Boundary Waters Quetico Forum :: Listening Point - General Discussion :: the right price?
|
Author | Message Text | ||
tumblehome |
BWCA fees are low because the tax payers subsidize our fun. When we complain that raising fees would not be fair to us to use the BWCA, we are also agreeing that we want the government to help pay for our trip. The US government also pays substantial property taxes for the land in St. Louis within in the BWCA to the state of MN. The BWCA is a very expensive place and one probably nobody could afford to use if it were self-funded. Just like flying out of an airport. Imagine the costs of our airline/airport system and the subsidies the Gov’t pays so that we can buy a $99 flight to Florida. Tom |
||
tarnkt |
- Annual permit revenue? - Annual maintenance/staffing cost? I don’t know if the BWCA is self sufficient or if other forestry funds are diverted to manage it. If the park was self sufficient with a balanced budget (LOL) I would be 100% in favor of doubling permit fees. It probably isn’t so any added fees would probably just get lost in the universe somewhere. In that case let’s just keep on keeping on. |
||
Heyfritty |
I like the idea of putting more emphasis on the “entry lakes”. If there is a way to patrol those lakes more-and care for them more-people that stay there could pay a little more. The increased surveillance could allow for greater education of visitors, and it would incentivize people to travel further(something experienced visitors are likely to do anyway). As “entry lakes”, rangers could monitor two or more lakes per day. This would significantly increase the number of park ranger interactions and at least create a sense of greater enforcement. Perhaps-on the permit-you specify your first night destination, and therefore pay a little more. Of course, enforcement would be a major challenge. For me, gas cost is a significant factor, so I like to stay longer. So I could afford an increase in the permit fee, but a daily fee would be tough. Fritty |
||
billconner |
heyfritty - agree, tough, and I don't blame you for wanting something like BWCA for your tax dollars. Tom - I agree with you on this. Include highway, rail, be and much else along with airports. Subsidizing air travel allows many more to use it, but also adds to pollution, etc. Would it have been better planning to leave it to the wealthy? Chief - true but most here understand the difference between us deciding how to spend our after tax dollars versus govt spending our tax dollars. Bothers me that I have to think hard about buying a canoe and the government deciders could buy a fleet without blinking. We mostly want everyone to follow the rules and try hard to LNT. A lot think more enforcement would help, but how much? None of us really want to pay more and would be happy if for those its a burden could go free. And while closing a military base would pay for all we want and much more, lots of people would loose a job. If the choice is higher taxes or higher fees, I think I'd go for the fees to assure they went to what I wanted - less trash and destruction. |
||
A1t2o |
I also don't like the nightly fee because of the uncertainty of weather. Are we going to be fined if we don't feel like pushing through rough weather? Right now there is a certain degree of freedom with charting your own course. As soon as you start adding a cost per night, you are going to be affecting people's plans. The people that exit early because of unfavorable conditions are more likely to stay because they already paid for it. Loops are going to be less popular if people feel they can't be flexible about how far they travel each day. How often do people choose to stay an extra night in a nice campsite when there is good fishing? I also just don't like the idea of treating the wilderness like some sort of hotel or resort. |
||
Chieflonewatie |
|
||
tumblehome |
Chieflonewatie: "The government doesn't pay for anything. We pay for it. " I wrote that tongue in cheek. To the original post. I would gladly pay a higher fee or per night fee if it were to mean better management of humans, water quality, and campsites. I would pay a higher fee if the money was allocated strictly for the BWCA. I know some can’t afford that. I know some just don’t want to pay. I don’t have the answers but I do know that what we pay is far less than we should be paying to keep that place in order. We buy canoes, gear, and all the junk that goes into a trip. It’s not always a cheap experience. Paying an extra $$ to go is not the deal breaker. |
||
Chieflonewatie |
|
||
Pinetree |
With much of the BWCA booked solid maybe it would free up a few campsites during the week. We need the money dedicated to the BWCA area tho, otherwise it would be meaningless. |
||
Duckman |
If when you get a permit there was a button to click to give like 20 bucks and get a seasonal sticker or patch, a ton of people would do it. |
||
billconner |
|
||
thegildedgopher |
As a motor permit user: day motor permits could be increased 10x. Seriously. I would prefer to pay $60 a pop than $6. That would make permits easier to get. At $6 per, people horde them for various reasons. |
||
billconner |
|
||
MidwestFirecraft |
By the time you add canoe and gear rental, $15 a day would price out half the people I take. I would love to take a fly-in trip to Woodland Caribou, but can't swing the $. The BWCA has been an amazing place to take family and friends without breaking the bank. |
||
MidwestFirecraft |
|
||
cyclones30 |
Whether it's by nights like the Q or still just the one time entry fee and stay as long as you like...it should go up some I believe. Even if it was just to $20/person that's still stupid cheap. $25 a person. That's $75 for your 3 trips (per person) Or if you're looking per night....$4 or so? 7 day trip (6 nights) would be $28. Shorter trips would be cheaper and longer trips would be more....you're using the park less and you're using the park more. Makes sense to me. More money for the FS to take care of the park and hopefully go directly to enforcement, upkeep, less permit fiascos, etc. |
||
cyclones30 |
MidwestFirecraft: "For those of us who take groups it would be very expensive. For three 7 day trips it would be $3,780. I don't charge anyone for permits, gear, or canoes. That would be very cost prohibitive to me and prevent many young people from learning , loving, and hopefully protecting the Wilderness. I'm for leaving it the way it is." You're taking nine each time and paying for all nine? |
||
MidwestFirecraft |
cyclones30: "MidwestFirecraft: "For those of us who take groups it would be very expensive. For three 7 day trips it would be $3,780. I don't charge anyone for permits, gear, or canoes. That would be very cost prohibitive to me and prevent many young people from learning , loving, and hopefully protecting the Wilderness. I'm for leaving it the way it is." Yes. They offer to pay, but anyone's first time I try to pay for everything and make sure they enjoy it to the fullest. I would not do that if it was $20 per person per day. |
||
TrailZen |
User fees have been suggested as a way to reduce (or redistribute) visitation numbers, but those discussions always turn into arguments about how fees would turn "public lands" into a paid venue. Determining what is a "fair" price for access is quite difficult. A price that's more than fair for a retired person like myself might be too much for a young family with low-paying jobs. A sliding scale of pricing would be difficult to manage and enforce. We've been having these discussions for at least six years, and can't come up with an answer. I look forward to seeing more comments on your post. TZ |
||
gopher2307 |
|
||
airmorse |
With any increase in fees, there should be a guarantee that the money would be reinvested back into the USFS. |
||
JWilder |
A little background info: "Here is where we are at; current personnel and the work being accomplished. Proposal: If we increased fees by such and such, we could increase personnel by so many employees and this would help accomplish this and that. A set of 1, 5 and 10 year goals or milestones so you could gauge and evaluate how the plan is working and make adjustments accordingly. In my experience, it's easier to get financial support with a plan for the additional funding. |
||
mgraber |
|
||
Jackfish |
In the case of the BWCA, the cost of going there is incredibly cheap. I believe the value FAR EXCEEDS the current cost. I'd be interested to know the last time the trip fee was adjusted. The FS will never be able to sell a Quetico-like fee schedule, at least immediately, but I believe the trip fees should be increased. How many people would stay home if the trip fee was $32? I'll bet the answer is zero. |
||
HistoryDoc |
Interestingly, the fee scale was based on the Maine Minimum Wage, and has gone up gradually over the years. I think in this circumstance, paying a user fee for access to wilderness that would otherwise by locked up by the timber companies, is a worthwhile endeavor. It looks to mirror the fee scale for Quetico or Canadian Crown Land, which are public lands. The BWCAW is a bargain at the current price. |
||
billconner |
I wish the USFS budget for BWCAW could be doubled - primarily more "boots in the woods" - but don't see it happening. MidwestFirecraft -. Thank you for your generosity and support and sharing of the BWCAW experience. I'd love to hear more about it. |
||
Voyager |
|
||
Mocha |
|
||
MidwestFirecraft |
billconner: "MidwestFirecraft -. Thank you for your generosity and support and sharing of the BWCAW experience. I'd love to hear more about it." Thank you for the kind words Bill. I have paddled my whole life but only on local lakes and rivers. Wanted to go to the Boundary Waters since I was a little kid, but was never invited. I finally invited myself around 7 years ago and it changed my life. It has become a life goal to invite and teach as many people as I can about the wilderness. One of the dads of 7 kids was greatly impacted. One of the members on this forum gave them a used canoe and he took his family alone to Sawbill last year. This is important because he truly did not understand, even after watching the videos that some practices were unacceptable. When you get the chance to spend a week with parents and kids and show them the principles of wilderness management, they not only get it, but embrace it. My hope is that at least some of his 7 kids will grow to love the BWCA and be future stewards of our wild places. I have neither the desire nor the financial means to take my kids to Disney World, but I look forward all year to going to the BWCA for at least three weeks! |
||
thistlekicker |
Or, if it's not a park, but a wilderness, maybe it should be managed as a true wilderness (i.e., more like Quetico). |
||
R1verrunner |
minnmike: " If you want to pay more, I'm sure the USFS takes donations. I don't think we should be pricing people out. It is not cheap for 1st timers, young families or just those on limited income to get outfitted or purchase gear. I agree for those who want to pay more just give the government more money. They well gladly take all the money you want to give them. There is even a line on your income tax form to do so. |
||
Minnesotian |
The US Wilderness program is owned by all the citizens of the United States, or at least all the tax payers, not a private corporation, therefore all people of the United States should have the opportunity to experience and afford a canoe trip through their wilderness. There is enough money and resources in the United States government that, if they were pressured, they would allocate more money to the BWCA for increased ranger patrols and upkeep. You want to see the BWCA taken care of? Then do what MidwestFireCraft does and get people out there under your supervision to teach them the respect for the outdoors. Don't price them out. Just because people can afford to pay higher fees doesn't immediately qualify them for being better stewards for the wilderness. |
||
brp |
|
||
Blatz |
|
||
minnmike |
|
||
spud |
We all have to be honest, in that catching those that are leaving campsites a mess, or cutting down trees is very difficult, no matter how many rangers are out there, as it happens so quickly.. We'd need either almost a team of FS rangers on every lake and portage to enforce rules (think almost "Lake Hosts"), which would not please those that go the BWCA and hope to find solitude, nor would it help if pressure on finding an open site already exists. Before arbitrarily raising fees, it would really benefit all by stating what is the desired goal, and how it can be achieved with extra funding.. I personally pay a lot for fees / taxes / permits etc right now, so without knowing what paying more for a BWCA permit would actually accomplish, I don't know that I could support it. I hope this is not the case, but It sounds like a lot of the backing is specifically because people think that if it cost more, that the "rift-raft" would not go to the BWCA. We all have our part to play to keep the BWCA as clean and natural as possible, but just charging more for permits just to feel like you are doing something is just silly.. Its education and people feeling ownership of the land that will make things better, and charging them more money wont accomplish either of those.. |
||
Chieflonewatie |
|
||
TomT |
Besides local bait shops losing some revenue all I see are pluses for the lakes and fish. |
||
mschi772 |
Hopefully if we can ever finally settle the mining threat, groups like Save the Boundary Waters might pivot their lobbying power toward seeking better funding and management of the BWCA. Regarding fee raises specifically, I would happily pay 2-3x more without question. Even a $45 fee is a drop in the bucket of trip expenses of gas, food, and (often) pre-post trip overnight lodging. I'm all for not pricing people out of the BWCA, but if someone can afford the gear and the travel, I have a hard time sympathizing with their inability to afford $15-30 more for their permit, and for those people who truly cannot afford a trip, I provide support to non-profits whose mission is to help those without means on their own to access places like the BWCA, and I suggest that everyone who shares similar interests and financial ability do the same. |
||
Stumpy |
Minnesotian: "I can't believe there is an argument for raising fees on yourself. At the very least, the raising of fees is a way to price out poorer people so it becomes an economic penalty for being not as well off to afford a trip into the national wilderness. Agree Not only that....If I have to pay high fees per night, I'm skipping the permit altogether. |
||
merlyn |
|
||
RedLakePaddler |
Years ago I hitched a ride from an entry point to another to get my car. The family I rode with came from a southeastern state in a beat up van. During the ride I could hear the parents try to figure out if they had enough money to get home. If we were going the other way I would at least given them our extra food. We pay more than enough in taxes that we can keep this affordable for the families like them. Carl |
||
thegildedgopher |
Stumpy: "Not only that....If I have to pay high fees per night, I'm skipping the permit altogether. " Internet bravado and entitlement at its finest! |
||
thegildedgopher |
spud: "Im curious as to what people think that increasing the fee would provide for? Everyone of us wants a great experience in the wilderness, free from trashed sites, but assuming we paid more money, and all that money went to the BWCA specifically, what could more Forest Service employees provide in order to make that possible?" While I agree that we can't just throw money at the problems in the BWCA, money can't hurt. I'll speak on the day motor (DM) permits since I'm in favor of increasing those from $6 a day to somewhere around, say $25-30/day (I'd actually prefer more like $50). I don't want to do this as a revenue generator, I want to make it more difficult for a single person, or a group of like-minded and determined people, to buy up DM permits in mass quantities. I have read countless times that the number of DM permits that actually get picked up from cooperators is far less than the number of DM permits that are purchased. I will sound like a conspiracy theorist here, but there are organizations with deep pockets and a desire to remove all motors from the BWCA; and there are others -- both individuals and businesses -- who stand to benefit in some way (either perceived or tangible) from increased demand and/or decreased supply of DM permits. I'm not saying I have proof that this is related to the number of DM permits that go unused every year, but I have my ideas and I'm not alone. Since 2021 reservations are not yet open, I can't get a view of actual number of DM permits available each week for each lake. I know it varies from lake to lake and week to week. But let's just throw this hypothetical out there. Permit season runs May 1 to Sep 30. Let's say 22 weeks to be safe. A person could buy a DM permit for every day of the entire permit season for less than $1,000. 22 weeks is 154 days X $6 per permit = $924. That's about equal to 3 nights at a nice cabin on the Gunflint Trail. |
||
cyclones30 |
thistlekicker That's where I'd like to see the resources focused, whether increased or not. Keep the backcountry wild and wilderness-y, and make sure the frontcountry doesn't fall into the crapper (I feel like it is). " This right here..... I want to see the fees increased somewhat to put more rangers in the field in the popular areas and near entries and to help with issues in the park. Money spent on entries going directly to the park needs. Places like the numbered lakes, Horse, Fourtown, Knife, Seagull, etc. Permit checking, rule enforcing/reminding, entry parking lot maintenance? A better education system over the LNT video. Am I worried about Boulder and Adams? Not as much as I am Sawbill or Caribou for example. Busy, worn down campsites, etc. |
||
spud |
I don't want to do this as a revenue generator, I want to make it more difficult for a single person, or a group of like-minded and determined people, to buy up DM permits in mass quantities. I have read countless times that the number of DM permits that actually get picked up from cooperators is far less than the number of DM permits that are purchased. I will sound like a conspiracy theorist here, but there are organizations with deep pockets and a desire to remove all motors from the BWCA; and there are others -- both individuals and businesses -- who stand to benefit in some way (either perceived or tangible) from increased demand and/or decreased supply of DM permits. I'm not saying I have proof that this is related to the number of DM permits that go unused every year, but I have my ideas and I'm not alone. This on one hand makes sense to me from a reasoning perspective, however it is also aiming to use cost as a deterrent to the permits.. Even tho the reasoning comes from a good place to make permits more available for all, it still is aiming to use money to control who gets permits.. The part that scares me, is that like a lot of previous comments have said, this is our land, paid by us, for us to use and people are advocating using money, no matter how small anyone thinks it is, to hamper our (the collective our) ability to use the land. We all love the land and want what's best for it, but a good number of us have financial privileges that others do not have.. This is why i'm curious as to what people think more money would achieve.. In this case it isn't like a state park where it would buy new camper cabins, buildings etc. So what is the goal with having it cost more $ (assuming adding more staffing?) and how would that make the BWCA and everyones trip better? Your thought process is not one that I had considered and raises an interesting point to consider tho. |
||
thegildedgopher |
The only counterpoint I'll make is that you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Our Dept of Interior and USFS are already using fees to control access to our public lands in national parks and wilderness areas. That's not going away, and I think it's naïve to think fees won't increase over time. |
||
billconner |
|
||
thistlekicker |
I'm firmly of the belief that usage patterns have changed dramatically since the quota system was established, with visitor use focused much more on easily-accessed lakes. That's where I'd like to see the resources focused, whether increased or not. Keep the backcountry wild and wilderness-y, and make sure the frontcountry doesn't fall into the crapper (I feel like it is). |
||
JWilder |
cyclones30: "thistlekicker That's where I'd like to see the resources focused, whether increased or not. Keep the backcountry wild and wilderness-y, and make sure the frontcountry doesn't fall into the crapper (I feel like it is). " This has been a great thread. I have enjoyed reading so many different viewpoints on a issue worthy of debate. And I have watched my own thought process evolve. With that said, I really like this realistic game plan . Here is a concentrated, focused approach that has an obtainable goal. And really focuses on the problem areas of the BWCA. J |