Price Hike

[Stephen]

Yesterday (last night to me) SRN's Statememt sounded A little socialist to me.

[SRN]
I'm fine with the price hike, part of me wishes it would go up even more. I believe that we've had this discussion before, but if it were $15-$20 for a three day pass, I think that it would reduce traffic in the canyon and perhaps keep some of the more irresponsible people out.
[SRN]


I could be making more out of it than it really is though.
I really don't care what they charge. I'm going up there two or three times a year for day trips, if it's three bucks or fifty bucks.


Would anyone wish it to be $75.00 for a three day pass? SRN?
When is enough enough?
The price hike woud make me all warm and fuzzy if they could throw some sort of law enforcement in there to POLICE the riff raff.

Increasing the fee to the canyon has the potential to increase the revenue available to the canyon (which is capitalist not socialist ) and that would be good, for the reasons that have already been stated.

Would I pay $75? If I felt that the money was going towards something important like keeping the canyon running smoothly, keeping it clean and being earmarked for trail maintenance and education; you're damn right I would! Is it realistic to think that that will happen in the short term, no.

If you want to go to the Swell for free, and you would enjoy it more than AFC, then go to the Swell! The reality of the matter is that AFC is right in the middle of a major metropolitan area. To keep it running, and yes to make money (again, capitalism not socialism) the Forest Service has seen it fit to charge a fee for entry. This is not abnormal for federal lands. If it was free to enter, the canyon would be destroyed in short order. Unfortunately we are heading towards a 'Pay To Play' world when it comes to motorized recreation. Its not an ideal situation, but if it means that I can continue to recreate the way I want on the trails I enjoy, then I will happily fork over the money.

Is there a limit, sure. What is it? I don't know.

 

[Caleb]

$75.00 for three days is not keeping our public lands public.

$25.00 for one day of entertainment is a very good deal, until you add the price for everything else. I can do the Swell for free and enjoy it way more than an over used canyon on the wasatch front.
That's just me though.:-\

Add in fuel to that Swell trip adn you're going to be upwards (if not more than) $75. You're right, you could go anywhere else outside the Wasatch Front and likely do it for less. Entrance is likely free, HOWEVER, you do pay for the convenience of AFC and some of the other Canyons around the Wasatch Front. But that convenience is what's killing AFC. $75 for a pass is indeed keeping public lands public. Nothing says it has to be FREE access to remain public. The fact that I can still legally access it, makes it public. Like I said, I do think $75 is too much TODAY, but in the future, I don't think it'll be out of reach

 

[SAMI]

$75.00 for three days is not keeping our public lands public.

$25.00 for one day of entertainment is a very good deal, until you add the price for everything else. I can do the Swell for free and enjoy it way more than an over used canyon on the wasatch front.
That's just me though.:-\

Just curious... How is $25 a good deal, and $75 is taking away public land..

Either way there's a price on it. In my mind, $25 and $75 are no different at all due to the principal at work.. The money goes to maintain the area.. Why should it be any different if the price is higher?

$75 might hurt some, but I agree with Caleb here.. $25 a day is great way to spend money and time.

I wonder what's more cost effective in the long run..

A) Gas to and from the Swell + food

B) Gas to and from AFC + $25 a day + food

Pro's and Con's here too... Lot's of variables..

The Swell is more remote, with a far longer list of attractions and things to do.. Yet farther from services if there was an accident of any kind..

AFC is closer to services, higher alt. so it's cooler in the summer.. Might be better suited for a small family with young children?

 

[cruiseroutfit]

Keep in mind the AF Canyon is a fee demo area, purportedly all of the fees stay in the canyon for improvements. Judging on the improvements made in the last 10 years, I'd say its true. I'm not sure if the monies can be used for personnel ie enforcement or not. At this time the canyon doesn't even have a dedicated LEO.

 

[offroaddave]

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not opposed to paying- at all!
But 99% of public lands are free to enter (not counting the trillions of dollars we all pay in taxes) they are not all destroyed. There also not right on the wasatch front either, but some are close, and still managed very well without charging entrance fees. I enjoy AFC, but it's not any closer to me than Logan, Provedence,or Millville canyons that are equally beautiful.

Hell even the "B" in bountiful is free.

 

[Stephen]

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not opposed to paying- at all!
But 99% of public lands are free to enter (not counting the trillions of dollars we all pay in taxes) they are not all destroyed. There also not right on the wasatch front either, but some are close, and still managed very well without charging entrance fees. I enjoy AFC, but it's not any closer to me than Logan, Provedence,or Millville canyons that are equally beautiful.

Hell even the "B" in bountiful is free.

Dude, you're starting to sound like a socialist, wanting everything for free! Next thing you know, you'll be calling for universal healthcare!

 

[Caleb]

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not opposed to paying- at all!
But 99% of public lands are free to enter (not counting the trillions of dollars we all pay in taxes) they are not all destroyed. There also not right on the wasatch front either, but some are close, and still managed very well without charging entrance fees. I enjoy AFC, but it's not any closer to me than Logan, Provedence,or Millville canyons that are equally beautiful.

Hell even the "B" in bountiful is free.

Looks like your problems are solved then, you have all those other locations that are "equally beautiful" that are also free. So what's the problem?

 

[scoutabout]

I worked it out a while ago, and about 0.3% of your federal income tax goes towards public land management. There's a huge gap between the budget the FS and BLM have and the budget they need. I wish it was free, but in reality I agree with SRN that it should be even higher.