Long distance hiking fees

[warren doyle]

Along with rules and regulations, I have strongly objected to long distance hikers having to pay for just walking the trail, or gaining access to it through public or corporate property (please note that I did not say individual private property).
Since the trail was purchased by our tax dollars (probably much less than the cost of one day of the 'war' in Iraq) and is maintained mostly by volunteers, why should long distance hikers pay anything?
The best things in life are free: Loving, breathing, looking, walking.....
Most long distance hikers do not need the services that other recreational users demand such as bathrooms with electric and running water; improved campsites/campgrounds; maintained roads; security; etc.
Also, some of the fees we pay to enter the National Parks don't go back into that park's upkeep. I'd rather not have half of my $10 park entry fee go into the 'war' effort or into corporate welfare programs sponsored by the government.

I'm looking forward to how this thread continues from its inadvertent start in the "AMC buys huge tract in 100 Mile Wilderness" thread in the 'Trail News and Update' Forum.

[Mouse]

I suspect any attempt to impose fees would cost more to even try to enforce it than the the income it might generate

[Jack Tarlin]

Public fees apply to everyone, and the war in Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. And deciding to evade fees or charges because a property is owned by a "corporation" or business entity instead of an individual is a cop-out. If a company, at its own expense, develops an area or constructs a privately funded road or access spot, and then makes this area/access open to the public for their use and enjoyment, then ALL people who voluntarily use these services should pay for them; the fact that the land isn't owned by a private individual is irrelevant. Theft of services is just that, regardless of who the owner is.

As for the argument that folks that don't require specific services shouldn't have to pay for them (campsites, outhouses, etc.), this is also wrong. We pay state taxes to support such things as public school....even folks without schoo lage children pay for this sort of thing. Everyone helps pay for Medicare and Social Security, irregardless of whether or not they're eligible for these benefits. People with private health care plans and personal physicians still pay government (tax) money to support such things as public hospitals and medical care for the uninsured and the indigent. And this is how it should be. We can alll find things we disagree with on how our local, state, or federal government spends money, but to say "I don't use or require this service so therefore I shouldn't have to pay for it" is wrong.

If you don't like what your elected officials are doing, then get involved and help elect better ones. If your officials are making decisions you disagree with, then let them know why you disagree, and let them know that their actions and behavior affects how you intemd to vote. But to simply say you disagree with how money is spent and therefore are entitled to decide which public obligations you're going to pay for is an untenable argument: If you go to a restaurant and decide that your meal was overpriced, or that too much money was spent on unattractive decor, or on goods you have no wish to purchase, well you're entitled to your opinion. This does NOT, however, give you the right to avoid paying for the meal you've ordered, or stealing the silverware in order to "make up" for the fact that you were forced to pay for things you didn't ask for or need. Using a public facility, like a park, a Trail business, a restaurant, or a store, is a personal individual decision, and it is NOT up the individual to decide what percenatge of their bill they plan to pay. If you voluntarily decide to use a public or private service/business, than you should pay what is expected. To make up excuses such as "I don't need all their services" or "I don't like some of the ways they use my tax dollars" is merely a cop-out in order to fulfill one's public obligations. If you use a service, then be prepared to pay for it, and to pay for it in full. If you're not willing to pay for a service, then don't use it. It's that simple.

[Frosty]

Great topic!

I find myself agreeing with both Warren and Jack, and disagreeing with both.

It seems that Warren raised the point of the legitimacy of fees, while Jack espouses the responsibility for paying what is asked (or demanded, as the case may be).

On Warrer's point, I am split. Generally, I do not like toll roads. Most roads are paid for with public funds--why pay a toll on certain roads and not on others? On the other hand, user-based fees seem to be the most fair. Let the person who is actually using the road (or service or whatever) pay for it. Why have people who do not use the road (or the trail) pay for it?

Similarly, I support the White Moutain National Forest $20 annual parking fee, and have little sympathy for the Boston types who drop $300+ on a weekend for gas, lodging, restaurants, drinks, etc without blinking an eye, yet gripe about paying $20 A YEAR for the one thing that brought them north. In this I agree with Jack: If you don't like it, stay home.

Jack's point, in fact, that one should pay the price that legitmate authority places on one without question seems to make sense. Certainly, in his example, I wouldn't order a meal without paying for it. You agreed to buy it, so pay for it. But that's a little different than not agreeing to pay for something. Is there an agreement to pay if one uses the services? "By using this software you agree to all the terms of use." What if one doesn't agree beforehand to pay, or just doesn't agree with the rules? It would be one thing if the rules were negotiable, if both parties negotiated from an equal position of power. But that's not the case. The government/corpopration holds all the power, and stacks the rules in their favor and when a rule appears to be the slightest bit not in their favor, they change the rule.

So Jack's stand of, "If you don't agree then don't use the service" doesn't quite work for me, though his stand is certain the high moral ground. But blind obedience makes me nervous. Some things need to be questioned. Henry David Thoreau, the patron saint of hikers if there ever was one, believed in civil disobience. He believed it was not just a right, but a responsibility.

And I tend to agree. I'm retired, but spent most of my life workng for the government. For a number of years I was in charge of computer security for a Naval activity. Few things in this world require more blind obedience than military security regulations. Yet I kept a QUESTION AUTHORITY sign on my desk, challenging stupid rules when I could and insisting that rules that made sense be followed. (I ought to point out that while I did a good job, I was transferred eventually for not being a "team player").

So where do I stand?

I am not opposed to fee-for-use trails and trail services, particularly as the fees involved (with the exception of the WHite Mtn huts which are full of yuppies anyway) are miniscule compared to other costs of a thruhike.

But I don't believe that all regulations should be blindly followed, either. NH State Parks will not allow backcountry camping. They do allow ATVs in many sections. I could tent every day for the rest of my life and do less damage to the forest than an ATVer could do in a weekend. This policy makes sense only when you consider that the ATV industry contributes to political campaigns and so pay politicians to skew the laws in their favor. That makes it right? Legal, yes, but right?

I don't oppose ATV use, but neither do I support (or obey) the no-camping policy.

In the WHite Mtns, I will pay if using tent platforms (as at Guyot) but not to throw up my tent in the woods. Sorry. I am using no service. I never agreed to pay anything.

I guess I am a follower of Thoreau:

"The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to—for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well—is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it."

And I guess this means I have to lighen up on those Boston yuppies who bitch about paying a few bucks to park their Lexus SUVs at the trailhead.

Tom

[Lone Wolf]

Ed Abbey is the patron saint of hikers not Thoreau. He was a spoiled rich weenie who didn't practice what he preached. :cool:

[smokymtnsteve]

all hail to eddie abbey...his estate has recently sold his cadillac you know, and his pick up... the old beat up pick up truck brought in more $$$$$$$.

sold sold sold ...DOWN THE RIVER...with henri and other friends :D

[rickb]

The Trail would be better off if those corportaions charged much more.

If I had my way, it would cost $500 to ride the Cog up to the AT, $1000 to ride the auto road up Mt Washington on the way to Lakes, and $5000 to drive to the Trail on those private roads in Maine.

There is value to remoteness.

Rick
(also a coprporation)

[Frosty]

Ed Abbey is the patron saint of hikers not Thoreau. He was a spoiled rich weenie who didn't practice what he preached.
Yes, Abbey, most definately, but I see him and Thoreau as kindred souls, both espousing the philosphy of civil disobedience and personal responsibility/empowerment.

What makes you say Thoreau didn't practice what he preached?

Tom

[smokymtnsteve]

L wolf would say that henri was a urban phag.

this I dont understand because henri "took care of" ralph waldo's wife when ralph waldo took european trips.


eddie abbey was whorish himself...

[sloetoe]

Ed Abbey is the patron saint of hikers not Thoreau. He was a spoiled rich weenie who didn't practice what he preached.
What makes you say Thoreau didn't practice what he preached?
Tom
Ignorance.

hdtoe

[Alligator]

Let's be a bit more specific about what fees we are talking about. A simple list would be helpful. Keep in mind that this thread was started in reference to fees a "long distance hiker" would pay. At the most extreme, consider a thru who never leaves the trail. How much would this thru have to pay to go the distance from GA-ME or ME-GA?

[Lone Wolf]

The only fees are shelter/lodging fees and only if you CHOOSE to pay them. You can hike the entire length of the AT and not pay a dime to sleep.

[Jack Tarlin]

Lone Wolf---

I applaud you, and your brevity. You've cut to the heart of the matter. As you said, one only has to deal with user fees if one CHOOSES to do so. My point, which I'm having trouble getting thru, is that this is entirely voluntary, but if one CHOOSES to stay at a place that charges a fee, or if one CHOOSES to use a service along the Trail for which one knows there is a fee, then the fee should be paid, plain and simple. No one is forced to use these services; as Wolf, said, it's a personal choice. What goes along with that choice is the expectation that the individual will fulfill their part of the bargain, and pay the fee that they have voluntarily acknowledged when they choose to make use of a particular service.

The problem is that there are folks who somehow feel they're entitled to the services without paying for them, and this is indefensible.

[Blue Jay]

If you don't like what your elected officials are doing, then get involved and help elect better ones. If your officials are making decisions you disagree with, then let them know why you disagree, and let them know that their actions and behavior affects how you intemd to vote.

As usual I agree with almost everything you say however you could not be more wrong about this. Our elected officials are completely bought and paid for by corporations. It is laughable that you think they give a rat's ass about you or your little vote. Corporations exist solely to take as much money and civil rights away from you as possible. Arguing for corporate gate fees, that is sooo wrong. We all have a responsibility to not only resist them but to destroy them. Good luck, when most Americans do not even know they are slaves. Our men in Iraq are finding out, just like we did in Viet Nam when corporations started their take over.

[weary]

Thoreau ...was a spoiled rich weenie who didn't practice what he preached.

L. Wolf obviously has neither read Thoreau nor anything accurate about him. If he had, he would know that Thoreau and his family lived on the edge of poverty. Thoreau made his living, such as it was, as a pencil maker, handyman and surveyor. Thoreau chose to live by reducing his need for money, rather than by earning more money than was needed for bare subsistence. I can't think of anyone whose life more accurately reflected his ideals.

He spent his last dying months readying manuscripts for publication in hopes of leaving his mother and sister a tiny legacy.

If anyone deserves to be the patron saint of walkers it is Henry Thoreau. He walked daily, rain or shine, summer and winter. His long distance walks explored the then wild places of Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine.

Weary

[Lone Wolf]

o.k. I stand corrected.

[Skeemer]

Geez Blue Jay what happened to make you feel so strong about this?...you get killed in the stock market or something? I thought corporations were owned by stock holders and the idea is for them to give the owners (stockholders) a return on their investment....It's called the free enterprise system. What system would you prefer...please reply I'd like to know what else gives people a better shot at their dreams.

Believe me, I worked for a large corporation for over 30 years and I know why people can be skeptics. There are plenty of greedy bastard management types that are in it for only themselves and it's too bad the boards of directors don't remove them. There should be some way to hold the boards responsible when this happens. But one thing for sure, you can't paint everyone with such a broad brush.

Why do candidates spend millions and campaign so vehemently for our votes if they are owned by corporations? Jack is right, we all have choices but they must be made within our system. Having everyone do what they personally believe is right, while breaking our laws, is worse than any corporate greed. At leasts the greedy corporations still provide jobs and careers...and many do cherish and take care of their good employees whether you believe it or not.

[Lone Wolf]

I love big corporations such as GE and Exxon/Mobil. I have s**tloads of stock in both. :)

[rickb]

One thing about this discussion is that it seems to be based almost exlusively on principle, and not on specifics. Thats OK, and I think peoples' points have been made very clearly.

Specifics do matter, though. Baltimore Jack's points could as well apply to Jean Valjean when he stole that loaf of bread. While I wouldn't put avoiding gate fees in that catagory, its not like stealing mail from your neighbor's box either.

I don't say this because a corporation is involved. Rather because of the specifics of the situation.

To start off with, most of us expect corportations to treat all its customer's equally. Or mostly so. The idea that a corporation would charge out-of-state customers significantly more seems suspect. Its not like charging a protected class differently, but the idea of charging people "from not around here" a big premium seems rather agregious. Somehow its different that giving a discount to kids or the elderly at the movies.

Another thing is that the fees seem designed to be for camping on the corporation's land. They have built fire rings and such, and the prices charged seem in line for that service, rather than simply for a toll. Normally that would not make much of a difference (I believe in the free market) but when coupled with the corporation's policy towards people "from not around here", I see some of Warren's frustration. Some.

After a flood or disaster, private businesses can charge what they want to. Its called gouging. Its leagal, but if I am ever on a jury and asked to convict a kid for stealing a $10 bottle of water, I can assure you everyone sitting with me will learn the noble concept of "jury nullification" real quick.

Do I think its wise to circumvent the gate? No, not really. But I also don't think that Warren will burn in hell for this one.

One thing that absolutely does not factor into my take on this is Warren's iconoclastic status, or his role as an educator. Seems like some of the reaction (even where warrented) is like a child's reaction to hearing his father (or mother) use the F word for the first time. If I judge him, it will just be as a hiker. Used to be that odd-balls and weidos and loners and missfits (not that I am putting Warren in any of those catagories) were celebrated and expected on the trail.

This is not to say that I think anyone should avoid those gate fees. This thread has exposed all sorts of practical reasons why one should not. What it is to say is that i think the practical arguments for not doing so may be better than than the moralistic ones.

Rick B

[weary]

Our elected officials are completely bought and paid for by corporations. It is laughable that you think they give a rat's ass about you or your little vote.

Politicians still need votes, which is why there are bitter primary battles currently underway. But they also need money to attract voters. I have long believed that those who pay for elections, control the processes and decisions of government.

That's why I was so enthusiastic about Howard Dean. His money came mostly from ordinary folks, not the corporations. He even enticed me to send him more money than I could afford.

For this reason I'm tempted to go the whole distance with him, win or lose. But I'm wavering. This year our nation faces an even more important challenge than just empowering ordinary citizens.

Weary

[smokymtnsteve]

...It's called the free enterprise system. What system would you prefer.

. There are plenty of greedy bastard management types that are in it for only themselves and it's too bad the boards of directors don't remove them. There should be some way to hold the boards responsible when this happens. .


It's called the free enterprise system. What system would you prefer...

[Blue Jay]

It's called the free enterprise system. What system would you prefer...please reply I'd like to know what else gives people a better shot at their dreams.

The Free Enterprise system works if individuals are on equal footing with corporations. This no longer is the case. If someone like, let's say Warren broke a law he can be imprisoned or if it is bad enough, like gate crashing, he could be executed. A corporation is completely outside of the law. Fine them, go ahead, that is part of the cost of their immoral, immortal operation. They don't even need to do that anymore. How much did they pay for you? I bet you weren't cheap, but a sell out is a sell out, even if it was your children you sold out. In the past people would not sell their freedom for any amount of money.

[Zzzzdyd]

The only fees are shelter/lodging fees and only if you CHOOSE to pay them. You can hike the entire length of the AT and not pay a dime to sleep.


This is all I really wanted to know in my original question about Trail Fees.

I like "choices" and believe we all should probably have more than in reality we do.

I don't mind paying the train fare, just let me know how much it is "before" I board the train please.


"Truth resides in every human heart, and one has to search for it there and be guided by truth as one sees it. But no one has a right to coerce others to act according to his own view of truth" Mahatma Gandhi

[Skeemer]

My apologies in advance but I feel like I should try to respond to smokymtnsteve and Blue Jay.

SMS, clever comeback, but I did try to imply our system isn't perfect...some boards do step up to bad management but too many do not, which leads me to the question I posed to Blue Jay...what's a better system for someone persuing their dreams? Shouldn't we all be able to go for $$ or whatever we want out of life? (playing by the rules of course)

BJ, I got a laugh out of your comment on how Warren could be executed for gate crashing. so I'm not sure just how serious you are...or are you just provoking discussion? I'm also not sure what exactly you meant when you said "I sold out and you bet I wasn't cheap." I was hired to do a job and in return for my wages and benefits I went to work everyday and tried my best to earn it. I wasn't a director or even a manager, just a salaried rep. Part of my job was investigating discrimination calims and salaried compensation matters. I was never directed to do anything illegal by the company.

BJ, you act like corporations are all some kind of monsters in an of themselves. They are made up of people just like you and me...human beings...and many of these corporations do care about their people. Every year there's a list published of the best corporations to work for...because of the way they treat people. What do you mean when you say it works when individuals are on equal footing with corporations? I guess I never thought we should be...unless you're talking about some kind of socialism.

Help me out here...what system would you rather go with????

BTW, I'd like to meet you some time on the Trail, at least you do sound like you have compassion for your beliefs.

[Lone Wolf]

Skeemer, they're both just dope smokin, closet commies. To hell with em. :)

[smokymtnsteve]

What am I missing here?????
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skeemer
...It's called the free enterprise system. What system would you prefer.

. There are plenty of greedy bastard management types that are in it for only themselves and it's too bad the boards of directors don't remove them. There should be some way to hold the boards responsible when this happens. .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


skeemer. greedy bastard management types that are in it for themselves are the epicenter of the FREE ENTERPRISE system...that is what you are missing.
now you are enlightened...

Lone Wolf..go read some more abbey.. ;)

"Capitalism: Nothing so mean could be right. Greed is the ugliest of the capital sins." says eddie abbey

"There is no force more potent in the modern world than stupidity fueled by greed." says edward abbey

~

[warren doyle]

Fortunately, there are no trail walking use fees yet.
The fee for walking the trail is less now than in the 70's and 80's with the elimination of the 10 cent toll to walk across the Bear Mt. Bridge.
However, user fees have been discussed by the agencies who manage the trail and some of us should be ever vigilant to make sure they don't become policy.
Happy, free trails to all!