BLM Seeks public comment on proposed fee increase @ Shelf Rd

Howdy all-
I was at Shelf this past wkend and got to talking w/ one of the rangers about a proposed increase in CG fees. I simply wanted to pass on some information for those that would be interested in being heard w/ respect to this new developement at Shelf Rd.
I hope that everyone had a great wkend and was able to find some dry rock to climb,
BA

Here's the Link

This camp site is really nice and I enjoy the area a lot. I do not object to a reasonable increase in the camping fee say to $6 (50% increase), honestly 4 bucks is a sweet deal.

However,

A 25% increase in cost(as stated) does not constitute a $4->$10 (150%)increase for camping. If the maintenance cost has only increased by 25% and the fee is raised by 150% where is all that extra money going? This does not seem to be a logical and justifiable increase.

Lets be reasonable folks, for ten bucks a night I don't think I will camp there anymore, especially when I have friends in Colorado Springs and Pueblo.

If this topic intrests you please see the link above and send your comments to those stated. Please remember to be respectful when doing so.

Jon

Bump.

Keep this in mind as you visit Shelf Road this summer.

Camping at 'The Well' is always an option too...the fee includes soaking in the hot springs!

Half the fun of shelf is the cheap, fun camping. Granted, 20 bucks a night for the group site, if you have 10 or 15 people really isn't a bit deal.

However if just two people head up and want to camp I think 10 bucks (increased from 4) is a bit steep.

I wouldn't object a moderate increase in price... times change, and so do prices. However that drastic of an increase may be bad for business.
I could foresee people who would normally pony up 4 bucks a night normally now try to skip out on the fee altogether... Certainly happens out east with 20 bucks/night camping.

cheifitj wrote: However, A 25% increase in cost(as stated) does not constitute a $4->$10 (150%)increase for camping. If the maintenance cost has only increased by 25% and the fee is raised by 150% where is all that extra money going? Jon

I agree a jump from $4 to $10 seems a bit much, especially since the blurb says the money will go for improved roads, restrooms, and signage. As far as I can tell, the restrooms and signs are just fine. I suppose the road could use some improvement though.

Anyway, that 25% increase was from 2006 to present; that does not account for any cost increase from 1995 (last camping fee increase) to 2006. Why the blurb only mentioned the increase from 2006 to now is anyone's guess.

TS

cheifitj wrote:This camp site is really nice and I enjoy the area a lot. I do not object to a reasonable increase in the camping fee say to $6 (50% increase), honestly 4 bucks is a sweet deal. However, A 25% increase in cost(as stated) does not constitute a $4->$10 (150%)increase for camping. If the maintenance cost has only increased by 25% and the fee is raised by 150% where is all that extra money going? This does not seem to be a logical and justifiable increase. Lets be reasonable folks, for ten bucks a night I don't think I will camp there anymore, especially when I have friends in Colorado Springs and Pueblo. If this topic intrests you please see the link above and send your comments to those stated. Please remember to be respectful when doing so. Jon

I agree the math doesn't make sense but, assuming everyone is camping w/at least one other person (which is a pretty good assumption considering it's a climbing destination), we're talking a $5/day. I'd like to see where the rest of the increased revenue is going to know that it will be allocated to management of that area but I don't think $5/day is that big a deal.

I'm not sure if this is completely correct, but I think the Access Fund may have paid for some of the campground facilities and I know the Access Fund did pay for Cactus Cliff's differential in cost above what BLM appraisers said they could pay. Since climbers have brought a lot of $$ to the table for this area, we shouln't be gouged by a government agency looking to fill holes in their budgets. So, it's not how much we could pay, but how much we have already paid.

Wonderful, charge the public more for what is already your land....Shelf is a pretty place to camp, but the toilets are very basic, as well as the camping....$10 bucks......too high, but it sounds like the BLM has already set this in motion already...

$10. Seriously- uproar over $10? The roads all need work- new/better signs would be great and the restrooms always need cleaning and tp. Always.

Shelf is a great place to climb and camp. Since it is so close to the burbs, it gets alot of traffic and thus- much impact. Been around Menses Prow parking lately?

Everyone is worried the extra $$ is being pocketed/wasted. I seriously doubt that. They do a great job on this area w/ the funds they have now. More $ will make it that much better. We all use and love it and it is one of the best and cheapest CG's around. Go anywhwere in the NF and camp- $15-20 on average.

It's $10. Since 99% of the time there is two of you, thats just $5ea a night. $5. Pretty reasonable and fair. If you cant afford that peeps, work more and climb less.

Recall from the short note given, the BLM folks are accepting public response until August 25, 2009. Things may be in motion, but the change hasn't occurred yet. Send your comments to them. I am waiting to hear back on some questions I asked via email this week. I will update if I hear anything.

I agree in that I would doubt that any extra money would not be used for improvements.

Personally I don't find the signs or roads to be that bad. I drive a Jeep, so maybe that helps but I never have an issue getting around or finding my way. I also bring my own TP whenever I camp. (Experience on that one.)

How about using the fee increase to build some new campsites? That place is super hoarded out in the prime winter/spring months and could certainly handle some additional sites, especially at the Bank.

Also there are cheap hotels in Canyon city for $35-40 a night and when you split those between 4 climbers...

More campsites would be a better way to increase their funding, and maybe there is some middle ground. Increase to $7 a night per site and add 10-20 new sites?

In section VII, "capital improvements" are listed as the LAST priority for spending of the fee revenue.

However, in attachment A at the end, there is a line item for $18,000 in "misc capital improvements" in 2010, This is 64% of the total $28,100 fee-funded expenses.

What the hell are they planning to spend 18g's on next year?

I just wish they would re-open cactus cliff road.

Bump....

This needs comments from the community. Someone already said it, but they are collecting a large excess of revenue from this increase in fees for something they dont' know or aren't disclosing.

COMMENT NOW!

Here's what I e-mailed as my comment:

Hello,

I'm writing to convey my disagreement with the proposed fee increase at the Shelf Road campgrounds. I do not believe these fees are in line with the purpose of the Bureau of Land Management in that it will limit the availability of that resource to outdoor recreationalists. The whole idea that it's called the Shelf Road Business Plan is slightly disconcerting. The purpose of the BLM is not to operate in the same way as a private business. I believe if you compared the ammenities of other campgrounds and state parks in the area you would see they offer more ammenities, are more crowded, and overdeveloped. The outdoor recreational experience is continually diminished by increased ammenities. Yosemite is a prime example. The more ammenties there are the more people there will be and this is justified as a need for more ammenities. Please do not start this wasteful cycle. There is no need for more vault toilets. I've never seen a line and I would imagine if there is a line it does not last long. There is certainly no need for shade ramadas, that's what trees are for. Additional campsites will merely degrade the land with only minor benefits as a revenue stream. The addition of these amenities will only increase the need for more maintenance and operations expenses thus adding to the wasteful cycle.

I personally take offense, as a climbing guide, to the assertion that rock climbers will not see detriment due to the fee increase. Merely because the equipment costs money and traveling costs money is not reason to believe that a fee increase will not be detrimental. While the vast majority of Americans take vacations that involve cross country travel, hotels, rental vehicles, plane tickets, etc. Local Colorado rock climbers take small trips that minimize cost. Myself as an example, it costs me about $8 in gas to go to Shelf Road from Colorado Springs and back. If it costs me an additional $10 to camp then it is cheaper to just drive home. Not only does that diminish the recreational experience but it also increases pollution with increased driving. This is in direct contradiction of the BLM's environmental purposes. Besides that rock climbing is not significantly higher in comparison to recreational activities such as horse back riding or hunting.

In addition I saw no proposed increase for grazing which is currently allowed at Shelf Road. To impact one user group without impacting another seems simply unfair.

All in all I see no reasonable justification for the fee increase. It does not appear to improve the area from an environmental standpoint. Any suggestion that it does so from a revenue standpoint is false economy. The increased ammenities will negate most revenues through increased expenses and this same fee increase will come up a few years later.

Sincerely,
Jeremiah Meizis

It's not the fee increase that bothers me so much as the lack of actual effectiveness it will have in developing revenue streams. I have no problem with certain fees at our public lands the problem I have is the assertion that we have to increase ammenities and thus fees. Personally I wouldn't care if there were no campgrounds or restrooms at Shelf. It's better environmentally to reduce the impact though. Adding more campsites and "shade ramadas" doesn't reduce the impact, it increases it and without justification. It might be a little easier to swallow if they had some reasonable justifications for the fee increase that didn't include more unnecessary crap.