Hiking fee?

49 messages Options
12345
billyymc billyymc
Reply |
Open this post in threaded view
 

Re: Hiking fee?

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.
Brownski Brownski
Reply |
Open this post in threaded view
 

Re: Hiking fee?

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.
"You want your skis? Go get 'em!" -W. Miller
campgottagopee campgottagopee
Reply |
Open this post in threaded view
 

Re: Hiking fee?

In reply to this post by D.B. Cooper
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.
billyymc billyymc
Reply |
Open this post in threaded view
 

Re: Hiking fee?

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

campgottagopee campgottagopee
Reply |
Open this post in threaded view
 

Re: Hiking fee?

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?
tjf1967 tjf1967
Reply |
Open this post in threaded view
 

Re: Hiking fee?

In reply to this post by D.B. Cooper
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.  
billyymc billyymc
Reply |
Open this post in threaded view
 

Re: Hiking fee?

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.
MC2 5678F589 MC2 5678F589
Reply |
Open this post in threaded view
 

Re: Hiking fee?

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.
tjf1967 tjf1967
Reply |
Open this post in threaded view
 

Re: Hiking fee?

If course you do. You want everything for free.
MC2 5678F589 MC2 5678F589
Reply |
Open this post in threaded view
 

Re: Hiking fee?

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.
Reply
12345