Wyoming state lawmakers are considering a first-of-its-kind fundraising measure: Charge hikers, bikers, horseback riders, and others for using trails. At least one prominent outdoor recreation user group is on board.
A mandatory $10 annual permit fee paid by users of non-motorized, “natural-surface” trails would support public-land trail systems across Wyoming, advocates told lawmakers eyeing a draft trail-fee bill.
The bill could raise $1 million a year for Wyoming trails, even those trails on federal lands, according to information presented to the Legislature’s Travel Recreation Wildlife and Cultural Resources Committee. As a draft bill is re-worked, backers say Wyoming outdoorswomen and -men who enjoy non-motorized trails are not opposed to paying a fee that would support creation and maintenance of recreational routes — the same way snowmobilers and ATV riders contribute funds through machine permits.
Today, “there’s no funding for non-motorized trails,” Domenic Bravo, the administrator of the Wyoming Outdoor Recreation Office, said in an interview. Trail users have mixed feelings about a fee, however.
“Some are very bought-in,” Bravo said. “For others, just the idea of paying a fee to use a trail is concerning.”
Tim Young, the executive director of Wyoming Pathways who testified before the committee in Evanston, Wyoming, last month, said the fee is “an opportunity to improve our livability in our communities.”
He outlined the lack of public funds and trail crews needed to keep up with use. Federal agencies are cash-strapped, Young said. They have massive trail-maintenance backlogs with as much as three-quarters of Forest Service trails in disrepair, he said. Public agencies have been unable to plan for the non-motorized trails that are in demand by equestrians, mountain bike riders, hikers, runners, and others.
“Many of them [national forests] have lost their trail crews, their trails supervisors,” Young told the committee. The Bureau of Land Management “can’t even give us a list of the entire trails in Wyoming.”
“The need is pretty dramatic,” Young said. “The [funding] hole is so big I’m going to support this.”
The draft bill says that any adult that uses a “designated” non-motorized trail in Wyoming “shall annually obtain a non-motorized recreational trail permit,” costing $10. The bill would create an account to be operated by the Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources, which would designate trails in the system and furnish numbered permits. Permits wouldn’t be required where other fees, like parking or parks admission, are already in place.
The bill would allow individual users and user groups to document volunteer trail maintenance or work time in exchange for a permit.
The bill would apply to and support “natural-surface trails,” only, not paved paths and sidewalks.
People shouldn’t worry about potential path police Bravo said. “We didn’t even think about the penalty,” Bravo said. “We’re not going to sit there and hire a bunch of park rangers.”
Instead, Bravo believes marketing could convince people, even tourists, to pay the $10 “because it means something.”
The volunteering element of the bill is “critical,” Bravo said, but it alone can’t provide for the system of trails Wyoming needs. “You still need cash,” he said.
If adopted, the bill could be the first of its kind nationwide, Young said. “I don’t believe any other state has a mandatory fee. Wyoming would be pioneering a new approach of how to take care of its public trails. This would be the first person-based, non–motorized trail fee in the country.”
A provision in the draft to divert 10 percent of the revenue raised to the Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resources Trust Account has drawn fire. Critics instead want to provide a way to make a contribution to that account voluntary.
Trail users have shown they’re willing to pony up for well-maintained routes, said Rep. Marti Halverson (R-Etna), a member of the committee considering the bill. While she’s generally skeptical of increasing taxes and fees, “I cannot say I have never voted for a fee increase,” she said in an interview.
When officials proposed to boost snowmobile fees, “I heard from 16,000 snowmobilers from around the state,” Halverson said; “Please raise the fee.”
“It was all going to trail grooming,” Halverson said. “I know the users are willing to contribute to trails and maintenance.”
But while trail-users — even those using non-motorized trails — may be willing to pony up, “I don’t think they should be the only ones,” Halverson said. “I have already heard from folks who say there’s no reason for Wyoming or Wyomingites to be subsidizing trail work on public land.
“I take that to heart that just because the Medicine Bow National Forest doesn’t have a trail crew doesn’t mean that Wyoming should be paying for trails,” she said.
“So, I’m getting some push-back from my constituents. They want the U.S. Forest Service to pay something. There is ample opportunity for the Forest Service to take advantage of the resource to raise the funds necessary to meet the demands of the outdoor recreationalists in this state — and the visitors.”
Young sees it slightly differently. “Congress and the Forest Service should be providing much better funding for our trail system,” he said. “Congress has not done its job.” Nevertheless, the bill should be revised to require a federal matching grant, Young wrote in remarks to the committee.
Regardless of any failed responsibility, Wyoming Pathways partnered with the Shoshone National Forest to create the new Upper Brewers Trail near Lander, Wyoming, and with the Medicine Bow National Forest to rebuild damaged trails on Pole Mountain between Laramie and Cheyenne, Young wrote the committee. In all, the projects constructed about 6 miles of trails and cost $220,000, much of it funded privately through grants and aided by significant volunteer work, his Aug. 30 letter read.
In Jackson Hole, trail advocates kick in $350,000 a year in cash and volunteer value, he said. Evanston’s Bear River Outdoor Recreation Alliance aids the Forest Service and Evanston Parks and Recreation District with Nordic skiing, mountain biking, hiking, river, and equestrian use around Uinta County. In the Cody area, Young said, Park County Pedalers, best known for their mountain bike trails, have invested $400,000 in a trail network on city and BLM land.
Non-motorized trail users could leverage their funds and fundraising in a heretofore-blocked avenue if they begin paying fees, Young said. By contributing financially to trail maintenance, non-motorized trail users could strengthen their arguments when seeking a share of the federal trail funds distributed to Wyoming.
The federal Recreational Trails Program funds trail work through the Wyoming State Trails Advisory Council. Since 2013 Young has complained that the state council “unfairly restricts” money that the federal government earmarks for “diversified trails” — meaning those for several different user types. Federal guidelines allow the funds to be spent on a non-motorized “diversified trail,” such as trail for skiing, hiking, and fat-biking. But the Wyoming council, by policy, spends the funds only on trails that include a motorized component.
“Wyoming is the only state in the nation that requires motorized use in all diversified projects” Young wrote the trails council in 2015. The rule is “an unfair bias against non-motorized projects,” he wrote. “This unnecessary requirement is in conflict with the clear language of the federal law and should be removed.”
For Outdoor Office chief Bravo, a trail fee “would definitely open the door for those … conversations,” with the trails council. “If everybody is paying into the process, it’s easier to get fair balance in the programs,” he said.
In affiliation with Wyofile.
When I initially saw the headline, I was prepared to say that nobody should have to pay for trail access, and that the outdoors is one of the last free places on earth. However, I changed my mind when I read about the volunteering element. Trails don’t maintain themselves, and if we want nice things, users need to take responsibility.
Er, correct me if I’m wrong, but that photo with the hiker is of Bearhat Mountain in Glacier National Park, which is in Montana, not Wyoming. Can’t quite identify the areas in the other pics, but the last one also looks like Glacier National Park.
You are correct. Not meant to be a photo of Wyoming, but a lovely shot of hiking in general.
Absolutely. You’d think the editors could at least get a photo from the Tetons. It’s not as if they’re in short supply
While I think we’d all prefer that congress spend the $ they already get appropriately and thus fund trails, the reality is they don’t. So if we’re going to be in a user fee based world, it should be done fairly. In the PNW, hunters and fisherman pay per user, while motos pay per vehicle owned, and nonmotorized use a parking permit that covers however many users are in a vehicle. A per user fee is far more fair to everyone. Although if the moto model was used, it would be an off road tab per each pair of boots a hiker uses off road.
This is a form of double taxation. These are public lands they belong to all of us to enjoy. Yes they require upkeep but we should be requesting our representatives to fund public lands instead of buying bombs and paying for the president to go golfing. Resist this. It also creates an even bigger barrier for people who lack means to get out and enjoy nature. Access to wild nature, our earth, should be viewed as an inalienable right.
For the last several Summers, the Medicine Bow/Routte National Forest Public lands have been maintain (though NO where near what is Needed) by: Local groups of; University Outdoor Program students / AmeriCorps personel / Wyoming Conservation Corps workers and Other Volunteers…. The USFS and BLM are having their budgets Cut every year for trail maintenance and So politicians are complaining that Public Land should be transferred to State control, like WY has money to maintain trails and such…. Total BS.
“Lenny” this May be a form of Double taxation, especially for Federal public lands, but the collective tax money from All tax payers is Not being distributed Properly. I don’t like paying extra for Anything, but nothing is FREE – $10/year is NO problem for me…. I’ve also heard about and “Might” support a 1% additional Sales tax on outdoor Gear, that would go toward trails and such…
How about diverting a bit more of the 717 BILLION Pentagon budget to protecting our natural world and taking care of our trail system! Paying for trail use is a slippery slope downhill. Consider all the BLM fees that didn’t exist 15 years ago. Consider the cost to enter national parks. Throughout the 1970s and beyond, it was 2 dollars. And now? 35 dollars. And who will be administering the permit system, and who decides if you have worked off your fees?
The feds shouldn’t be paying for our trail so an elite segment of our society can trample and pollute are natural resources.
Its time for you tree huggers to pony up, Whats 10 bucks a year, skip Starbucks and pay for your own recreation not us taxpayer!
QUOTE: Wyoming state lawmakers are considering a first-of-its-kind fundraising measure: Charge hikers, bikers, horseback riders, and others for using trails. At least one prominent outdoor recreation user group is on board.
First of its kind? Could the author please explain the difference between this and the Northwest Forest Pass in use in Oregon & Washington? $30 annually to park at trailheads for National Parks.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r6/passes-permits/recreation/?cid=fsbdev2_027010
Or the Washington Department of Natural Resources Discover pass? $30 annually.
https://www.discoverpass.wa.gov/31/About-the-Pass
You can also do volunteer work and get these passes for free. https://www.wta.org/volunteer/schedule
$10 is what a DAY only Discover Pass costs.
And Montana also has a $6 fee each time a person renews car registration that goes to state park upkeep, trails included. Most people don’t even know it is there, but those who do pay it willingly.
While I’m generally in favor of such an effort, I too would want to know how federal passes come into play. Similar to the NW Forest pass, the Interagency pass covers ALL fees (minis camping) on BLM, National Park, USFS, and monuments. Having already purchased that, why should I pay more for trails in Wyoming. I’d be happy to pay more than the $80 fee for the Interagency pass, but CANNOT stand the additional and surprise fees when I show up to a federal day use area operated by a concessionaire or state (looking at you, California) that charges an additional fee above and beyond the fee I’ve paid for a pass that covers ALL federal fee areas.
I too was initially opposed to this when reading the headline. However, I also favor trail maintenance. The argument that public lands and their use is an “inalienable right” does not apply to their maintenance. Their access, Yes, the upkeep No. Count me in on this one.
Isn’t the idea of this pass to charge for the access? So if we want our trails to maintained wouldn’t advocacy driven donation and volunteer work be more appropriate?
The world is full of unfair, burdensome subsidies, and I hate every one of them; but if anything in the world should be subsidized, let it be our trails.
Every trail, everywhere; kept free, clear, and beautiful; for the rich and poor, fit and unfit; for the first visit to the last. For goodness sake keep it free! Pay people to come! Why would this community ever think it’s a good idea to think otherwise? Our kids and adults and elderly are in nature-deficit, unhealthy, media-addicted, and our wild lands lack supporters and champions, yet we would support a tax against access?
With rare exception, every time a user fee has been adopted to raise additional funds for state and federal parklands (including motorized OHV recreation), almost every cent of those gains has been subsequently “offset” by budget cuts. After the rangers get new trucks, after the signs are all up, and maybe two years of improvements have been implemented, their taxpayer funded budgets are reduced to take advantage of the additional “revenue streams” Without language that legally binds federal and state land managers to matching funds, and funding specific projects, user fees are a double tax and a betrayal of well meaning people, who want to make a positive contribution.
Tap the Wyoming “rainy day” fund to repair and upgrade the trails. Tourism and Outdoor Rec dollars brought in as a result of the trail opportunities will offset the small dent in the fund. Use the $10 fee to maintain, once the trails are repaired/ improved. +Mr Cunningham’s recommendation for legally binding language requiring the fees go towards non-motorized use trail maintenance/improvements/expansion only.
Sadly over half of USFS money now goes to fire suppression and law enforcement. I’d like to see the folks who are on the receiving end of all the work to save their homes in fire-prone areas pay for it. Right now those of us in non-fire danger areas are paying for something that we don’t use, and will not use since we choose to live in areas that don’t have wild fires. My city taxes pay for my city fire department. How about a ‘fire insurance pool’ just like there is for flooding? Do you want to live in a flood-prone area? Buy the insurance. Ditto for fire. This would restore USFS budget $$ for campground and trail maintenance, protection of habitat, education – all the stuff that is being ignored now due to lack of funds.
Interesting article. I see their points…but I’m also concerned about what that means access-wise. There are many people who could easily pay that fee, however there are many who count on “public land” spaces to be free and accessible to all. I’d hate for a fee to prevent someone who’s trying to get fit in a judgement-free environment, or perhaps a family with no extra income from enjoying a nature walk.
Maybe a consideration could be a $5 fee, and the state could get minor offenders from juvenile court or even regular prison (remember- MINOR offenses, not serial mass murderers) to come out and work as trail crews!! If CA can use women prisoners to fight fires, why can’t our incarcerated do some good and give back??
It’s a no brainer. If you want federal funding for trail maintenance, vote for representatives who will make that change and then loudly request it. In the meantime, $10 a year? If you can afford to access the trail head, you can afford that fee. We shouldn’t feel entitled to well-maintained single track – and the vast majority of hikers don’t pay (much) and don’t work to maintain the track.
I support this as long as the fees will be added to current tax payer trail funding budgets, not used as an excuse to reduce or replace them.