Pay to Play on the Rubicon?

[Jeepndel]

NOT that's it's going to happen, and please don't start any rumors, but I'm just curious as to whether you would pay to play on the Rubicon. In other words, would you favor a pay/permit system that limited the number of vehicles and provided a few more bucks to keep the trail open, maintained and enforced?

I know there are tons of questions as to how this would ever work. And quite frankly, I'm not sure it would. But as your rep on many committees and such, I sometimes get asked this question.

So I want your opinion, informally, so I can speak from some sort of poll.

thanks, Del

[SlackerX]

Here on the East Coast, most of the places to off-road are pay-to-play unless you have friends with a lot of land. We don't have the BLM and wide open spaces like out West.... Unfortunately.

For most folks around here to drive out to the Rubicon and pay $10-$20 for a 2-day pass would not be an issue.

The national parks here (some anyway) use two different methods of collecting for trail use. Some have the honor system where you pay at the trailhead and place the receipt stub on your dash (or keep it with you). Others have park ranger stations that you need to check in at where you are issued a sticker for your windshield after you pay. Some have day, weekend and annual fee schedules.

I've paid as little as $45 for an annual pass to one particular spot which I felt was more than reasonable since the daily fee is $15.

Just my $.02.....


Cheers,
JD

[nasvik]

I would support a yearly permit if I felt the money was going to the right place(s). This style of permitting is used for all sorts of other activites on public lands and in most cases works well.

Can't vote - don't like the options.

Paul

[Dirty Harry]

Originally posted by Jeepndel
In other words, would you favor a pay/permit system that limited the number of vehicles and provided a few more bucks to keep the trail open, maintained and enforced?

Yes, but ONLY if the money was used for the above. Isn't that what green sticker fees are supposed to be for? I haven't seen that many improvements come from the green sticker funds and I would hate to be funding the BLM's "studies" that result in the closing of more public land.

This would have to be watched closely by someone with out best interests in mind, or at least someone who is impartial.

[Jeepndel]

Actually, the Green Sticker money (better called OHV trust fund), hs been GREAT to the Rubicon. This year alone we got $120,000 (actually El Dorado County got it to put to work on the rubicon), but we're in there helping them spend it. And we've put in for another big grant for next year. It will help do the following:
survey the trail
put up some signs
relocate some sections of the trail (away from meadows)
put in bathrooms
buy and give out portable toilets
bring in rock to put in a few big mud holes
buy a new river crossing for ellis creek
etc.

Del

[larryboy]

Originally posted by Jeepndel
In other words, would you favor a pay/permit system that limited the number of vehicles

this part worries me,i lived near a river that had a permit only section limited to a certain # of people per day for the peak season. they ended up going to a lottery system for the permits,which basically put people the world over on even ground with the locals. if you limit people/vehicles it needs to be a first come first serve type of deal IMHO. would i be willing to pay? sure,no prob.

[Dirty Harry]

Originally posted by Jeepndel
Actually, the Green Sticker money (better called OHV trust fund), hs been GREAT to the Rubicon. This year alone we got $120,000 (actually El Dorado County got it to put to work on the rubicon), but we're in there helping them spend it. And we've put in for another big grant for next year.

I did not realize that Del, that is good to know. Do you have an idea of the funds that were generated via the OHV Trust Fund versus the $120k for El Dorado county and where the other money was allotted? Just curious.

[Ghetto Fab.]

I don't think its a bad idea, but its not great either. I definately wouldn't mind paying as long as it was reasonable. Just to get to the 'con I spend at least $100 in gas, not to mention everything else. I think the key issues are where would the money go, and how would this even be enforced? Toll booths on the con? Would there be a ticket enforcement patrol group?

The honorary system would be the best, but those too stupid to take care of the trail would also be too inept to pay the toll. Then you would have non-paying idiots damaging the trail that us paying users are trying to save.

Also what kind of organization would wind up with control over the trail in the long run?

Kevo

[tunaman]

i don't think that paying $10 per trip would make much difference to me. i mean, i pay way more in gas and food than that, but the thing i don't like about that idea is that when you start placing that kind of control on something, our freedoms will diminish. but i suppose it may have to happen considering the amount of people going in there. a lot of idiots would turn away. another point is that a lot of times, it's passengers causing trouble, not the drivers. if they had to pay, those cheap derelicts would most definitely not go if they had to fork over the green. but then all the cool passengers would have to pay. the cool thing about the rubicon is it being so open. no kiosk, no visitor center with a million signs. it's like the road just gets really hard after the damn . in my opion, i think we should make all entrances to the con including the gatekeeper, down to the left at the foot of the bowl, and wentworth springs very difficult to where you would need a capable rig with big tires, good flex and lift, and a locker just to get through. or very good driving ability. either factor would keep the people out of there that are going to help it get shut down.

[Jeepndel]

Tunaman,
I hear on too many signs or making the Rubicon too much like Main St. We're going to avoid that as best we can.
We need a few signs to keep folks on the right trail and avoiding making bypasses.
We need a kiosk or two, just to post the key stuff about the trail, throw up a decent map, maybe have a few GPS coordinates on there; and provide safety info (fires, etc.)

But I'm working with the ROC to get our thoughts built into the planning process so we don't end up with a mess out there. That's where this forum and the other threads here on PBB really help me.
del

[Dirty Harry]

Originally posted by tunaman
in my opion, i think we should make all entrances to the con including the gatekeeper, down to the left at the foot of the bowl, and wentworth springs very difficult to where you would need a capable rig with big tires, good flex and lift, and a locker just to get through. or very good driving ability. either factor would keep the people out of there that are going to help it get shut down.

Are you saying it is the guys with less setup rigs that do most the damage? From what I have seen it is not the ability of the vehicle that is directly related to the damage done by the driver. I
I am for not modifying the trail in any way. I know that we always talk about the Jeep Jamboree guys and how they fill holes, but I have seen just as many "extreme" rigs turn off their ARBs to challenge themselves on a difficult line and dig a huge hole. They neve seem to stop and fill them in... Luckily mother nature takes care of that ever winter.

It is a sad reality that not everyone respects the trail as much as you and I, if a permit helps make the trail cleaner/safer/better than I am all for it.

[Rubicrawler]

I don't like the idea of having to pay to use OUR LAND! But, I'm also a realist and know that money is needed to help maintain the trail.

I agree with Paul, I would support a yearly permit as long as the money went DIRECTLY to the Rubicon trail fund! I don't like the idea of a "day use fee".

Just my .02

[cbassett]

You may want to put a billboard at the trailhead and solicite feedback on this idea, PBB is only a cross-section of those that use the Rubicon.

No, I would not [willingly] pay.

[Alabamatoy]

Lessee, I got probably 6000 or more tied up in the rig, 1000 in the trailer, 15K in the tow rig (course I drive it to work) and its probably going to cost me $400 in gas to get there and back, and you are wondering whether I would pay $10 or so to run the Rubicon? Get real.

Nearly every where else we can ride in the east costs $$, so why not the Rubicon?

Realistically, its the only way to assure that it stays open.

[rotozuk]

I pay to wheel at other places. Such as the OHV parks here in California. Not to mention some of the private parks that are starting to pop up.

It is not something I really like the idea of, but I think it is about time to do this up there. It may help to rain in some of the idiots, and sure will help bring in money to help cover some of the damages.

I know my club discussed this a while back, and the overall statement was yes, they were more then willing to pay a fair price to help keep the trail alive and well.

I do not like the ideaof limiting the number of people on the trail, but fear it is also time to this.

I wish any commerical company that uses the rubicon in any form of advertising could be billed, and that money would go to FOTR and similar groups. Heck 2% of gross would be nice.

-Wayne

[Rock Tractor]

I don't like the idea of restricting how many rigs can be on the trail at any given time. I usually go all the way threw and I pay at the springs. Most folks don't. I pay because it's required, not because I want to.
No vote because I don't like the options.

[cruzila]

I voted yes but doubtful. However, I am completely, totally 100 percent against any play to play idea. If, if it was in place there is no doubt I would pay. Did I mention I was against the idea?

[DEnd]

I have a few questions about this.

#1 is there currently or will there be $$ that the rubicon will be garunteed? (aside from a future pay to play program)

#2 would the money collected from the pay to play affect the amount you get from green sticker funds

[Jeepndel]

DEnd,
to ansnwer your questions;
1. No money is guarenteed for the RUbicon at this point. FOTR gets a few bucks now and then; and the OHV Trust fund (some green sticker money) thru El Dorado County got us money last year and this for the trail work.

2. IF, big IF, we ever did pay to play, there's no telling how it would affec the OHV Trust Fund monies. I honestly don't know.

Del

[ontherox]

In reguards to the "Pay to Play" idea. I believe that any serious crawler would be more than willing to pay a FAIR amount of $$ to use the most known and talked about trail in the world. If anyone isn't willing to pay for it, then they don't deserve to be there.

How much is a fair amount of money to use the trail? A day use fee, as well as an annual fee would be necesarry. For some folks only make it to the con once or twice a year and would not be willing to pay an annual fee and not get their money out of it.

As far as how to enforce the trail fees... I'm concerned that if there was any people necesarry, on a payroll, to enforce the fees, too much of the fees would go to the payroll of the employees. An honor system seems like a fair idea, but can we really honor everyone that wants to use the trail.

Limiting the number of rigs on the trail? A lottery system? NO! First come first serve? Maybe... The concern here is some people drive from extreme distances just to get to the trail. If they traveled, say, 500 miles to use the trail just to find out there were already too many rigs, that would cause a lot more controversy than necesarry. Plus, how would you keep track of how many rigs were actually on the trail at one time? That makes for more money going towards peoples salaries instead of upkeep and improvement of the con.

In short, I'm all for paying a fair price to use it. No exorbanant fees though. I would also like to know how my money will affect the trail and what improvements will be made. Though, I am definitely not for limiting the number of vehicles at one time.

K.P. Hunter

[Ed A. Stevens]

Originally posted by Jeepndel
DEnd,
to ansnwer your questions;
1. No money is guarenteed for the RUbicon at this point. FOTR gets a few bucks now and then; and the OHV Trust fund (some green sticker money) thru El Dorado County got us money last year and this for the trail work.

2. IF, big IF, we ever did pay to play, there's no telling how it would affec the OHV Trust Fund monies. I honestly don't know.

Del

Del,

I'll keep watching these fee discussions, as the same comments (and line of reasoning) followed the Adventure Pass (AP) Fee-Demo project when it was implemented in the four SoCal Forests (Cleveland, San Bernadino, Angeles, & Los Padres). When the AP was introduced very few of the wheelers I questioned in person thought it was a bad idea, if the funding improved the trails. Within a year the rumor mill (initiated by Wilderness & free Hiking advocates in the Los Padres NF) swayed many to oppose any fee. Wheelers were/are willing to pay (for improvements and preservation of recreation), Wilderness folks are not (for any reason, and they have deep pocket funding to get their message out).

One major point of AP information to consider if you do get forced a fee (one point the rumor mill will not allow to be recognized) is the AP fee does not apply to four wheelers if they do not stop and get out of the vehicles for any lengthly period of time (if they stay within line of sight, and say hello to the Officier if encountered).

If you pay a developed campsite fee you are AP exempt for the days you are paying for camping. If you have a valid Golden Eagle passport you are exempt from the AP fee. Picnic in the vehicle, take a nature break, stop to fix a vehicle, or take in a trailside photo opportunity, and the AP pass/fee is not a requirement. Legal permitted woodcutters and miners are exempt from the AP fee as well (they already pay for legal forest access in their permits).

The AP fee is a requirement if you stop and abandon the vehicle for hours to hike a trail (why the Wilderness folks are so unhappy) and it is required for trailers and tow rigs (why the Equestrian community is unhappy).

If you consider a similar fee (similar to the AP) consider who will be targeted for the permit? The long distance travelers with trailers and the overnighters will need to pay for a pass. Trail volunteers who may find themselves away from the vehicle will need the pass (set a good example). Day travelers (in/out and through in one day) will not need a pass. Think about who causes the most management cost, and think about how the fees apply to them.

If you have not yet been contacted by the anti-Fee groups, expect them to advertise all Fee-Demo projects to be the same nationwide (and like the SoCal AP fee program). This is gross twisting of the truth. I found many radically vocal Fee-Demo opponents in Idaho and Washington, and the Fee program they dispised was developed campsite fees (something most Urban Forest visitors accept as a normal). Fee-Demo is administered differently across the country (although CA and CO programs are close).

On spending of the funding: in the SBNF (SBNFA OHV Volunteer and USFS Adopt -A-Trail programs) the AP fees currently fill in the hole left when the State OHV Trust fund grants were rejected. I do not believe they were a consideration when the OHV grant funding committee reviewed and rejected the grant requests (although they may feel otherwise next year). The SBNF felt these programs are valuable enough to deserve local AP funds and filled the gap (the DC lobbiest advocacy has no power to influence the AP local allocation process). Without the AP Fee funds many of the SBNF OHV/4x4 trails would suffer abandonment (and probably be closed due to difficult to monitor fire and public safety dangers). With the bark beetle tree kill and general draught fire danger it will not take much to impose another forest wide closure like last year.

In prior years (before state grant funds were rejected) the AP funds provided as much as $30K a year to the OHV programs. It does not sound like much money, but with volunteers $30K gets considerable trail work accomplished (lots of chainsaw fuel and tool maintenance, and help for volunteers to patrol and educate visitors). The pro-OHV and 4X4 work these SP funds support seem to hold little sway in convincing many wheelers (even active pro-access wheelers) that a fee system is beneficial to motorized recreation.

One ongoing fund raising program in the SBNF has been trail Sponsors (with discrete advertising signage at trailheads, same size as the trail's Adopting Club logo), but it has never produced even this level of funding (and solicited more complaints than the AP due to "commercialization" of the Forest fears). I note you already have posts regarding a fear of too many signs (some fears are universal).

I mentioned porta-potties for careful consideration in one of my posts. The AP funds purchased many Potties in the first two years of existence. Some were placed in remote dirt road access areas. The complaints about potties not meshing with the landscape were many (and not from just the radical Wilderness types who complain about everything, wheelers complained). The feedback made me wonder if these people believe the TP gardens were more or less objectional than a potty? The result of these complaints is almost all the pottys are now located within fifty yards of pavement (and none are found near popular wheeling trail intersections where they are needed to prevent the anti-motorized folks from complaining about 4X4 trail user impacts). The education regarding the long term value of clean landscapes, a clean view assisted by positioning pottys within the picture to keep the trails open, is lost on many wheelers.

The lasting fear is OHV supportive AP funds can be removed with a simple District Ranger change, much like the state Grant OHV funds have been suspended. If the person in power dislikes OHV's and 4X4s the funding is in peril. One goal is to move away from this dependency (with programs like the trail sponsors), and if your program can begin without any dependency (if you can gain the funds from NGO sources) then you will be better positioned to survive the type of treatment the OHV grant program committee has applied (massive rewriting of grant requests & priorities). Finding the needs, and applying the solutions by soliciting non-public fees to cover the costs (while applying for grant funds at the same time) may be better in the long run (it will leave you more dollars for legal solutions, something we cannot do with state grant funds or AP dollars).

I personally think it is great to have backpacker and day hiker AP funds helping OHV and 4X4 trails (they use the road system as much as anyone else, TTM&R). This is however where most of the fee opposition is generated (and many of the anti-Fee-Demo leadership will tell you on the telephone how OHV friendly they are, and then backpedal if you quote what a web search reveals regarding past anti-access activity).

Happy Trails!

[Jeepndel]

Ed,
I have saved your note in my mail email folder on fee demo. I'll take your message to heart and read it again as we continue with this discussion. I may need to call on you again down the road.

Your points are well taken.

thanks, Del

[Danger Ranger]

I wouldn't go for it untill it was the last of the last resorts to keep things going.

Meaning: if the choice were between it will be closed forever or you can pay to play and the trail remains open. Then I would accept it

[BEAR]

Well, it sure is sad that this is even a discussion
California is going to hell in a handbasket, it seems that EVERYWHERE I used to enjoy is now closed, restricted, being watched, a fee area, or supervised by law enforcment.
What happend to the good old days when you could go to the Con and relax have a good time and meet some great people?

I strongly feel that comp rockcrawling is ruining the 4x4 community, mostly because of the popularity of the sport, it brings people into the sport that have never wheeled in thier life and because they cant afford a comp rig or to compete they go out and buy a cheap wheeler, lift it, put some bigger tires on it and hit the Con (only speakin of Nor Cal).
It wouldnt be such a big deal but the Con is not a very big trail and with all the popularity it is definatley taking its toll.

Ask yourself this, if the little sluce was off limits, closed, how many people would really go to the Con?
Many of the rigs that go up thier are way overbuilt for 90% of the trail and they only go thier for the "BOX"

Me myself, I used to like to hang out at spider but nowadays its a zoo and Buck Island is alot more peacefull (witch is why I go camping/wheeling, to get away)

If Prarie City had a sluce box like area and was alot more challenging more people would go thier instead of the Con and it would help the trail somewhat.

Sorry for the rambling but I am very frustrated about the recent topics concerning the Rubicon Trail.
And as for the poll I did not vote, I think thier are better options.

Ryan

[Jeepndel]

Ryan and all,
I can understand the frustration about the good old days vs. what we have now on the Rubicon. I've been wheeling for 40 years, so I know what the good old days are also.

But I'm here to tell ya (and I am not chicken little), that the sky could fall. There are enough folks mis-using the Rubicon (and other trials) that every day is a bigger fight to keep the open the way we want them open. There are too many folks still not listening and abiding by the rules.

Like my Army drill sergeant said, if one guy screws up, the whole platoon does push ups. It's not right; but it's the way of today.
Well, if one drunked up bung hole drives his rig off the trail, over the bushes, thru the lake, up the creek and over the hill, then that's how we're all perceived - irresponsible.

I have 30 years of government bureaucracy behind my belt (thank goodness I'm retired now). And I can attest to the fact that if *they* want our trail, *they* will use everything in their power to get it. And we, the users will be standing outside the gates wondering how it ever happened.

We have good partners in local, state and federal government on the Rubicon , RIGHT NOW. But it takes work every day to keep them on our side because of some of the things they see out there. It is up to us to turn this around so we don't have to face pay to play or gates or anything else.

Del