MOUNT EVANS UPDATE
State of Colorado Takes Charge
By Bill Schneider, 4-24-07
It’s amazing what a little sunlight can do! And how fast it can change things.
Yesterday, I posted a long article about the impasse between the U.S. Forest Service (FS) and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) over signage of the controversial state highway to the top of 14,126-foot Mount Evans. Basically, the CDOT wanted a sign saying people did not have to pay a fee to drive on a state highway, but the FS refused to put it up, fearing that people would opt for a free trip.
So, back at you, FS, says CDOT. We’ll put up our own signs.
“CDOT is going to install signs instead of leaving it up to the USFS,” Jay Kramer, Region 1 right-of-way manager, notes in an email obtained by NewWest.net. “CDOT’s signs will go up as soon as possible, with our without a signed Memorandum of Understanding with the USFS.”
The specific language of the sign will be: “No charge for travel on State Highway 5. Fees collected by USFS are only for those using amenities on USFS property.”
According the FS spokesperson Donna Mickley, those “amenities” include only three sites--Summit Lake, Mount Goliath, and the Mount Evans Summit. This means visitors will be able to enjoy most of the Mount Evans road, using pull offs, parking at trailheads to go hiking without paying the fee.
It would be prudent, though, to check carefully with the FS at the toll booth and ask what is allowed and what is not because this fast-moving situation could change.
“Since your article came out, the emails have been flying,” said Robert Funkhouser of the Western Slope No Fee Coalition, an opponent to the Mount Evans fee program. “And CDOT decided to do it, but Colorado taxpayers now have to pay for the signs.”
Funkhouser also said he is suspicious on whether the FS will really comply with the wishes of CDOT or try to find a way around them. “We’ll have our people up there on the first day they open to make sure the FS is fully complying with the law.”
The Forest Service (Forest Circus) is as corrupt and self-serving as government gets. After witnessing this malfeasant agency's behavior first hand the past ten years in southern California, as it attempted to shove the hated Adventure Pass Fee Program down the throats of an enraged public, I will never look at a USFS ranger (clown) the same again.
Comment By Bozo, 4-25-07Very classy! If we disagree with someone, lets call them names!
And if you think the public in SC was enraged, step outside your little circle of complainers and think again. I spent two years working in the field on the ANF, and at least 90% of the folks thought the AP was a good idea. Was/is the program perfect? No, and there are still changes that should be made.
I'm usually no defender of the FS bureaucracy (no longer with USFS), and I would give you examples of the benefits of the AP but you'd probably just call me names anyway, so I guess I won't waste my time.
I wonder if this means you'd have to pay to park at Summit Lake. Tell the guy in the toll booth? Before they put in that damned toll gate, I parked there and climbed Mt. Evans from the lake, continuing for an Alpine Traverse of 3 more summits. There was no trail, just a route up the ridge, so I wonder if it counts as a "trailhead".
Do you tell the guy in the toll booth you're planning to use the facils? Pay then? No I'm not so don't put a greeting under my windshield wiper? I also wonder what will happen with other "fee areas" like Kenosha Pass or Brainerd Lake.
Roger--It's difficult to say what the FS will do between now and May 25 when the road opens, but I believe you may have to pay to park at the Summit Lake site. This is actually--and interestingly--a Denver City Park, and the city parks department has a policy against charging fees. In this case, however, Denver City Parks has signed an agreement with the FS to allow the FS to charge a fee for Summit Lake and consider it one of the fee-based "amenities." I would definitely ask specifically about this at the toll booth when you go there.....Bill
Comment By Jerry, 4-25-07YAHOOOOOO
Go still that pot bill...hehehe
"bout time the FS get some in it's face
As a retired Froest Service "Ranger" I can see where the USFS is coming from with regard to charging fees but I believe it has gone overboard. It really boils down to Congress appropriating less money to the FS so the FS feels a need to charge for the cleanup and maintenance expenses. I personally am willing to pay for developed campground use but feelcampgrounds will be contracted (Higher fees) and undeveloped camping will be prohibited or a fee needed for that. This "war" and smaller government is causing lots of problems.
Comment By Thomas, 4-25-07This is great news. Congrads Colorado for standing up for your state rights.
Here in Alaska the FS has contracted out all the popular campgrounds and attractions. The Russian River comes to mind. You have to make a reservation now in order to stay in the campground and if you don't make it 6 months ahead, tough luck. Although we love tourists here, sometimes it makes us feel like we are second-class citizens!