Mountain Buzz banner

Should the government have more or less control?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Surprise, surprise. The government is at it again, looking for ways to take OUR hard earned money. :( This year in CO, the Habitat "Stamp" is a required permit for anyone who uses a State Wildlife Area. At first glance, this may not seem to affect boaters, but alas! Loma Boat launch is a SWA. I called the DOW to confirm the details, and I found out that EVERYONE using the boat ramp will be required to have the permit. It is $10/yr, and is automatically assessed w/the purchase of a hunting/fishing license.(only $5 if purchased w/a license.) So, if you're planning a family trip down Ruby/Horsethief, get ready to fork over $10 per person to do so. Oh yes, and these stamps are NOT available at the Launch; they must be purchased at a DOW office.
Thank your federal government, folks.
THought y'all would be interested....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
834 Posts
$10 per person sounds like a ripoff but I think use fees are a necessary evil if the gov't keeps cutting taxes and increasing deficit spending. The republicans have fooled a bunch of uneducated rednecks and jesus freaks into voting for them. This fee is an example of how tax cuts and an imbalanced budget hurt the average American.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
989 Posts
I love you, Ture.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Ture said:
$10 per person sounds like a ripoff but I think use fees are a necessary evil if the gov't keeps cutting taxes and increasing deficit spending. The republicans have fooled a bunch of uneducated rednecks and jesus freaks into voting for them. This fee is an example of how tax cuts and an imbalanced budget hurt the average American.
Ture,
Maybe you should look at the CO state representation to find answers regarding state land fees. Also, you seem like an educated and enlightened person who would with hold judgement and prejudice. Or maybe not. I mean, an educated person would know the difference between state and federal tax issues, right? Or perhaps you would like for the fed gov't to take over all state land? Would that really release gov't control of lands, or make it worse? From here you look like another basher, with nothing positive to add to the conversation--only name calling and bitching. On one hand you are whining about lowering taxes, and on the other bitching about having to pay your own way. But don't let facts get in the way of your ideology. I mean, the fact that the "average American" has voted Rep in the house, senate, and presidency should not prohibit you from complaining about a tax added to the select people who actually are getting outdoors and using public lands.

Fwiw, in MT we had the same funding problems with state land. We also had a user fee that had to be purchased ahead of time. This was finally replaced by a fee attached to the licensing of vehicles, that is voulantary but not advertised. If you don't want to pay the $3, you must ask. If you pay, you don't get a sticker any more. It is assumed that everyone pays, and I think that very few even are aware of the fee, or that it can be opted out of paying. Another caveat is that every year I pay an extra $7 state land fee with my elk tag, so they nick me twice (this fee is up front and also helps to arrainge for public access to private land). Our system stinks in my opinion, b/c it is deceitful. But it does get the necessary funding, and the amount is negligible (our licensing fees are already very low).

There is no easy option, the land takes $ to upkeep, and the more it is used, the more it costs. Makes sense to charge those who are using it. Setting up fee stations is probably cost-prohibitive. Purchase a land ownership map to see just how much state land there is, and how broken up it is, and you will see what the folks in charge are up against. I didn't vote (in this poll) b/c I don't like hidden taxes, don't like having to know to pay in advance (the $10 isn't shit, but showing up w/o knowing and w/o your license will ruin a trip), and don't like taxing people unduly.

Of course, I guess the feds could always raise taxes to pay for state land shortfalls... :roll:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
460 Posts
my dear son mike a-

actually tax cuts at the fed level do have an impact. because of fed tax cuts, many programs have now had their funding passed on to the state level. this pressures state legislatures to come up with creative funding (such as hidden fees) to supply necessary expenditures. not only that but as cuts are made (on all levels) the future expenditures are multiplied exponentially. for example, lets create a situation where education funding is cut. what are the ramifications? you guessed it, prison funding must go up, bankruptures need to be funded, health costs rise, police and insurance costs rise from crime, homeless shelters need more funding, less technology advancement, jobs head overseas, the same tax cut creates deficits which are more expensive for future generations, ect. ect. all for a few saved bucks.....yes i've heard the more money in my pocket, more money to invest, trickle down theory. it sounds good on the face until it falls flat on that same face.......

back to the topic, should children be charged the ten bucks? what about when the funding is cut to the point where it becomes a 100 dollars, maybe we should outsource the care for our parks and let some "more efficient" company profit from them? even better, only those that can afford it should be able to go to school, toll roads everywhere, assumed guilty until you can pay for a fair trail, military/fire/police protection but only if your check doesn't bounce.........



-aaron
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
335 Posts
Sick um' Double A!Of course the state has to offset the federal cuts or whatever program will be underfunded,duh. One of the few Republican ideas that I agree with is that tax revenue can be used more efficiently locally than federally,not gobbled up by bureaucracy.Don't delude yourself into thinking that the same level of service can be maintained without the state picking up the slack,a Federal cut means a local increase or a reduction in services[barring some massive improvement in efficiency}.In theory you get more for your money locally.
It sucks to have to pay but doesn't that give us more say in things if we are paying?I believe you get emergency rescue insurance if you buy a fishing liscense{sp} hell thats worth the cost .I'd rather pay than see the republicans further assault the regulatory processes of this country and fucking privatize everything!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,107 Posts
I understand the annoyance of paying for something that you didn't have to pay for in the past. I'm not going to get into the debate on taxes, state vs. federal, or donkeys vs. elephants. In the end though, I don't mind paying reasonable fee's for access, upkeep, expenses etc. Paying a few bucks on the Ark where there are bathrooms and improvements to handle the boating traffic at the put in is worth it to me. The kind of work that river rangers do on the gunny gorge, or westwater to help keep campsites clean, remove non-native species, etc is also worthy of my $ I think. There are still plenty of places to paddle that don't cost anything, but the big ticket rivers with major use end up getting regulated, and I don't think its a bad thing. Think of how much garbage, fire-scars, and human shit would be at the westwater campsites if the rangers (that get bashed here:) didn't vigrously enforce fire pans, groovers, and cleanup. Most of us would do the right thing, but not everyone would. I spoke with old grey-beard grand canyon guides who noted that there were beer cans, shit, and fire scars all over the place before they made an serious effort to clean up and minimize impacts.

Also, I think that we should consider ourselves lucky to have the kind of land and access that we do. I boated with a guy from Europe who noted that they didn't have the campgrounds, state and national parks etc that we do. He was blown away by having a nice campsite, running water, and a hot shower after boating (campground in Tennessee). The government had the foresight to set aside some of the most amazing places so that they wouldn't get overrun by development. To keep them up, it costs money. If I pay 10$ directly, or indirectly through taxes, so be it. I am very supportive of the myriad of local, state, and federal government agencies that maintain river guages and history data, snowpack data so I can drool all winter, that put in boat ramps for heavily used areas, and that keep use to reasonable levels for special places. I'm not saying its perfect, but we have it damn good when you look at the big picture.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
989 Posts
Agreed...ten bucks is a very small price to pay for what we have. But it was a good point that showing up unawares can ruin your day. What to do what to do.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,034 Posts
I don't mind some of the user fees and agree with Ian (DSP) above. What I DO oppose is the fact that we're paying $10 to the DOW, $40 to State Parks for an annual parks pass, $2 or $3 each time you go to BLM user fee locations (Pumphouse/Gore) and so on. Between all the agencies that each have jurisdiction, it becomes expensive AND a real hassle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
double-a-ron said:
my dear son mike a-

actually tax cuts at the fed level do have an impact. because of fed tax cuts, many programs have now had their funding passed on to the state level. this pressures state legislatures to come up with creative funding (such as hidden fees) to supply necessary expenditures. not only that but as cuts are made (on all levels) the future expenditures are multiplied exponentially. for example, lets create a situation where education funding is cut. what are the ramifications? you guessed it, prison funding must go up, bankruptures need to be funded, health costs rise, police and insurance costs rise from crime, homeless shelters need more funding, less technology advancement, jobs head overseas, the same tax cut creates deficits which are more expensive for future generations, ect. ect. all for a few saved bucks.....yes i've heard the more money in my pocket, more money to invest, trickle down theory. it sounds good on the face until it falls flat on that same face.......

back to the topic, should children be charged the ten bucks? what about when the funding is cut to the point where it becomes a 100 dollars, maybe we should outsource the care for our parks and let some "more efficient" company profit from them? even better, only those that can afford it should be able to go to school, toll roads everywhere, assumed guilty until you can pay for a fair trail, military/fire/police protection but only if your check doesn't bounce.........



-aaron
Are you serious? I didn't know that a tax cut had such ramifications!! My insurance went up, less police, and I might lose my job overseas! Seriously, though, come back to the real world, Aaron. The feds pay something like 8% of state school funding, and it is mostly for special projects. The local folks pay for school funding (some states are looking at turning away fed funding all together b/c it costs more money to appease the feds than they are giving). And, btw, fed school funding is at record levels, and increased this year at a record level I read somewhere (so perhaps I won't lose my job, and we should all be able to look forward to lower health care costs, right Aaron?). We also pay our way with prisons. We also pay for our own police. Fed highway dollars are real, and flexible. So of you can tell me the many progams that have been axed, I will listen. But so far it sounds like alot of bs.

As for the forcasted $100 per person fee, in your world the cost of upkeep is bottomless. In the real world, the correct fee amount will actually balance the cost. When the fee is too high, people will simply recreate elsewhere, lowering usage and thus cost of upkeep, and then finally the fee. Crazy thing these forefathers of ours worked out...

Regarding a private company efficiently running the state land, it is sort of happening in Yellowstone. Xanterra runs all the operations in the park except the policing. Not sure if they are more efficient than the feds, but I wouldn't be surprised. And yet we haven't fallen into a Mad Max scenario quite yet, but I'll be watching from up here.

Again, tough situation. I don't see an easy or fair solution. As mentioned, there are several different agencies in charge. I also pay every year to Fed campgrounds, blm fees, state fees, and buy a Yellowstone pass yearly.

Or, we could do as some here suggest and raise the Federal taxes and see if it pays for our state land. I for one wouldn't hold my breath... :roll:

signed,
Aaron's dear son

ps I can't believe I've been sucked in and responding to such drivel. It's just tax time, and I'm stuck in the office dealing with this shit. If anyone out there thinks that the feds are doing the right things with our money then they are seriously deluded. The feds ooze money waisted on bs. Buy-offs, pork, you name it. Why do you think the lobbyists are in business. They get a 10-1 return on money (that is, they get payouts to clients with OUR tax money). And this isn't partisan, it is all over the place.

And while I'm up here (on my soap box), I might as well ask why we don't have a federal sales tax in exchange for our busted-ass income tax program. Imagine the savings just for the IRS. Sorry accountants, but I for one could do without!
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top