[Dave Workman]

There's a story I'm working on feverishly about a magistrate's ruling in Arizona that could derail day-use fees for some trails, trailheads, roadside parking, etc. There's a story about it in the Arizona Daily Star that might be worth a look. I'm doing some interviews for a piece in GW, but this could have a huge impact on hikers, backpackers and a lot of other forest users if this ruling stands. http://www.azstarnet.com/altds/pastframe/metro/146483 U.S. judge's ruling could end forest user fees By Tony Davis ARIZONA DAILY STAR A federal magistrate's ruling could end, or scale back the scope of, the $5 daily user fees charged on Mount Lemmon and in Sabino and Madera canyons. The case could set a national precedent, possibly ending fees in other national forests around the country, said the chief Forest Service official for the Mount Lemmon-Sabino Canyon area. It could also mean cutbacks in maintenance and improvements of picnic grounds and campsites, and possible closure of some facilities because the fees generate hundreds of thousands of dollars annually that are plowed into recreation areas, the forest official said. (more)

[Dante]

"Pyle ruled that the Forest Service went beyond its congressional authorization when it charged fees for parking to use a trail, for roadside or trailside picnicking, for camping outside developed campgrounds and for roadside parking in general." *** "But if the ruling stands, it appears that the Forest Service will have to charge fees only for use at specific sites — not for driving up the mountain and parking at certain areas, as it does now." I understand many people have beat tickets for not displaying forest passes by arguing that the underlying statute doesn't authorize parking fees or a requirement to display a pass in a vehicle. IIRC it authorizes fees for uses of specific facilities ("developed trailheads, campgrounds, etc.) and "failing to pay" is the violation. I looked into this a year or two ago and posted links to the statute in this thread, but I think Congress has taken further action since then.

[Dave Workman]

Yeah, sort of. All of this fee stuff is part of legislation called the Federal Lands Recreeation Enhancement Act (FLREA), that has some pretty specific exemptions about where fees can, and more importantly, CANNOT be assessed. I've got a copy of the magistrate's 20-page opinion and it's a doozy. I'm sure the USFS will appeal, but I'm kind of scratching my head wondering, on what grounds? The USFS attorney told me that "we're studying it" but that doesn't mean jack to me. If they have some specific objections on which they'll base an appeal, I'll certainly print that stuff. I don't know anybody who objects too loudly to paying for an annual pass or even a daily parking permit to use trailheads, but in several areas, particularly in the West, I've gotten reports of people being cited for parking alongside a road to take a leak, snap a photo or grab a sandwich or something innocuous like that. And these trailheads and other permit fee areas MUST meet certain criteria. Some of the trailheads with which we are all familiar don't meet any of them, they just happen to be in a national forest near you. I'm quoting a guy who heads a no-fee access citizens group, and he told me that they had done an assessment and that 75 percent of the fee sites in the Pacific Northwest don't meet the criteria for actually charging fees. It's an interesting story.

[Dante]

Here's the text of the legislation - see section 4.

[napali2004]

I seem to remember when I was down in Sedona being told we couldn't park on the side of the road without paying a fee or we would get a substantial ticket.

[Quark]

Pardon me for not adding anything of great revelation to the thread, but I thought it was already ruled that only improved trailheads require a pass. I didn't read the document linked, but Workman's text indicates that this issue is news....is it news and I dreamed this up or made a mistake, or is it not news. I admit I haven't paid much attention because even if I didn't receive a free annual pass, I wouldn't mind the $30 annual fee at all. I spent almost that much partying with freinds for a mere 2 hours last night. There are plenty of folks who protest the fee, which is why this legislation is happening in the first place. They had extended the fee demonstration (an ironic name for it, I might add. sorry for the thread drift regarding language usage). Many organizations who supported it did so contingent upon there being a reasonable oppourtunity for citizens to obtain free passes via volunteer work, and pass-free hiking days, such as Mother's Day, National Trails Day and another day (4th of July I think). Now you may return to the discussion.

[Dave Workman]

[Quark]

It's unfortunate that the original purpose of the park pass (funds to maintain trails) swithced to funds to improve trailheads instead. The public demanded instant gratification, wanted to see the improvements, but did not see improvements because the FS was finally able to get into the backcountry to do repairs where it's been needed for so many years. So that's where the improvements were, when they could get away from front country work (massive blowdown project, cleaning large avalache debris areas, accessible trails). But the public demanded something they could set their eyes on, so the FS amended the policy to pay for trailhead improvements. To me, this is a disappointment. I'd rather see the funds continue to maintain trails, not to place picnic tables and garbage cans. Folks who want a picnic can damn well bring a checkered cloth with them. Folks who have garbage can take it home. You know, all the things they they did for decades before there was even a trail park pass fee. This stuff about improvements at trailheads took away the original intent of the Forest Pass, which I accepted (I don't agree with it, but chose other battles, and so I accept it). The problem with democracy is that it's citizens get in the way of progress. But I guess that means the system is working. But I don't see why the FS can't collect a fee if the NPS can collect a fee. What's so illegal about it? I feel it's more illegal to switch from trail maintenance dollars to picnic tables (akin to bait and switch) than it is to collect a fee in the first place. I ahven't heard of anyone in WA getting ticketed for parking along side of a road unless it's less than than 1/4 mile from a trailhead, so that issue may not be of particular interest to a NWHiker reader.

[Dave Workman]

Quark, now that you mention it, I haven't heard of anyone in these parts getting cited either for that offense. I certainly concur with your assessment of how expenditures seem to have been shifted from the original intent to something more visual. Oh, well. As for your not being able to see why the USFS can't charge a fee, the answer to that is in the statute. The law pretty clearly says they can't. I'm already on record here, as Dave private citizen, not being too yanked about the fees because of the work that's been accomplished (re my remarks on another thread about the lower Talapus Lake trail off I-90) . But considering the volume of traffic out there, and on this forum, you may not be correct about this issue being of little interest to other readers. I couldn't even guess, but there is the possibility, which is why I brought this to everyone's attention. I don't know where this is going, and nobody else does, either. But we're all going to be along for the ride.

[touron]

I think in the western states, especially with those having vast amounts of federal lands, there as always been some dispute over how the land is managed. I still believe the parking permit is discouraging people from hiking and pricing out those already on a thin budget.

[Dave Workman]

Touron, that's an interesting observation. I have written repeatedly how a person's so-called "disposable" income is being increasingly disposed of in the gas tank, and like it or not, we need to drive to where we hit the trail, or just the woods without a trail. Do you put that $5 in your gas tank to get to work, or give it to the USFS for a day pass you may not be able to use because you can't afford the extra gas it will take to get to the trailhead? But we may be drifting a bit from the subject. And maybe not. These costs that the Arizona magistrate appears to have put in jeopardy are really "hidden taxes" that are assessed simply for our use of public land...land that "we already own" and already pay for through our taxes. At least, that seems to be what defendant Wallace has successfully argued. This is a very complicated issue, but I know from working this story for more than a year that there are national forests in California where people routinely get dinged or warned of a dinging simply because they may drive through an area and stop to stretch their legs, without a permit or sticker in the window. One of those situations was mentioned above. That simply doesn't pass the smell test. The statute has limits on where fees may be charged, and from all indications, USFS has been ignoring those limits and just slapping a fee on everything. That's no good and that's what this case is about. Part of me cheers because I don't feel any overwhelming need to pay for the use of land I already own, aong with everyone else. The government doesn't own the national forests, we do. The Department of Agriculture simply is the caretaker agency, and in many cases it has overstepped its authority. And that seems to be where the magistrate just put the issue.

[polarbear]

My day hikes last year in California to Bishop Pass and Hilton Lakes required no pass, at least as far as I could tell. Both trails were well maintained, and had good (better than WA) parking areas.

[Quark]

I hope Region 6 has been under enough heat about the park pass and they’re smart enough that they won’t impose additional fees to make up for the deficiency of funds as a result of the failure of the fee demonstration. It certainly is unfair to charge as they have in AZ – for picnics, berry-picking, etc. But if people park at a trailhead that requires a pass, until the fee is repealed, whether they’re berry picking or hiking, they do need a pass. There’s money enough in Uncle Sam’s coffers – he’s just not directing any of it to the FS. The root of the problem is Uncle Sam.

[Dave Workman]

[Dave Workman]

In the interest of throughness...USFS has given notice it will appeal the Wallace ruling.