Mountain Project Logo

paying to climb in rumney?

Original Post
MattWallace · · Center Harbor, NH · Joined Nov 2008 · Points: 8,752

I heard a rumor last night I don't know if it has any truth but I figured this would be the place to ask. A good friend of mine said that the forest service was considering making all people who want to climb at Rumney buy a sort of climbing season pass. This means that in order to climb in Rumney we would have to buy a season ticket to Rumney. There is talk that if it passes, the Forest Service would hire more employees who would monitor this.

I personally find this hard to beieve but I was wondering if anyone else had heard anything about this.

Lee Hansche · · Allenstown, NH... and a van… · Joined Jan 2007 · Points: 24,335

That is what they do at the gunks which is one of the reasons i dont go there... As far as paying for rumney, last i knew it was all just talk, and i hope it stays that way...

Tim J. · · Loudon, NH · Joined Oct 2008 · Points: 90

That would be disappointing indeed... It would be interesting to hear the rationale. I kind of wonder if it doesn't have something to do with the fact that folks rarely pay the $3 they're already asked for to park. I have to say it always pisses me off when I walk through the parking lot and see cars littered with little yellow envelopes because folks haven't paid their $3. The Gunks is ridiculous ($15/day, ~$80/year last I checked) but $3 for a car load of people? And you get a place to crap, a plowed lot in the winter, and people to haul your trash out of the compactor for you (and often pick it up off the ground)? I'm perfectly happy to pay that any day. In fact every year I pay $25 and get two stickers that allow me to park anywhere in the White Mountains. I'd say that's perfectly reasonable. In NH the system seems to be that you pay for what you use. It's a system I'm happy to support. Not sure why others don't...

Regardless, you're right, a per-person use fee would be a very sad thing to see there. Just hope we're not bringing it on ourselves.

Nathan Stokes · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2008 · Points: 440

That is the practice out in Southern California i've noticed. You have to pay to park anywhere on Forest Service or BLM land and the kicker is each area has its own annual pass, and day passes are like 10 bucks a day in the San Bernardinos. Though I have heard that Forest Service tickets have no legal implications and you can let them pile up.
The exact opposite happens in the Adirondacks, the parking areas are free and it shows.

nhclimber · · Newmarket, NH · Joined Apr 2007 · Points: 1,355

I'm amazed this surprises anyone. Rumney is already an eyesore tourist trap. It is so over used and overstressed by every gym climber in greater new England. It's needed, but I would hate to see it spread out to the rest of the state. But seeing that the majority of cliffs in NH are empty on an average weekend, I doubt that we have to worry.

Jenn J. · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2007 · Points: 15

Here's some info:
fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_…

If you feel that strongly about the fee changes, there's a place to send comments at the bottom of the webpage.

$40 for two annual passes is still a pretty good deal if you climb at Rumney a lot. The pass covers Sundown too - and everywhere else in the White Mountain National Forest! It makes me a little angry when people don't pay the fee at Rumney. I know climbers are a cheap bunch, but the money goes to support something we use. We are fortunate that Rumney is on public land, so we don't have to worry about access issues, etc.

Jay Knower · · Plymouth, NH; Lander, WY · Joined Jul 2001 · Points: 6,036
nhclimber wrote:I'm amazed this surprises anyone. Rumney is already an eyesore tourist trap. It is so over used and overstressed by every gym climber in greater new England.
Too bad we don't give points for generalizations.
E thatcher · · Plymouth/ North Conway (NH) · Joined Jul 2008 · Points: 915

Based on that link I don't see a fee specific to Rumney like a season pass at the Gunks. Are you talking about the general increase for all day use parking areas?!?

I don't like when folks relate the White Mountain fee program to the Gunks. The Gunks is a bunch of Indians who want to take your money for nothing more than maintaining a road, some parking lots, and some other minor amenities. Rumney is part of the Recreation fee program which is a vary valid way of maintaining such sites at a minimal cost.

Adam Wilcox · · Candia, NH · Joined Feb 2007 · Points: 291

I may be wrong on this, but didn't the Access Fund purchase some of the land around Rumney to keep it open, then give the land over to the Forest Service?

H BL · · Colorado · Joined Feb 2006 · Points: 95

I know years ago you had to buy a $5 pass that allowed you to park around areas on the Kangamangus and you also needed it to park around cathedra/whitehorse. Not surprised in these days of budget cuts. But hopefully the money will go to helping the place out.

KathyS · · Poughkeepsie, NY · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 125
E thatcher wrote:The Gunks is a bunch of Indians who want to take your money for nothing more than maintaining a road, some parking lots, and some other minor amenities. Rumney is part of the Recreation fee program which is a vary valid way of maintaining such sites at a minimal cost.
The Gunks is a private preserve, with nature programs, visitors' center, hikng trails, XC-ski grooming, rescue equipment (getting a workout this season), environmental research and a lot more. I have no idea where you got that it is "a bunch of Indians".

mohonkpreserve.org/

Kathy
john strand · · southern colo · Joined May 2008 · Points: 1,640
E thatcher wrote:Based on that link I don't see a fee specific to Rumney like a season pass at the Gunks. Are you talking about the general increase for all day use parking areas?!? I don't like when folks relate the White Mountain fee program to the Gunks. The Gunks is a bunch of Indians who want to take your money for nothing more than maintaining a road, some parking lots, and some other minor amenities. Rumney is part of the Recreation fee program which is a vary valid way of maintaining such sites at a minimal cost.
They need a casino !

remember E - it's "indigenous peoples " whatever the hell that means. Pay to Play seems to be the way it is
nhclimber · · Newmarket, NH · Joined Apr 2007 · Points: 1,355
Jay Knower wrote: Too bad we don't give points for generalizations.
Right. I'd love to add it to my scorecard. Oh wait it's climbing, who cares.
bognish · · Sandy, UT · Joined Oct 2008 · Points: 0

I've never climbed at Rumney, but I have a major objection to this comment from above "part of the Recreation fee program which is a vary valid way of maintaining such sites at a minimal cost".

The federal income taxes I pay are a ver valid way of paying for government services. When they stop wasting that money and make corporations, banks and other users pay their own ways through use fees, I will consider supporting rec fees. Until then plowing a parking lot and providing a pit shitter is chump change for the Fed government that I find it offensive to be taxed for twice.

Lanky · · Tired · Joined Jun 2008 · Points: 255
nhclimber wrote: Right. I'd love to add it to my scorecard. Oh wait it's climbing, who cares.
Apparently you do.
E thatcher · · Plymouth/ North Conway (NH) · Joined Jul 2008 · Points: 915
bognish wrote:I've never climbed at Rumney, but I have a major objection to this comment from above "part of the Recreation fee program which is a vary valid way of maintaining such sites at a minimal cost". The federal income taxes I pay are a ver valid way of paying for government services. When they stop wasting that money and make corporations, banks and other users pay their own ways through use fees, I will consider supporting rec fees. Until then plowing a parking lot and providing a pit shitter is chump change for the Fed government that I find it offensive to be taxed for twice.
The fee program is in its infancy, but headed towards a direction were all fee sites will be self sufficient. In other words, no tax payer dollars will be going into fee sites. Before the fee program came along any improvements had to go through government appropriations. In other words, nothing got done and the back log for needed maintenance and improvements was huge. At this point all the federal lands under the fee program are 75% proficient, only 25% comes from tax payers. And they're working on getting that up to 100%. So it sounds like with your views you should be in favor of increasing fee programs.

On another note, the reason I say it is a valid way of paying, is because then the people who use the land are paying for the playgrounds. If it was done all through taxes, then the less fortunate who don't have the means to recreate as frequently, or go on vacations to national parks would be taxed so that you can take a dump at Rumney.
Tim J. · · Loudon, NH · Joined Oct 2008 · Points: 90

Well put E, that's good information to have.

E thatcher wrote:so that you can take a dump at Rumney.
Yup, that's usually the best part of my day.
bognish · · Sandy, UT · Joined Oct 2008 · Points: 0

I think you got me 100% wrong E. I will be happy to pay a fee for what I use when none of my taxes go for things I don't use. Until then rec fees are a rip off. Imposing user fees is a regressive tax that impacts the poor more than the rich. Entrance, parking and camping fees can add up to a lot of money if you get out often. Most low income people do not pay any income taxes and infact get money back. Why do climbers and hikers have to pay buffet fees for what they use when other groups do not?

I don't think forests need to be improved, thats why I go there instead of climbing gyms or malls. I would rather pack out my poop than have an area "improved" with a toilet, visitor center, paved trails and a fee colletion booth. I'll be the guy pissing Tim off by throwing my parking tickets in the govt trash cans an packing home the rest of my trash. Well i would be, but like I said i don't climb there, so sorry to side track the Rumney discussion.

MattWallace · · Center Harbor, NH · Joined Nov 2008 · Points: 8,752
Matt Desenberg wrote:I'm with one of the above statements - I'll pay a fee when the government stops trying to bail out AIG.
well said i was just wondering what people thought and 40 bucks wouldnt be too bad, still seems a little weird to me
john strand · · southern colo · Joined May 2008 · Points: 1,640

I think that any money should go directly to Ward & Mark and the other people who established route here,. And to Ed webster and Jim dunn and george hurley and paul ross and........ who did routes at other areas.

E thatcher · · Plymouth/ North Conway (NH) · Joined Jul 2008 · Points: 915

I suppose it just really comes down to opinion....I'm of the opinion that the rec fee program will reach a point were parks can maintain themselves independent of taxes, and to reach that point we all need to support them. And from the research I've done and read, I'm also of the opinion that rec fees are more equitable to all socioeconomic classes then using taxes for my playground. That being said, I have nothing against your view, and I held it for a while until looked into it more carefully.

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Northeastern States
Post a Reply to "paying to climb in rumney?"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.