Another US Forest Service Rip Off ?

Items that do not fit the categories above.
Forum rules
  • This is a mountaineering forum, so please keep your posts on-topic. Posts do not all have to be related to the 14ers but should at least be mountaineering-related.
  • Personal attacks and confrontational behavior will result in removal from the forum at the discretion of the administrators.
  • Do not use this forum to advertise, sell photos or other products or promote a commercial website.
  • Posts will be removed at the discretion of the site administrator or moderator(s), including: Troll posts, posts pushing political views or religious beliefs, and posts with the purpose of instigating conflict within the forum.
For more details, please see the Terms of Use you agreed to when joining the forum.
User avatar
nyker
Posts: 3382
Joined: 12/5/2007
14ers: 58 
13ers: 25
Trip Reports (69)
 

Re: Another US Forest Service Rip Off ?

Post by nyker »

SkaredShtles wrote: Fri May 09, 2025 9:47 am
seano wrote: Fri May 09, 2025 7:04 am "leaving [the USFS] with a $380,000 negative balance on the year."

](*,)

US Navy ships should drag back loot to offset the cost of each deployment. Otherwise they're operating at a loss.
This.

Framing this issue as a "business" issue is fkng dumb. But... that seems to be where we are these days.

:evil:
Re-read the history of Privateering and how Privateers factored in the American Revolution and the War of 1812.
Absent funds which didn't exist from the still-new and underfunded Government, captains and crews in many cases were "paid" by bringing back their "prizes" keeping the ships and loot or selling it and collectively created havoc for the British fleet and materially helping the-then fledgling and very limited American Navy.
User avatar
SkaredShtles
Posts: 2526
Joined: 5/20/2013
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Another US Forest Service Rip Off ?

Post by SkaredShtles »

nyker wrote: Mon May 12, 2025 8:45 am
SkaredShtles wrote: Fri May 09, 2025 9:47 am
seano wrote: Fri May 09, 2025 7:04 am "leaving [the USFS] with a $380,000 negative balance on the year."

](*,)

US Navy ships should drag back loot to offset the cost of each deployment. Otherwise they're operating at a loss.
This.

Framing this issue as a "business" issue is fkng dumb. But... that seems to be where we are these days.

:evil:
Re-read the history of Privateering and how Privateers factored in the American Revolution and the War of 1812.
Absent funds which didn't exist from the still-new and underfunded Government, captains and crews in many cases were "paid" by bringing back their "prizes" keeping the ships and loot or selling it and collectively created havoc for the British fleet and materially helping the-then fledgling and very limited American Navy.
I mean, I appreciate any time someone brings pirates into the conversation... but I'm failing to see the relevance in this discussion. :?:
seannunn
Posts: 258
Joined: 3/6/2024
14ers: 48 
13ers: 2
Trip Reports (1)
 

Re: Another US Forest Service Rip Off ?

Post by seannunn »

Monte Meals wrote: Sun May 11, 2025 4:42 pm ^" $700K seems like a AWFUL lot of money to maintain 7 (?) miles of road. "

How about another solution to keep the cost (and visitation down):

REMOVE THE ROAD !

If someone want to dip their toes in the lake -
Let them hike, ski, or bike in.

(Plus - fire the FS Rangers who toil away their day sitting on their butts in the gate house.)
Might be hard to bike in if there was no road at all. A compromise might be to pretty much quit maintaining the road; only fixing huge issues but not repaving it. There are roads like that out here in the (kind of) country where I live; they were paved 20+ years ago but the county only repairs major potholes, etc. This actually reduces the traffic on these roads (and makes them great to hike on).

Sean Nunn
Peculiar, MO
"Thy righteousness is like the great mountains."

--Psalm 36:6
User avatar
Monte Meals
Posts: 510
Joined: 5/16/2011
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Another US Forest Service Rip Off ?

Post by Monte Meals »

^"Might be hard to bike in if there was no road at all. "

Dude - This is Colorado !

Only a vanishingly small percentage of bikers in Colorado use actual roads
(except justiner of course :)
User avatar
wanderlust073
Posts: 26
Joined: 7/11/2017
14ers: 21 
13ers: 1
Trip Reports (1)
 

Re: Another US Forest Service Rip Off ?

Post by wanderlust073 »

USA: I know we’re running a 36 trillion dollar deficit, but have you seen this road?
User avatar
SkaredShtles
Posts: 2526
Joined: 5/20/2013
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Another US Forest Service Rip Off ?

Post by SkaredShtles »

Isn't Pitkin County responsible for the maintenance of that road? I mean... it's a county road, after all. :-k
User avatar
k_fergie
Posts: 365
Joined: 8/28/2019
14ers: 58  2  1 
13ers: 234 52 7
Trip Reports (7)
 

Re: Another US Forest Service Rip Off ?

Post by k_fergie »

wanderlust073 wrote: Mon May 12, 2025 2:52 pm USA: I know we’re running a 36 trillion dollar deficit, but have you seen this road?
For the sake of accuracy, we are running a 36.8 trillion dollar DEBT, not DEFICIT. Huge difference
I thought, I taught, I wrought
User avatar
Trotter
Posts: 1444
Joined: 6/5/2013
14ers: 58  5 
13ers: 254 2 8
Trip Reports (10)
 

Re: Another US Forest Service Rip Off ?

Post by Trotter »

dwoodward13 wrote: Fri May 09, 2025 12:03 pm So reading the article again I’m pretty sure the deficit they are talking about is in regards to only road/parking management not overall usage of the wilderness area.

They quote a revenue or 222k and then later give a breakdown for parking as 143k and 79k for bus fees, totaling 222k. Obviously backpacking permits are not zero in revenue so this seems to be a narrow budget view only in regards to managing the road.

If so, a really dumb way to frame the article as that is never once clarified.
I think you are correct. And reading the article, (as I suspect most of the people here did not do, as its way more fun to just play party politics and get some snazzy zingers in), the park only gets 65 cents of the shuttle fee from the $10 per person they collect. That seems low to me. Are operating costs on the shuttle that much? Or does the shuttle agency make a ton of money they use to subsidize their other bus lines?

As for the ebikes, I know they exploded in popularity once maroon bells went to the limited car passes, as tourists still want to see the bells even when they couldn't get car parking. The article mentions wanting a $5 per ebike fee, which Im actually for, as almost all the ebikers are just using a moped to basically skirt around the anti crowding rules and not have to pay car fees either. Also, looks like the hoards of ebikers don't know how to ride on a road either. https://www.aspensojo.com/travel-and-ou ... rged-issue
After climbing a great hill, one only finds that there are many more hills to climb. -Nelson Mandela
Whenever I climb I am followed by a dog called Ego. -Nietzsche
User avatar
Monte Meals
Posts: 510
Joined: 5/16/2011
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Another US Forest Service Rip Off ?

Post by Monte Meals »

To quote myself :mrgreen:


Monte Meals wrote: ↑Sun May 11, 2025 4:42 pm
^" $700K seems like a AWFUL lot of money to maintain 7 (?) miles of road. "

How about another solution to keep the cost (and visitation down):

REMOVE THE ROAD !

If someone want to dip their toes in the lake -
Let them hike, ski, or bike in.
User avatar
Been_Jammin
Posts: 173
Joined: 2/5/2019
14ers: 58  1  1 
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Another US Forest Service Rip Off ?

Post by Been_Jammin »

tax the e-bikes with an exception for CO residents. the e-bike vendors will just pass the cost on to tourists.