[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[pct-l] Lawsuits, Rights, and User Fees
In a message dated 11/12/02 12:21:21 PM, email@example.com writes:
<< How is it that anyone can think that their "pet
activity" is elevated to the status of a 'right'?
I'll check my copy of the Constitution, but I don't
think I'll find it there--expressed, implied, or
Actually, it's a right to ACCESS public lands such as wilderness. Unless
studies show that too many people are using any given recreational area
and/or a wilderness resource would be harmed, ACCESS for recreation should
not be restricted and should be a right. I do believe that is the Spirit of
the Law when it comes to the 1964 Wilderness Act. It says wilderness areas
shall be administered for use and enjoyment of the American people. Not just
those who can afford high user fees. A high user fee has the effect of de
facto denial of use and enjoyment to some. We're not talking about skiing or
baseball where if you can't afford it, tough luck. We're talking about public
The whole issue could be resolved by paying for some sort of annual
wilderness and National Park pass.
I must say that I find it peculiar that some on the list want to ensure
that thru hikers pay their fair share. Why? Because there were dozens of
incidents along the trail when unsolicited discounts and freebies were thrust
upon me with fervor - such as entry to Crater Lake N.P. the free campsites at
Stehekin, campsites set aside for PCT hikers in various state parks for
ridiculously low fees ($2) free rides to traiheads and on and on. Maybe
these people should wise up, like the NFS, and recognize a monetary plus
when they see one
What you guys think about all those subsidized mass transit systems in
various and sundry cities that benefit only those that choose not to drive.
Bet I can guess!