Saw this interesting news today. The Forest Service is proposing a $20 per person fee to camp and a $10 fee to hike in the South Colony Basin, which is a main access point to the 14ers Crestone Needle, Crestone Peak, Humboldt Peak and Kit Carson Peak. This is also reminiscent of the controversy regarding fees on the Mt. Evans road (as has been discussed before here and on some other forums). Just thought I would bring it to everyone's attention.
The above image is of Crestone Needle from Lower South Colony Lake I took in summer 2008. It really is a nice location. I'm not fond of more fees for public lands but this area is quite heavily used. If paying $10 dissuades people from going there maybe it's not such a bad deal (if only I could get to have the place to myself. )
What about the 4x4 road that heads up into this area? Has it been closed? Before I moved, that was the talk. This area is indeed gorgeous, as is your picture. If $10 helps keep its beauty, then I guess it wouldn't be such a bad thing.
Forget the fee. Closing the last half of the road will discourage so much usage (compared to when you could drive the whole road) that the effect will be what they're after. If they propose fees, I'd argue it has little to do with discouraging use, and everything to do with paying USFS salaries. NO FEES!
Although I haven't been there since the proposed closure of the road went into effect at the end of last summer, the road was supposed to be closed 2.5 miles down from the upper trail head effectively already adding 5 more miles of hiking (round trip) to get into the basin. One of the FS reasons at the time for doing this (and for improving the road over the last couple of years before they shut it down, go figure ) was they wanted to allow better access for emergency services. Hmmm. Now add this announcement and that should make people at least a little skeptical about their justifications for any proposal there these days IMO.
...but yes to the hiking fee; my National Parks pass will pay for the use fee like at Mt. Evans.
But what about principle? The USFS should not be charging a fee to park on the Mt. Evans Highway. If you let them charge to hike up a trail to South Colony Basin, you will eventually pay to hike in many, many other places. I say, if you see the camel's nose poking under the tent wall, stomp on it so hard that you can read the Vibram sole logo on it!
Posted by Howard Cihak on May 14, 2010 at 12:20 PM
To offer a calmer and more reasonable view ...
The USFS, like every other government agency, is struggling to keep up with increasing demand for services while budgets are constricted. Does anyone think the best solution would be to reduce the number of rangers in the USFS? I'm sure there a lot of non-nature-lovers who would welcome that course of action, but we all know what the real consequence of it would be.
I agree somewhat with what Todd is saying, the precedent set here will be a unique one (Colorado-speaking) that I'm a bit wary of. There have been many organizations that have worked very hard to convince private landowners to keep access to 14ers open (and preferably free) in recent years (including trails to the summits of Mts. Lincoln, Cameron, Democrat and Bross in the Mosquito Range and the Wilsons in the San Juans). Now we have to go through this with our public lands? This is something that demands careful attention because I doubt this will be the only and last location these types of fees will be considered in the future.
That said, access to S. Colony for $30 is more affordable than the $100 it costs to climb Culebra Peak for instance. I'm not completely opposed to fees IF (and that's a big IF) they are necessary to maintain extremely sensitive areas with high visitation and how those fees are being used is very transparent. Looking at this proposal, FS is asking for ~$100,000 above and beyond what they are already allocated. At the moment how they plan to use the money (looks like a modest salary for ranger and trail-building staff, waste removal and informational costs) seems reasonable for the most part (except maybe for the 5% regional/Washington office overhead costs ). I wouldn't support this at all if they unnecessarily planned to build a tollbooth and staff it with an attendant. Although, I also wonder how much money this location gets already from the government compared to other sites. How wisely they've spent that money in the last few years (see reference to the road project above) raises some questions.
Personally, I hope this isn't a money grab to take advantage of the peak-bagging popularity of the location but I also realize that it's that same popularity which puts this location at risk for more environmental degradation. I don't want to see this place be abused like some unprotected sites in the southwest have been (some places in Utah's San Rafael Swell come to mind) but fees aren't necessarily a guarantee that a location will be protected either (Aztec Buttes in Canyonlands also comes to mind). As has been proven in the past, there are no easy answers to the question of how we balance equitable recreational access with environmental sustainability. My reason for posting this is simply because it's a story that we need to continue to watch closely (I think that was a pretty calm response don't you? )
When your broke from mismanaging your money you have to find ways of bringing in more money so you can mismanage that money. An endless cycle of our government. Eventually you go bankrupt. This is whats coming. Fees upon fees.
Even calmer and even more reasonable ... really nice photograph Joshua. Love the spotlighting and mood. One of the more original Crestone images I've seen.
Next time I go back there, my ultimate parks pass that I buy every year anyway will get me in, and I'll probably enjoy the quieter scene. This place is right up there with Ice Lake Basin for "zoo in the backcountry" destination. But I'll miss the adventurous drive.
Discussion
10 repliesThe above image is of Crestone Needle from Lower South Colony Lake I took in summer 2008. It really is a nice location. I'm not fond of more fees for public lands but this area is quite heavily used. If paying $10 dissuades people from going there maybe it's not such a bad deal (if only I could get to have the place to myself.
Colorado Springs Gazette story:
http://www.gazette.com/articles/mountain-98597-fourteener-climbers.html
Channel 7 Denver story: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/23542616/detail.html
Forest Service proposal and comment links:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/psicc/sanc/
What about the 4x4 road that heads up into this area? Has it been closed? Before I moved, that was the talk. This area is indeed gorgeous, as is your picture. If $10 helps keep its beauty, then I guess it wouldn't be such a bad thing.
But what about principle? The USFS should not be charging a fee to park on the Mt. Evans Highway. If you let them charge to hike up a trail to South Colony Basin, you will eventually pay to hike in many, many other places. I say, if you see the camel's nose poking under the tent wall, stomp on it so hard that you can read the Vibram sole logo on it!
The USFS, like every other government agency, is struggling to keep up with increasing demand for services while budgets are constricted. Does anyone think the best solution would be to reduce the number of rangers in the USFS? I'm sure there a lot of non-nature-lovers who would welcome that course of action, but we all know what the real consequence of it would be.
Nice condescending tone you got there, Howard! More reasonable than what? More reasonable according to who?
That said, access to S. Colony for $30 is more affordable than the $100 it costs to climb Culebra Peak for instance. I'm not completely opposed to fees IF (and that's a big IF) they are necessary to maintain extremely sensitive areas with high visitation and how those fees are being used is very transparent. Looking at this proposal, FS is asking for ~$100,000 above and beyond what they are already allocated. At the moment how they plan to use the money (looks like a modest salary for ranger and trail-building staff, waste removal and informational costs) seems reasonable for the most part (except maybe for the 5% regional/Washington office overhead costs
Personally, I hope this isn't a money grab to take advantage of the peak-bagging popularity of the location but I also realize that it's that same popularity which puts this location at risk for more environmental degradation. I don't want to see this place be abused like some unprotected sites in the southwest have been (some places in Utah's San Rafael Swell come to mind) but fees aren't necessarily a guarantee that a location will be protected either (Aztec Buttes in Canyonlands also comes to mind). As has been proven in the past, there are no easy answers to the question of how we balance equitable recreational access with environmental sustainability. My reason for posting this is simply because it's a story that we need to continue to watch closely (I think that was a pretty calm response don't you?
BTW Joshua, Nice picture!
Next time I go back there, my ultimate parks pass that I buy every year anyway will get me in, and I'll probably enjoy the quieter scene. This place is right up there with Ice Lake Basin for "zoo in the backcountry" destination. But I'll miss the adventurous drive.