fire suppression activities, which the National Forests budget separately). This means that more and more the actual users of the National Forest are paying their own way, and the rank and file taxpayers, who never use the National Forest, are paying progressively less. Now who can argue with that?

Thirty dollars a year is a trifle. Last year the BLM began charging $30 per weekend to stay on El Mirage dry lake. Now I have been going to El Mirage for free for more than thirty years. I don't like suddenly having to pay for the privilege, but then nothing's free. The free lunch is over. And that's going to start happening a lot more in the months and years to come, as our nation grows less prosperous.

[Richard N.]

Bitch bitch bitch. The 4 NF's in So Cal are NOT the only ones who require fees. There are countless others that a fee is required. You should get your facts straight before you whimper and whine like an ass.

Yea, the NF's are the people forests, well so are the National Parks. When was the last time you bitched and moaned when you forked our $35.00 for the few days you went to one of those parks?? NEVER. You gladly payed the money and had a good time.
Get off your I want it all for free all the time horse.

You cry babies make me sick. Now you want to bitch about the forest being gone and what good did the $$$ help in fighting the fire.
IT'S TO DAM LATE FOR THAT CRAP.

You all love to bitch after the fact and NEVER before.
I'm not happy about my playground burning up. But you don't hear me complaining about it.
I'm going to go up there and spread seed and plant trees for a forest I will never see again in my life time.
WHY??? Because I love the forest. I want future generations to hopefully be able to see a legacy some of us are willing to help bring back.

I won't be like you ass wipes bitching and complaining. There are so many of you too. You made me want to go throw up.

[Richard N.]

One more thing.

Taxes, You fools have no idea where your taxes go. You really don't. Taxes have not one dam thing to do with anything here in the state. NOTHING!!! ALL taxes go to the federal reserve.
Boy you fools are gullible.