Mt Evan's fee? Interesting article

Saw this article posted on another site this morning Thought I'd put it here too since quite a few of us photograph up on Mt Evans. It will be interesting to follow this and see how if ends up!

Mt. Evans fee debate

Thanks for the link. I wonder if walking around the lake and taking photos counts as using the amenities?

Thats a good question Tony! I thought this was an interesting quote along those lines:

“If a person comes up and asks for a pass they will get one,” confirms Mickley, “but they will be monitored, They can stop anywhere except Summit Lake, Mount Goliath or the Mount Evans Summit. They can go for a hike and not get a ticket.”

Seems to me that this should also apply to Brainaird Lake and Pikes Peak, as both of these roads travel through forest land. Wanna bet they'll find a way around this and keep on charging everyone? Or making an example of someone who doesn't pay at the Mt. Evans toll booth and then, horror of horrors, stops to pee at Summit Lake?

I was thinking the same thing about Brainard Lake - am I correct in thinking they're not really supposed to be charging for that one as well?

Personally, I don't mind "paying the fee" (aka showing my Golden Eagle sticker on my National Parks Pass) at Mt. Evans. The Forest Service doesn't get a whole lot of money as it is, and fragile sites like Mt. Evans and the Maroon Bells need the dough to keep enough Rangers and staff in these areas to keep them in good shape.

Of course, since most of us buy Parks passes, it's not a big deal for us - and under the new Federal Lands Pass, everyone who buys one will have access to these places for no additional charge.

Legally, though, the Forest Service is in a bit of a pickle here. Without the the Demo Fee law, they can only charge if someone pulls into a parking lot and gets out... Time for them to improve the Alpine Garden parking lot if that's where they plan on going with this.

I'm guessing that if the State or No Fee folks want to get into an argument over who gets what revenue, the Bureau of Reclamation could step in and ask for cash for reservoir park fees... It could get ugly.

And yes, I agree it should apply to Brainard, too. I'm curious as to what the Federal Lands Pass will do to access to Brainard; I believe the concessioners were also licensed under the Demo Fee law. I think the Springs gets some portion of the Pike's Peak fees.

Now if the money was given to the poor guy that has to shovel Mt. Evans Road every year, I would totally understand...but what IS the money going to? The general fund? This will be an interesting one to watch.

An interesting article. Thanks for posting. One thing I noticed about Brainard Lake: I believe in previous years, you had to pay the fee, no matter what. But their web site now indicates that they accept the Golden Eagle pass, which is a nice change. I was frustrating that even with the Golden Eagle pass, I still couldn't get into Brainard last year.

wow...well this is interesting. My only question is why are Rangers writing tickets then to people who don't have a pass???

If you stop at a developed area and you don't have a pass, the FS can still charge a use fee. That includes parking in a developed lot - Mt. Goliath, the summit, and apparently Summit Lake, despite the fact that I wouldn't call that a "developed" lot and it's a Denver Mountain Park... I'm guessing the FS depends rather heavily on that $300,000 in fee income generated by the fee booth, and doesn't want to get stiffed by people who say they're "just using the road".

I have a question that is kind of along the same line. Am I correct in thinking that my new National Park Pass will get me into places such as these?

The problem with all this is the division of jurisdiction. You usually can't use your annual National Parks pass for entry to places like Brainaird Lake, they "reason," because the parks are part of the Dept. of Interior, whereas the USFS is part of the Dept. of Agriculture. If you buy the little holographic sticker for an extra $15, you can go to places like Mt. Evans, but NOT Brainaird Lake (unless Brent Murphy's description is correct, which I hope it is). It's utterly stupid to have to pay different fees for such similar places. I guess I'll have to check into that Federal Lands Pass that Les mentioned, but I already paid $50 for a parks pass, don't really want to redundantly spend $80 for another pass.

Your National Park Pass will not; however, you may still be able to purchase a Golden Eagle sticker to put on your Park Pass that will allow you entrance to Maroon Bells, Mt. Evans, Cataract Lake, Arapaho NRA, and several other areas in the state, including apparently Brainard Lake this year... If you're considering it, go quickly to a National Park nearest you to see if they still have them.

Otherwise, the new Federal Recreational Lands Pass will get you into those, plus any other site that charges either an access fee or a use fee (including FS picnic grounds...). The fee is now $80 (Parks pass plus Golden Eagle was $65), but it's worth it for the expanded coverage.

I wouldn't bother with the new pass until your current one expires, Todd. The new pass replaces the Parks Pass this year.

I'm wondering if the State Park system is considered a concessioner for Reclamation; if so, the pass will allow entry into some state parks as well. When I was doing my park gig last year, Lake Pueblo State Park had the Federal Lands pass photo contest brochures in their office.

Don't even get me started on the State Parks pass! (Oops! Too late.) I think it sucks that state passes are for a calendar year, and not for any 12-month period. That's kept me from buying a state parks pass for many years.

Pikes Peak Highway is operated by the City of Colorado Springs, not the forest service. These rules don't apply to it.

Les, is there a federal web site that lists all the sites/parks that this new $80 pass will allow access to? I did a quick google search and didn't find one, but you seem to be more informed about this than anyone else. I'd love to know what is and isn't included before spending my money

Craig

Here is a copy of the argument used by the Western Slope No Fee Coalition to the
Colorado Highway Department.

http://www.westernslopenofee.org/NoFee/letter.pdf

It looks to me like the Forest Service is standing firmly on swamp water to support their
position.

Art L.

Craig, here is the link to information about the pass that you requested:

http://www.store.usgs.gov/pass/

And there is more information here:

http://www.recreation.gov

The Recreation.GOV site Josh mentioned does have a site search. Click 'Search Recreation Areas' or the 'Recreation Areas' button at the top of the screen.

I looked there earlier and thought it would be the same as the front-page search, but it's not - it lets you search by state, management agency, activity, and keyword.

Lake Pueblo is indeed listed, so I'm guessing that State Parks will be covered under the new law and pass. This covers most reservoir parks and the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area at least. Not sure how the state is going to like that; maybe they'll charge an additional fee for use of state lands? That's not going to cover much of AHRA...

Art, yes, the USFS is standing in a swamp on this one. They can still charge for people using the facilities though, and my guess is that there are darned few visitors don't stop at one or more of the developed areas.

I don't have a problem with the USFS charging a fee to support the area, but refusing to post the fee rules/guidlines clearly and accurately is ridiculous. Not posting accurate information is shady; and intentionally posting inaccurate information - ala the current signage - is criminal.

This "fee" thing is affecting sites throughout the National Forests. Here is a quote from the
Arizona No Fee Coalition-a group that currently has a case on the way to the Supreme Court.

"I think most folks figure their fees at Sabino and Mount Lemmon are used for basic upkeep and to provide recreational opportunities.

They'd be surprised to learn that the Forest Service is currently using $93 million of our fee money to "decommission" - i.e. close, gate, bulldoze or sell to private interests - thousands of Forest Service recreation sites that do not meet "full cost recovery" criteria. The fee program, it turns out, is about much more than trails, tram roads and toilet seats. It is a vehicle for transforming our Forest Service from a publicly supported public service agency into a business operation with corporate partners.

Former Forest Service Chief of Staff Francis Pandolfi was very clear about his agency's new mission: " . . . use the fee pilot (program) to pull together a first-class business management plan. For the first time, we are selling a product."

The corporate group responsible for the fee program legislation - the American Recreation Coalition - would like to create a private economic enclosure of our public lands. And with a little help from key members of Congress, they've been making significant progress.

Restricted public funding has forced federal land management agencies into dependence on fees and on private-public partnerships - from which the public might eventually be eliminated.

The free-market ideology driving this change has been in political ascendancy for some time. President Bush's public lands policy mentor is Terry L. Anderson, a man who has dedicated his professional life to the privatization of our national parks and forests. So while Jim Click and Mel Zuckerman are being hailed as local heroes, I am wondering what might come next."

Art L.

According to today's Denver Post, it looks like Colorado has decided to post their own notices about free road usage. I think they should take it a step farther and tell the Feds to get their toll booths out of the middle of Colorado Highway 5!