Hiking fee?

What do you guys/gals think. Should there be hiking fees? Biking fees? Fees, licensing, registrations?? I know as an avid hunter and snowmobiler I have no problem paying all the necessary registration fees, and licensing necessary for me to enjoy what I do. With the number of hunters on the decline should other outdoor enthusiasts/sports join in on raising money to maintain trails, camps, etc etc?

https://www.backpacker.com/stories/hunters-pay-for-conservation-hikers-should-too?fbclid=IwAR0jsg9BtNA0r2yWjQiEodq_vOi0sLBcp1UuvnKqubk32oKfVtfysEoIolw

The best idea I saw was putting voluntary parking meters at trailheads where people toss loose change in to help pay for trail construction & maintenance.

I'd safely guess that all of us give donations to support the activities we enjoy. I'm not speaking of donations but rather mandatory licensing/registration to be able to participate in the sports we enjoy.

I don't don't like hiking fees. You should encourage people to walk away from their computers and get outside.  Being near a large undeveloped wild area contributes to a happier healthy population generally. The more people that get out into the woods the more they will support maintaining it. Fees just discourage participation and change the focus from recreation to maximizing revenue. That's exactly why the subject of selling off Gore and Whiteface comes up so often.

mm

Let me guess; you are a hiker?  You are ok with Hunter/fishing licensing fees;  Let me guess you don't hunt of fish.  

I am for the fee.  

Pay to walk.  That's how it can be summarized.....and the idea is ridiculous.  Sure, trails need maintaining but whatever that cost is (cost/person visit) that value isn't apparent enough.  That's why it needs to come from general revenue.

If you look around at the size of most people today, we should be paying them to walk.  Just kidding, but financial barriers shouldn't be put in their way.  Think of the cost for visitors to get here - food, lodging, gas - do you want to charge $5 for people to walk?  That will leave a bad taste in anyone's mouth.

Now, where it's alright to pay is if there's value added, e.g. shuttles from parking when roadside lots are full.  Cost recovery, road safety, etc.

Side note - the parking fine of $250 is egregious, especially since there's no indication on signs as to what the fine is.

Nobody likes fees but I think we're certainly heading in that direction. Not only this article got me to thinking about this but also the horse trails around where I live. A lot of the snowmobile trails we ride in the winter double as horse trails in the summer. We snowmobilers pay to ride these trails through DMV registrations as well as insurance. Horse riders do not have to pay anything for these trails.

Our monies go into maintaining the trails as well as a blanket insurance policy for the land owners. One could argue that horses due incredibly more damage to the trails than sleds do.

Maybe it's time we all need to pony up

D.B. Cooper wrote

Pay to walk.  That's how it can be summarized.....and the idea is ridiculous.  

Pay to walk on land that isn't yours......

campgottagopee wrote

D.B. Cooper wrote

Pay to walk.  That's how it can be summarized.....and the idea is ridiculous.  

Pay to walk on land that isn't yours......

It is mine.  And everyone else's.

campgottagopee wrote

D.B. Cooper wrote

Pay to walk.  That's how it can be summarized.....and the idea is ridiculous.  

Pay to walk on land that isn't yours......

Somebody has to pay right? But not me! Let’s find trail maintenance by raising taxes on tobacco. Also, let’s double the tolls and parking fees for vehicles with out of state plates and triple for Canadian plates. I don’t have to pay for that either so let’s do it.

I think you'd have unintended consequences of driving people away.

How about this: charge people a tax based on their BMI or some similar metric. The higher the BMI the more tax they pay. There are a lot of people who would rather pay the tax than take a walk or eat a vegetable.

We're a lazy nation. We'd raise billions.

Hiking fees would simply reduce the people who actually get off their ass and take a walk. We could alternately have government mandated exercise. You can opt out by paying to opt out. If you do the exercise you get reduced cost health insurance.

I have one good idea after another.

billyymc wrote

I have one good idea after another.

Ha! At least you’re trying. Maybe we go back to the soda tax idea. Any beverage with added sugar gets an extra couple of percent sales tax. I’m almost 100% coffee, water & beer at this point so I’ll go for it. That BMI shit is off the table though.

D.B. Cooper wrote

campgottagopee wrote

D.B. Cooper wrote

Pay to walk.  That's how it can be summarized.....and the idea is ridiculous.  

Pay to walk on land that isn't yours......

It is mine.  And everyone else's.

Then why would yo have an issue paying a registration fee, you know, for conservation.

It's just another tax Camp. We already pay taxes. Why add another way to tax that has to have separate administration?

billyymc wrote

It's just another tax Camp. We already pay taxes. Why add another way to tax that has to have separate administration?

Hey bro, I get it. I can't stand taxes as much as the next guy. My point to this question is that the fact that hunting/fishing licensing is declining and most likely will continue. Part of the monies we sportsman pay goes to conservation, something any good outdoorsman would want to support.

So why not everyone?

DEC is already in place so there wouldn't be a need for another administration. Possibly could create some more jobs within the DEC.

Everyone wants good trails for whatever their passion is. Maybe it's time everyone gets on board?

Anyone hiking the high peaks is doing it because it is a draw.  The views are great and so is the sense of accomplishment. To get there you hike miles on trails that very few(relative) people will ever use.  They need to be maintained. If they ask you to kick in 25 bucks for a season pass people would do it in droves.  Its all in how you ask them for it.  
Those fat people you refer to have no interest in hiking those.  Heck you could probably get 25 bucks from them not to hike it.
I paid 7 bucks in N.H. once to hike.  

tjf1967 wrote

Anyone hiking the high peaks is doing it because it is a draw.  The views are great and so is the sense of accomplishment. To get there you hike miles on trails that very few(relative) people will ever use.  They need to be maintained. If they ask you to kick in 25 bucks for a season pass people would do it in droves.  Its all in how you ask them for it.  
Those fat people you refer to have no interest in hiking those.  Heck you could probably get 25 bucks from them not to hike it.
I paid 7 bucks in N.H. once to hike.

I think you guys are overestimating the number of people who would pay for this. Are you talking about all DEC owned land, or just the Adirondacks and/or Cats?

The cost (in both having to administer it, and in really shitty PR and tourism fallout) would far outweigh the small benefit from the fees. People avoid going to State Parks because of the $8 parking fee.

We shouldn't tax desirable behaviors, we should tax undesirable behaviors if we're going to tax anything at all.

billyymc wrote

The cost (in both having to administer it, and in really shitty PR and tourism fallout) would far outweigh the small benefit from the fees. People avoid going to State Parks because of the $8 parking fee.

As someone who (mostly) avoids State Parks because of the $8 fee, I agree.

If course you do. You want everything for free.

The onus should be on you to explain why you think public lands should only be available to those that can afford it (and no, "it gets crowded sometimes" and "traffic is ruining a couple of popular trails" aren't very compelling reasons), discriminating against people who struggle to pay bills.

If you want parking areas, better maintained trails, or rescue money, there is plenty of taxpayer dollars available. Pushing for a hiking fee seems a lot like you're trying to limit access by creating hurdles for the "undesirables" that you want to keep out of your playground.