Printable View
I figure they ought to be paying us dividends, after all, don't the citizens deserve the income from the extractive industries that exploit the public lands?
But my philosophy is that the government should be making a profit and distributing it to the masses rather than the way it is now, where we have to pay taxes or go to jails we borrowed money to build.
Steve's right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Smith
I use the Nat’l Forests all the time in my region – the forests & fees are everywhere – so for many years running, I’ve happily paid $30 for the annual Northwest Forest Pass. I don’t even use NF facilities, except very rarely, and I still feel like I’m getting a great deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heroique
The more I think about this “just-hike-and-pay-no-fee” rule, the more unhappy I am with it – probably just as unhappy as the Nat’l Forests.
If I see anyone parking “just to hike” and paying no fee – certainly their right – I better not see them reading the interpretive sign, or I’ll remind them to pony up! :D
"Generally considered" only by those who lean hard right. Like, for example current Supreme Court majority. Those with a liberal outlook (who make up a large portion of our country's population) generally consider the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to be appropriately progressive. I've not reviewed the specifics of this case and am simply responding to your generalization.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Ellis
The Supreme Court majority reversing those decisions is generally considered by those with a liberal outlook (who make up a large majority of our country's population) to be the nuttiest in a long, long time. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Brian Ellis
Sal, I like your style but your politics are as nutty as the 9th Circuit's.
Which (to steal your pitch and build on it) is the circuit most reversed by the Supreme Court whose decisions in reversing the 9th Circuit are generally considered by those with a reasonable, sane and normal outlook (who make up a large majority of our country's population) to be completely correct in that they corral the vast overreaches and downright lunatic decisions of a maverick left leaning circuit.
That said, everyone should consider that we've already paid for the parks and other government owned lands at least once with our tax dollars. Charging user fees is contradictory to the standard of "public lands" which used to be for the use of everyone (the public). Since Congress can't be bothered to appropriate enough money to cover the current expenses of administrating these lands and those in charge of administrating want to gather more lands even though they don't have a budget to keep up what they've already got -- here we are being asked to pay twice or three times for the same thing.
I pay user fees willingly because I value the use I receive, which sometimes can be justified because there has been special effort made to make access better or easier. But I do always have in the back of my mind that I, or some other citizens before me, have already paid once for those public facilities.
Anyway, its not "law" yet. Its just been sent back to the district court for trial. Given the government's strong interest in maintaining the current practice I doubt that we'll see any change in the law as a result of this action.
Hey, this would mean I would owe more than $1050 since the beginning of last October. And what about today, when I parked in five different spots along the Salmon River? Peter, if you go as a cow and bring along your calf the fee is only $13.20 for the month and that includes all you can eat. The county I live in is about the size of New Hampshire and 97% federally owned! This is public land that belongs to the people in New Jersey too, which is good because they and the politicians from all the other states make the choices as what to do with it, and therefore should pay their fair share also.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter J. De Smidt
Really, this is a tough one since the government keeps cutting funding for our public lands. I'd, maybe, be for an annual fee or a tax on hiking boots.
Part of the problem with the national parks is that the facilities there require upkeep, and a lot of them in Washington state are really lagging in the available money for exactly that. The yearly pass looks good to me, and a $5 day use fee is reasonable. I have gone to areas that require a use fee in advance, and that's perfectly reasonable.
What I don't want is a photography fee. We, the people, own the land, so why should any additional fee be imposed? I could see it for movie production, which has a significant impact, but not for photography.
No fees in the NFs in my area other than for campgrounds, plowed sno-parks in the winter, and fire wood cutting.
BTW, I’m pretty sure the circuit court’s opinion is now the law of the land for the listed states, even though the decision has been sent (remanded) to the district court level. The district court(s) must follow it and now issue an order consistent with it. However, the Forest Service might ask for a rehearing, or go to the Supreme Court.
In England we don't have National Parks to the same scale as you do in the US but we do have areas controlled by The National Trust. Many of these have car parks with a voluntary payment system rather than a formal fixed price charge.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp498
Steve.