permit required

well does this waiver that you have to sign to get the permit make them not liable?

stpaul.gov/DocumentView.asp…

i ended up paying the $25 but everyone i ran into climbing said they did not have a permit. so next year i wont be paying for it.

Tradster wrote: You've got to be kidding if you think the Forest Service can afford to send rangers out to give nothing but littering tickets. They don't even have the resources to maintain the road system here in AZ in the NFs. Charging a fee and limiting the number of users is really the only way it is going to work. Besides, just because you are 'poor' doesn't mean you shouldn't pay. Hell, nearly 30% of the population don't pay federal income tax, but they get to use all the services others of us pay taxes to use such facilities. The solution is to charge people for access and they will appreciate it much more. If it is free, the slobs & pukes will just turn it into another shithole, like they do now. By the way, how do you figure a poor person littering is going to be able to pay a $1000 fine, if and when they might be caught? My solution is proactive, your's is reactive.

Proactive vs reactive DNE better. My solution assumes the land should be used by all and people should be punished after an offense, not before. in this instance a reactive solution appeals to me a lot more than setting a precedent to charge for access fees across the board. You don't arrest people before the commit a crime, it is a fallacy to assume that one method is always better.

Addressing your points -
The FS could pay for it through fines.

I don't care whether people that deface nature have a hard time paying a fine, if they can't then make them work it off cleaning the place up.

The who pays taxes and uses what is a whole other argument.

Poor DNE slob. When my wife and I were pulling in a poverty wage years ago we still appreciated the parks in PA and the free access to them, we still hated the trash other people left and we still picked it up. With a salary about 5 times what we made then little has changed.

Paying DNE appreciating more. I don't pay to go climb Longs Peak and I still appreciate it more than most of the Brainard Lake region which I do pay for. You are conflating appreciation with money and littering/bad behavior with free. I'd say it is a false comparison. I don't pay a cent to hike/jog in OSMP and appreciate the heck out of the 500 or so times I've been back in it. All you have to do is drive through a couple national parks to see the wealthy in their huge RVs littering and running over animals to know that paying doesn't mean appreciating or treating better.

I've got no problem paying fees as long as they set them globally for all people and places. i.e. all state parks per year = x dollars, all national parks per year = y dollars. When you start pricing individual places you discourage people from being out in nature in general, this necessarily results in people caring less about supporting it.

When you start reactively setting entrance fees you start making judgement calls about what type of people can use it and that resonates badly with me. When you target specific groups (climbers in this instance) that resonates badly with me as well.

You don't punish people before the fact and you generally don't want the precedent of determining who is and isn't allowed in a place before the fact because you might find yourself on that list one day.

If you really want to cut access then close the gate a few miles back, make people walk in, and only allow vehicles for the handicapped. There is nothing like a 5 mile approach to cut down on the litter bugs.

Targeted enforcement works if you are serious about it, take a look at DUI fatality statistics alcoholalert.com/drunk-driv…

If you make the offense prohibitively costly you will cut down on the incidences of it.

Generically I get what you are saying about access, try camping on state land in Wyoming and you'll find shit, used condoms, beer bottles, etc, it is disgusting but there are better ways to curb it than to charge people for every inch of land they walk on outside of their back yard.

Thanks for the input about the permits. Back to the original question, does anyone know of another city in the US that requires a permit and charges a fee?
So far, Little Falls NY is the only city mentioned that charges climbers to climb.
My concern is not about the $25 fee that St Paul charges, but if St Paul can charge a fee what will stop Minneapolis, or Duluth, or Sandstone MN. Will there be fees in every city, what about the counties will they start requiring a fee? how about every state park? what if I'm visiting friends in Boulder or Phoenix? If St Paul can charge a fee to climb what's going to stop your city from charging a fee?
A fee here, a fee there, and I'll be spending $500 a year on climbing permits.

Merlin, you live in a dream world. What, you can't afford $5 or $10 bucks to help support the maintenace of a place? Your approach just allows people to trash places. Also, the Forest Service hasn't the time to run around ticketing people, and most of them they won't catch anyway so the place remains a mess. You approach reacts to the mess after it is made. My approach can generally solve the problem before hand. Your approach solves nothing. It is ALL after the fact.

I've seen enough places trashed in AZ to not want to see any more. I'd rather keep the slobs out. You want to let them in, trash the place and clean up afterwards. That makes very little sense. That is reactive, and I still get to experience their filth and crap they leave behind. Also, I really don't see many RV people trashing areas. Your sound jealous of their ability to afford a big rig.

By the way, what makes you think a fee is punishment? It is just helping to pay to maintain a place you use. Also, it will keep out many of the slobs & pukes. I pay a fee to go to a museum, so it can be maintained, afford new exhibits, and improve their facility. It is also a facility run by the city here. You sound like the guy who only goes when it is free, says how much they like a place, but never pay a dime to use it. That's just being a cheapskate. There are too many people like that. By the way, an $80 federal pass gets you into all national park, monuments, and recreation areas. Is that too much to pay for such a huge abundance of outdoor opportunities?

Also, why should I have to hike in an extra five miles because of a bunch of slobs. Just keep them out.

I do understand where you are coming from,and I held that view for a very long time, but I've seen too many places go from nice to shit because of unlimited access. I guess I care more about the place than the folks who can't pay to use it. Really, a car full of people can't scrape a $10 fee together?

Tradster wrote:Merlin, you live in a dream world. What, you can't afford $5 or $10 bucks to help support the maintenace of a place? Your approach just allows people to trash places. Also, the Forest Service hasn't the time to run around ticketing people, and most of them they won't catch anyway so the place remains a mess. You approach reacts to the mess after it is made. My approach can generally solve the problem before hand. Your approach solves nothing. It is ALL after the fact. I've seen enough places trashed in AZ to not want to see any more. I'd rather keep the slobs out. You want to let them in, trash the place and clean up afterwards. That makes very little sense. That is reactive, and I still get to experience their filth and crap they leave behind. Also, I really don't see many RV people trashing areas. Your sound jealous of their ability to afford a big rig. By the way, what makes you think a fee is punishment? It is just helping to pay to maintain a place you use. Also, it will keep out many of the slobs & pukes. I pay a fee to go to a museum, so it can be maintained, afford new exhibits, and improve their facility. It is also a facility run by the city here. You sound like the guy who only goes when it is free, says how much they like a place, but never pay a dime to use it. That's just being a cheapskate. There are too many people like that. By the way, an $80 federal pass gets you into all national park, monuments, and recreation areas. Is that too much to pay for such a huge abundance of outdoor opportunities? Also, why should I have to hike in an extra five miles because of a bunch of slobs. Just keep them out. I do understand where you are coming from,and I held that view for a very long time, but I've seen too many places go from nice to shit because of unlimited access. I guess I care more about the place than the folks who can't pay to use it. Really, a car full of people can't scrape a $10 fee together?

I think we can agree that we entirely disagree.

Merlin wrote: I think we can agree that we entirely disagree.

Fair enough on that. I've enjoyed the sparring. Cheers!

The Garden of the God's requires a permit (which is free) mainly for an assumption risk and to make sure your held accountable to the rules and regulations. I imagine mainly because of the several morons that have been injured or killed soloing in their tennis shoes. Your city charges $25 probably just because they can get away with it.

Foolish people here. So many of you willing to pay your employees (gov't) that you are already paying through your taxes to get permission (permit) to recreate on your (public) property. Remember, once fees are instituted, they are rarely removed. Once fees are increased, they are almost never reduced.

Andrew C wrote:The Garden of the God's requires a permit (which is free) mainly for an assumption risk and to make sure your held accountable to the rules and regulations.

True

Andrew C wrote:I imagine mainly because of the several morons that have been injured or killed soloing in their tennis shoes.

I wouldn't call tourist/non climbers scrambling around the garden in tennis shoes soloist. The regulation is intended to prevent just that.

Greg D wrote:Foolish people here. So many of you willing to pay your employees (gov't) that you are already paying through your taxes to get permission (permit) to recreate on your (public) property. Remember, once fees are instituted, they are rarely removed. Once fees are increased, they are almost never reduced.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Your take on fees itself, standing alone, is correct. So, what's your solution?

Greg D wrote:Foolish people here. So many of you willing to pay your employees (gov't) that you are already paying through your taxes to get permission (permit) to recreate on your (public) property. Remember, once fees are instituted, they are rarely removed. Once fees are increased, they are almost never reduced.

Greg, Sometimes those fees go towards rescue and other operations (rather than using full tax payer money) for high risk activities. For example in Washington a climber needs to buy a $30 permit from the National Park service each year in order to climb past elevations of 10,000 ft. onto any glacier. The rescue operations in the Cascades or anywhere for that matter are extremely costly making the fees justifiable.

Living near big midwest non-adventure loving city full of lawyers ready to pounce, I'd gladly pay for the permit to get the opportunity to climb ice. All of you 'westerners' living in the land of BLM and open mountains and range have no idea how good you have life compared to eastern city folk who are suspect every time they try something fun outdoors.

Woodchuck ATC wrote:Living near big midwest non-adventure loving city full of lawyers ready to pounce, I'd gladly pay for the permit to get the opportunity to climb ice. All of you 'westerners' living in the land of BLM and open mountains and range have no idea how good you have life compared to eastern city folk who are suspect every time they try something fun outdoors.

Coming from Philadelphia I'd give this a +1, parks closed at sunset and patrolled by police.

Thanks to everyone who added to this thread. To be honest, I was hoping for more solidarity within the climbing community. Unless climbers and climber groups stand together and become united, more cities will be adding a "Climbers Tax".

I'll make a few generalizations from the "Permit Poll" comments.
-Generally, climbers east of the Mississippi do not oppose the idea of climbers being charged for access to public land. The climbers west of the big Miss think the idea of "paying to climb" is generally a bad idea.

The East versus West land usage issue could solve the matter, any park east of the Mississippi River is allowed to charge climbers, any land west of the river will have its access protected and will be free of a climber tax. Problem solved, I live in St Paul and most of St Paul is on the East side of the Mississippi. I should just pay the fee and be done with it.

But....

Almost all of St Paul is on the East side of the river, the majority of the St Paul ice is on the West side of the river.
See the dilemma.

http://www.mountainproject.com/v/colorado__rocky_mountain_region/fishing_license/106650862

Who really cares about 25 bucks to climb a few routes in town. Just pay it, climb it and move on. I already pay a park sticker to use "my" land, a fishing license (see thread above, that no one cares about paying every year) and sales tax on the Screws I just bought at a store. it is just how it is, and how it is going to be. I would rather pay a user fee for each activity I choose to participate in than a blanket fee that cover all, most of which I would not do.

Here is the information about the Saint Paul permit directly from the city.

stpaul.gov/index.aspx?NID=1402

They are not taking on liability because they are not directly charging for climbing. They require that you sign a waiver and pay a waiver processing fee.

They do also require a permit with a fee of the same amount for fossil hunting.

There are well maintained trails in this park, maps online, and it is kept clean by the city and an annual clean-up (in which climbers participate). This is a well used park by walkers and runner.

Tradster wrote:Phoenix does not require any permits to climb in the city park system. Phoenix is quite progressive about use of its parks: equestrians, mountain bikers, hikers, climbers are all welcome to use the city parks with no permit involved. The same goes for Scottsdale, too.

but fyi folks will soon be required to purchase a permit to drink a beer after climbing in the McDowells