View Full Version : WMNF Access fees may increase
rlharris
02-27-2009, 19:17
In a news release dates 2/27, the USFS is requesting comments on a proposed increase in the access fees for the WMNF. One can read the release at http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain/news/2009/1235714400-1235745635-27-Feb-2009.php
Fortunately, I have a Golden Age Passport and will not be affected. :sun
why can't the White Mountain National Forest just get their fees from our Taxes like they are supposed to instead of raising user fees??
This sucks!
David
take-a-knee
02-27-2009, 20:10
why can't the White Mountain National Forest just get their fees from our Taxes like they are supposed to instead of raising user fees??
This sucks!
David
Because fewer people pay taxes every year, not enough "rich" people to go around, I guess.
Old Hillwalker
02-27-2009, 22:42
In a news release dates 2/27, the USFS is requesting comments on a proposed increase in the access fees for the WMNF. One can read the release at http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain/news/2009/1235714400-1235745635-27-Feb-2009.php
Fortunately, I have a Golden Age Passport and will not be affected. :sun
I'm not sure that I would call this an "Access Fee", rather a parking fee since the Whites can be accessed from lots of places that have no fee requirements. Crawford Notch, Franconia Notch, Pinkham Notch.
freefall
02-27-2009, 22:55
The fees are still well under typical National Park fees. Examples:
SNP $10-15 (7 days)(depending on season)
RMNP $20 (7 days)
Yellowstone $25 (7 days)
Joshua tree $15 (7 days)
WMNP $10 (7 days)
Under the fee demonstration act of 1995, 80% stays within the park it is collected. Pretty good deal I'd say.
Rockhound
02-27-2009, 22:55
Womens Monday Night Football fees increased? What does that mean? Do they have to buy the guys all their booze?
People spend $30 in gas to get to the White Mtns, buy breakfast and coffee along the way, have dinner afterwards and drinks, then complain because they have to spend a couple bucks to maintain the woods they supposedly love and enjoy.
It's a strange, strange world we live, Master Jack. No hard feelings if you never come back.
Rockhound
02-28-2009, 19:24
Just over a buck a day is not so bad. I would gladly fork it over knowing it's going toward protecting the land and maintaining the trails. When you pay taxes who knows what that money goes towards.
Just over a buck a day is not so bad.
What's next? Charging people to visit the Lincoln Memorial?
What would Warren do?
Ironic that loggers and mining companies don't get charged anywhere near the value of what they extract, and yet the Forest Service is eager to charge hikers to walk on their own land.
4eyedbuzzard
02-28-2009, 22:06
...When you pay taxes who knows what that money goes towards.
AIG, Citicorp, BoA, GM ... :rolleyes: :(
john gault
02-28-2009, 22:16
why can't the White Mountain National Forest just get their fees from our Taxes like they are supposed to instead of raising user fees??
This sucks!
David
Congress is the most fiscally unfit group (both parties). They don't have to worry about a bottom line like a business that works for their money. Congress just gets it (taxes), it's cheap to them, they don't have to be fiscally smart because taxes is always coming in.
That is why government should be small.
Slo-go'en
02-28-2009, 22:40
When they started this program, they said much of the fees collected would go back to various programs in the forest to mantain trails, offer education programs and what not. Of course, none of this ever happened. The fees got diverted into the general fund and disappeared. If they charged loggers to make the roads into the forest and charged fair market value for the trees, they would make plenty of money.
This is our land and in my case, its my back yard. Having to pay for parking is a very sore point for the locals around here. I only go to state owned parking lots which aren't subject to the parking fees (though the feds aren't happy about that) and so haven't been to a lot of places I used to go to. It's not so much the money, its the princable of the thing.
cowboy nichols
02-28-2009, 23:54
AIG, Citicorp, BoA, GM ... :rolleyes: :(
You forgot tatoo removeable:eek::eek:
Pokey2006
02-28-2009, 23:56
Yes, many people who visit the Whites are Massholes with Money. But some (like me not too long ago) had to scrap together change for gas money to get up there, just for love of the mountains. There was no spare money for admission to The Flume, dinner or parking (thank goodness for the free, state-owned parking lots!).
If they charged at typical tourist traps, or the parking lots primarily serving the huts, that would be one thing. But they charge for all of their little, out-of-the-way, dirt road trailhead parking lots. Small charges, I don't mind, but they need to keep it reasonable so EVERYONE can continue to have access to these beautiful wilderness areas.
I just have issues with paying at all to access natural areas. One of my pet peeves.
modiyooch
03-01-2009, 00:01
People spend $30 in gas to get to the White Mtns, buy breakfast and coffee along the way, have dinner afterwards and drinks, then complain because they have to spend a couple bucks to maintain the woods they supposedly love and enjoy.
It's a strange, strange world we live, Master Jack. No hard feelings if you never come back. They also pay the gas tax, the toll booth tax, the sales tax the property tax on the car, not to mention that they already paid state & federal taxes on the cash that they are spending. That's only the tax involved for the hike. sure why not , just raise the tax .
Yes, many people who visit the Whites are Massholes with Money. But some (like me not too long ago) had to scrap together change for gas money to get up there, just for love of the mountains. There was no spare money for admission to The Flume, dinner or parking (thank goodness for the free, state-owned parking lots!).
If they charged at typical tourist traps, or the parking lots primarily serving the huts, that would be one thing. But they charge for all of their little, out-of-the-way, dirt road trailhead parking lots. Small charges, I don't mind, but they need to keep it reasonable so EVERYONE can continue to have access to these beautiful wilderness areas.
I just have issues with paying at all to access natural areas. One of my pet peeves.
VERY good point you have there. Instead of charging to SEE the flume, they should charge them to PARK there (maybe put a fake "Man of the Mountains" back where he used to be, too). ;)
Hiking is a low budget sport that doesn't do much for the economy.
Unfortunately for us, mainly middle class or below, the government has found a way to make us pay for our enjoyment of nature. :rolleyes:
rlharris
03-02-2009, 18:40
They also pay the gas tax, the toll booth tax, the sales tax the property tax on the car, not to mention that they already paid state & federal taxes on the cash that they are spending. That's only the tax involved for the hike. sure why not , just raise the tax .
Since the OP was referring to non-residents:
Gas tax: yes -- but still pay less per gallon than south of the border
Toll booth tax: maybe -- if they use I-93 between Manchester and Concord or a couple of highways in the southeast part of the state.
Sales tax: no (general sales tax; there is a meals and room tax). Massachusetts is trying to figure out a way to make NH merchants collect sales taxes on sales to Taxachusetts residents.
Property tax: only if they register their vehicle in the state. Illegal if they are not residents. Some try it anyway to get lower insurance rates.