ANF officials are looking for public comments regarding the proposed restructuring of the fee system.
All the info, and the breakdown of how the fees will be changed, are in this document.
http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/angeles/h ... rdb5443015
Personally, I'm in favor of keeping them as-is. While I totally understand the "but we pay taxes" argument, the NFS budget is slashed yearly. If I felt there was revenue in place to offset the loss I'd be all for it. My worry is that the Forest Service will start selling off land for commercial use.
And when compared to the typical $12 day use fee for the CA State Parks, and $20-$40 to camp, I feel like I'm getting my money's worth for 30 bucks a year and unlimited use.
Hell, the wind show this past weekend was just about worth 30 bucks by itself.
ANF looking for comments on fee system
OK, I'll be the one to stir the pot instead of just drinking the Kool-aid. 
I think that the FS budgeting process should take into account that these NF's in SoCal are the most heavily used in the whole country. To some extent it does but not nearly enough. DC should give our NF's a lot more to begin with. The tax base proximity to our NF's more than supports the idea.
Improving management and policies would go a lot farther than adding a new tax and putting that money in the hands of those who continue to prove they aren't very good with money.
I think that the FS budgeting process should take into account that these NF's in SoCal are the most heavily used in the whole country. To some extent it does but not nearly enough. DC should give our NF's a lot more to begin with. The tax base proximity to our NF's more than supports the idea.
Improving management and policies would go a lot farther than adding a new tax and putting that money in the hands of those who continue to prove they aren't very good with money.-
cougarmagic
- Posts: 1409
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 5:21 pm
I completely agree with that.
Plus, they're 'inviting comments' about what exactly? The court case in AZ established that the fee system isn't legal, and it applies to the whole program (not just Arizona).
I really don't mind paying for the Adventure pass, in fact I already have my '14 for both cars.
but....
Has anyone read through the pdfs? I'm a little confused the Baldy area talks about establishing "Special Recreation Permit fees" for "winter recreation" on Baldy, but doesn't clearly say what that would be. Lower down it says fees would be through the Adventure Pass or Recreation lands pass though it doesn't say that would be the only applicable fee to SRP areas.
I do like how the Impacts are "unknown".
but....
Has anyone read through the pdfs? I'm a little confused the Baldy area talks about establishing "Special Recreation Permit fees" for "winter recreation" on Baldy, but doesn't clearly say what that would be. Lower down it says fees would be through the Adventure Pass or Recreation lands pass though it doesn't say that would be the only applicable fee to SRP areas.
I do like how the Impacts are "unknown".
I think the legal decision was a bit more nuanced than that. I don't think they found the program illegal per se. Rather I think they found certain aspects were illegal in certain circumstances. Am I off here?cougarmagic wrote: ↑The court case in AZ established that the fee system isn't legal, and it applies to the whole program (not just Arizona).
My understanding is that they have to adjust the program not cancel it outright, yes?
Definitely any revenue, whether from taxes or fees, should be spent wisely and efficiently.
One of my concerns with the scaling back of the Adventure Pass is that I understand that many of the volunteer activities in the forest are funded through the Pass.
HJ