Re: Federal Government and Liability

["Duncan Fletcher" <dfletche@gte.net>]

Teddy. This, unfortunately, is tails they win, heads we lose proposition. No
funds and the trails become unrideable - the same group will cheer that.
That money has had a beneficial effect in Washington. I have a number of
reservations about fees. But philosophically, I can't argue with the
concept.  I don't see government as the source of funding the operational
expenses of my recreation. OTH, if money is going to be spent on other
recreational projects, we should get our fair share, and the money should be
spent directly on trails (and trailhead facilities) and should be spent
efficiently (translated means using chain saws as appropriate instead of
mucho dollars going to a pair of guys of each end of a misery whip).

I should also admit that on a personal basis, the fee is not costing me
anything. By virtue of volunteer work (which I was doing prior to the fee
imposition), I get a free trail pass covering Washington and Oregon.

The liability problem can be (and probably should be) legislated away. One
of the Ranger districts has asked our help in wording a warning message to
backcountry equestrian users on the difficulties and dangers of backcountry
riding, particularly on an inappropriate horse. If I heard correctly there
were 8 horses lost the past year in that district.

Duncan Fletcher
dfletche@gte.net


-----Original Message-----
From: Teddy Lancaster <Teddy@runningbear.com>


>Then the simple answer is NOT to charge a user fee.  Most states have a
limited
>liability policy wherein a landowner is exempt for liability when he allow
his
>land to be used for recreation, PROVIDING he does not charge for it (or
set-up
>booby traps or neglect to mark off or warn users of a potential known
danger).
>
>Teddy
>