A backpacking tax?

[dave54]

https://thetrek.co/pacific-crest-trail/ ... air-share/

This idea has been mused before.
According to USFS figures a recreation visitor day costs over $40 (several years old. Don't have current cost). No one pays that much for a backcountry permit. Does 'Pay your fair share' apply here?
Very controversial subject.

[rightstar76]

I want to make it clear that I am not commenting on overcrowding on the JMT/PCT or thru hikers who trash national forests. I am commenting on people who have forgotten that national forests are public land which we already pay taxes for. Over the last 25 years, a ton of fees have been imposed on the public to use national forests. You can't even get a wilderness permit without paying a fee. And now some very misguided people think that backpacking in national forests should be taxed.

[The Other Tom]

Does 'Pay your fair share' apply here?

Well, I pay taxes, so....

[balzaccom]

I don't mind paying for permits and reservations, but I do worry that if we were to start charging $40 a day for backpacking, the number of people who backpack would shrink massively. And as I have said many times before, we need all the voters we can get to protect our parks and wildernesses. I am NOT a fan of making them more exclusive, at least by financial means.

[Wandering Daisy]

Backpackers already pay the same taxes as the casual user. We pay to get into the national parks even though we use very few of their costly facilities, such as bathrooms, paved trails, roads, etc. Wilderness rangers probably spend just as much time managing day-hikers. Trash left on trails usually diminishes as you get farther from the trailheads. At least backpackers get some instruction on "leave no trace" whereas day hikers get none. Backpacking is the target of tax proponents because the permit system makes us an easy hit. A backpacking tax would be regressive. Our sport is already too elitist; we need to work on making it more affordable to all people.

The solution to more funding is to get the share of federal spending for national parks and forests back up to what it was in the past. Wildfire costs have sucked up so much of the NF and NPS budgets and perhaps should be funded separately, like other natural disasters. Correct me if wrong, but I believe there already is a small extra tax on some outdoor gear. Perhaps this is just a local tax.

[rightstar76]

I just read the article a second time. The only person who would benefit is the program's czar as the author jokingly refers to himself. Even if the money was efficiently and fully allocated (highly doubtful given our corrupt bureaucracy) states would fight over the money. The reality is that very little of the money we pay in taxes goes to trail maintenance anyways so having an additional tax is a really bad idea in my opinion.

[Lumbergh21]

Sounds like people sayng that taxes should pay for stuff I want, but you need to pay directly for stuff that you want. Maybe I could get a refund on all of the taxes I have paid for the children that I don't have that didn't go to school? I didn't use the schools so why should I pay for them? The idea that people should pay for the use of the forests is a backward step to a pre-NPS model where there were no national parks.

[LMBSGV]

It is a fairly recent concept that public lands should be largely self-supporting It’s also a ridiculous concept. There are numerous things that are covered by taxes that much of the public does not utilize, from schools (only people with school-age children) to fire departments to even the police. Just how often do you actually need/use your local fire department in your lifetime? If you’re lucky, never. But I definitely want it there when/if there’s a fire. The same thing with the police. I am 70 years old and I have needed the police twice in my entire life.

Unfortunately, all of us who use public lands on a regular basis (where I live it’s literally almost every day) will probably always be dealing with and having to refute this ridiculous concept of public lands being self-supporting

[dave54]

I tend to agree with the posters here. I submitted the original because the issue is frequently brought up on other outdoor web sites.
I am not a fan of paying more. I live in the middle of a National Forest. I cannot go shopping without passing through public lands.

I do put harvesting and grazing in the same category, though. Timber purchasers bid on the harvesting rights at a competitive auction. So by definition the winning bid price is fair market value. Grazing fees are set according to a formula written into law. Neither political party has shown any inclination to alter the formula, and contrary to the popular theme, independent analysis finds the formula reasonably fair when all indirect costs are factored in. Plus, timber production and harvesting are among the original reasons National Forests were created.

[Shawn]

Can you imagine owning a cabin in Mineral King and paying the fees and taxes for it, then learning that accessing a trailhead is another $35? Pfft. https://www.mineralking.net/blog/news/m ... winter-use

While it is a very long and complex story, the USFS is trying to be budget neutral by way of increasing old fees and developing new fees to literally pay the costs of their time and labor to manage their jurisdictions. Not just for recreational permits, but all other permits issued by the USFS (special use permits, etc.). This is effectively a tax on top of the taxes we already pay to recreate. Still, the USDA (overseer of the USFS) continues to fully fund their budget via the federal taxes we pay. Go Figure.

Few people realize the thousands of new laws implemented each year which mostly go unnoticed, using the the federal rule making system. The most common use of it occurs when legislators pass a bill into law, but the actual details and text are written by the implementing "agency" (e.g. USFS) by an individual, often at a manger level occupation. The significant gap between the authority and intent of the legislator and the person writing the rule is huge, allowing for many fees to be slipped in for which the lawmakers never intended and never know about.

Have a look at the website where the rules are available for viewing, maybe do some searches on issues important to you, it'll make your head spin.
https://www.regulations.gov/