[Slugman]

I'm not sure how a law that imposes a fee also "requires free access". The court saying there is a problem with a law that imposes a fee is not that same as saying all fees are somehow illegal. Nothing in the Constitution says access must be free, so if there is a problem with this law it is a technicality that Congress can fix at any time. There is no law or any court decision (that I've ever heard of) that says the FS cannot charge a fee, and even if there was (such a law), any new law could change that at any time. I agree that right now a concessionaire shouldn't be allowed to charge a fee that the FS can't charge under the current law.

[Conrad]

[Ranger Smith]

[treeswarper]

Let me see, one campground host got a leetle bit overzealous and pulled a pistol on some folks once. Caint remember where, I think on the Klamath NF. There have been some hosts who had a bit too much to drink. There are hosts who can't seem to figure out how to work the radio. There was one that suddenly decided they had detected a hazard tree and it had to be cut down by somebody else right away. I stopped and threw tree parts out of a road next to the campground. It didn't take much to do, and the campground host came out to thank me. They'd been waiting for somebody to take care of that. Somebody sure gets referred to a lot. But, I certainly have the wrong personality to be a campground host, so I should also say that most seem to do all right.

[Snowbrushy]

[sooperfly]

Fees dropped for Harts Pass area. Article in the Methow Valley News today.

[GeoHiker]

Interesting how they are only considering high impact use areas. So the out of the way, no amenities, no parking, no bathroom TH's will still require a NWFP. I guess they are reading this ruling a different way? SOS, just another day.

[Grey Heckel]

I didn't read all posts since I entered the new topic, but I will say SLUGMAN was wrong in stating that you could only park outside the TH parking area and walk through: THe "decision" clearly stated that the fee cannot be used for "parking, undesignated parking ....." thus meaning that TH parking cannot be charged if the reason for parking is hiking (a non-chargeable use). My original thought was WhY does the FS continue to make it seem that the permit IS required for parking.?

[Slugman]

Because the pass always was a parking charge, right from the beginning. The business about amenities needing to be present was added later, and is the reason for the court decision. I still don't see any signs coming down, or the forest pass being eliminated completely. I guess I'll believe it when I see it, and lots of people demanding that something is true doesn't really mean much to me in the face of actual reality.

[Randito]

[Laural]

The last time I was at Pratt Lake TH it did indeed have : (i)Designated developed parking. (ii)A permanent toilet facility. (iii)A permanent trash receptacle. (iv)Interpretive sign, exhibit, or kiosk. (v)Picnic tables. (vi)Security services. I mean, one could argue about (vi), but I think the guy writing tickets counts. Or am I wrong about the Table? I guess I could be.

[Randito]

[cairn builder]

It's been two years now, and the NW Forest Pass is still being sold. In fact I just recently bought a new one because it's cheaper than getting tickets. Has the situation changed?

[Malachai Constant]

If by Pratt Lake TH you mean the same as Granite Mtn there is a Picnic Table near the wilderness registers at the West end of the Parking area.

[drm]

I have, in the past, read these decisions, and come to the conclusion that they are much more limited than claimed by people who say that the FS is violating the law. But I am no lawyer, and I'm not going to read them again to find the language that I think proves my opinion. Also, NWFP funds do help maintain trails, at least in my area (southern Gifford Pinchot). It's very hard to get a percentage because, among other things, NWFP funds are used to fund grant requests. So if you get a grant from a non-profit, but the time spent writing the request was funded by NWFP money, how do you count that? In one FS district alone (Mt Adams), The FS head of the trails team told me that the trails teams hired by the FS cleared 400 miles of trails this year. So the funds do a lot for trail maintenance performed by FS employees. My impression is that FS teams do heavy work and WTA volunteers do lighter work. As always, the program could be improved. The amenities listing particularly. The law expires this year and so NWFP will go away next year unless Congress re-authorizes. Maybe then we will find out just how important the funds are. Or maybe Congress will improve on it?