| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?
Joined: 25 Jul 2008
Posts: 7399 | TRs
Location: The Hermitage
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xrp
Tactical Backpacker
Joined: 01 May 2012
Posts: 369 | TRs
|
| Bedivere wrote: |
| Kim Brown wrote: |
| More likely the sheriff's office ticketing people for parking like idiots and blocking in cars. |
I thought that was the most likely scenario as well, but he was insistent that it was the Forest Service ticketing people for not having a NWFP. I informed him of the requirement to have the stated amenities and he said a FS ranger was leading a snowshoe trip there so that was an "amenity." At that point I chose to disengage as the person was clearly incapable of logical thought processing but it made me curious. |
Well Sno*Parks require a Sno*Park pass because of the added service for clearing parking @ the winter trailheads. Maybe tagging people in a Sno*Park during the permit season?
Unlike NWFP (ruled un-Constitutional by 9th Circuit Court of Appeals), you’re paying for the clearing service, not simply to park/hike/pee/poop. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeff
Ramen Elitist
Joined: 18 Aug 2008
Posts: 3028 | TRs
Location: Someone get me out of Everett, WA
|
The Deer Creek area is not a snow park. There is a sign that says not to park beyond a certain point because it is necessary for snow plow turn around.
There is an outhouse at the Deer Creek road parking lot, but if there is a sign, table, garbage, improved parking lot, or interpretive board...they ate all under snow. I saw no signs there last week.
Just park on a pullout on the MLH and you'll be fine without a pass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vibramhead
Member
Joined: 16 Mar 2010
Posts: 132 | TRs
Location: Olympic Peninsula
|
| cunningkeith wrote: |
The Forest Service’s legal authority to charge for the NWFP at wilderness trailheads is clearly limited to sites that have all of the following:
“A permanent toilet facility” AND
“A permanent trash receptacle” AND
“Picnic tables”
16 USC § 6802 |
Actually, the statute requires more amenities than that. They must also provide "an interpretive sign, exhibit or kiosk," and "security services." I have yet to see any trailhead where "security services" are provided. I'm guessing FS would argue that having an employee randomly checking for NWFPs would constitute "security services."
Also, the statute authorizes charging of fees only in areas "where fees can be efficiently collected." I have yet to see a FS trailhead that provides any means of paying the fee on site if you don't already have a NWFP.
As for me, I don't object to paying a fee to park at a trailhead, if FS is actually using the money for trail maintenance. But as far as I can tell, they're not. They seem to be spending the fees on the "amenities" at the trailheads, or on something else entirely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vibramhead
Member
Joined: 16 Mar 2010
Posts: 132 | TRs
Location: Olympic Peninsula
|
| xrp wrote: |
The good news is that you already have 2 9th Circuit Court of Appeals precedents for you to use when you sue the State of Oregon.
If the Feds can’t charge you for parking and hiking, then most likely, neither can the states. |
This is incorrect. The states can do what they like on state lands, including state highways where trailheads on state lands provide access to FS lands. Nothing in the 9th Circuit's ruling in Adams suggests otherwise. That case only addressed FS authority to charge fees on FS lands. While the opinion isn't a model of clarity, it seems to say that FS can't charge fees to hikers who park at trailheads that have all the required amenities, if the hikers don't use those amenities.
And there isn't another 9th Circuit decision on this issue. The Fragosa case never made it to the 9th Circuit, because the parties settled after FS lost in the district court. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chief Joseph
Member
Joined: 10 Nov 2007
Posts: 5544 | TRs
Location: What Verlot Forgot.
|
Another option that I use frequently is to park a ways from the TH and walk, a good example is the Ashland Lakes TH, there is an old road that continues past the parking area. Once I was parked there and on the way back startled another hiker on my way out because he hadn't expected anyone with no visible vehicle at the TH.
--------------
Go placidly amid the noise and waste, and remember what comfort there may be in owning a piece thereof. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hesman
Member
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 893 | TRs
|
| vibramhead wrote: |
| Also, the statute authorizes charging of fees only in areas "where fees can be efficiently collected." I have yet to see a FS trailhead that provides any means of paying the fee on site if you don't already have a NWFP. |
In Olympic National Forest you can pay the $5 a day parking fee at the Lena Lake trailhead. I haven’t been there in awhile, but I think you can do the same at the Upper Dungeness trailhead. The FS has envelopes and an iron ranger at those 2 trailheads. In the past I have paid at the Lena Lake trailhead since the FS made it convenient to do so.
--------------
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. - Abraham Lincoln
Don't cry because it's over. Smile because it happened. - Dr. Seuss |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kim Brown
Member
Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 5900 | TRs
|
Yes, there are several iron rangers in the Skykomish District. I think there's one at Big 4, and there's a vending machine at the ranger station at Verlot. Pretty sure there's one at Ingalls, but I might be full of baloney on that.
--------------
" I'm really happy about this! … I have very strong good and horrible memories up there." – oldgranola, NWH’s outdoors advocate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JVesquire
Member
Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 927 | TRs
Location: Pasco, WA
|
| I used to get all up in arms over USFS making me pay and have a permit when they clearly didn't have authority to do it. Now I realize that the threat to public lands through defunding, lack of enforcement, etc., is a really serious threat to their integrity, so I just grin and bear it. MBS and other forests get so much of their budget from these, without which they might not hire seasonal rangers, do the bare minimum of maintenance, etc. If I forget my pass at the TH, I don't worry, but I buy the interagency pass each and every year, otherwise I feel I'd be contributing to the problem. Plus, $80 a year is a steal to get into Rainier, Olympic, and anywhere else in the country as often as you like. What can you get at a Mariner's game for that much? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hbb
Member
Joined: 06 Aug 2009
Posts: 257 | TRs
|
| vibramhead wrote: |
| cunningkeith wrote: |
The Forest Service’s legal authority to charge for the NWFP at wilderness trailheads is clearly limited to sites that have all of the following:
“A permanent toilet facility” AND
“A permanent trash receptacle” AND
“Picnic tables”
16 USC § 6802 |
Actually, the statute requires more amenities than that. They must also provide "an interpretive sign, exhibit or kiosk," and "security services." I have yet to see any trailhead where "security services" are provided. I'm guessing FS would argue that having an employee randomly checking for NWFPs would constitute "security services."
Also, the statute authorizes charging of fees only in areas "where fees can be efficiently collected." I have yet to see a FS trailhead that provides any means of paying the fee on site if you don't already have a NWFP.
As for me, I don't object to paying a fee to park at a trailhead, if FS is actually using the money for trail maintenance. But as far as I can tell, they're not. They seem to be spending the fees on the "amenities" at the trailheads, or on something else entirely. |
16 USC 6802(g)(2)(A) only requires "at least a majority" of the listed amenities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cunningkeith
Member
Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 14 | TRs
Location: Portland
|
| hbb wrote: |
| 16 USC 6802(g)(2)(A) only requires "at least a majority" of the listed amenities. |
That's the wrong subsection of the statute.
The NWFP is authorized as a "Standard amenity recreation fee." The FS has to provide all six amenities.
"An area . . . that contains all of the following amenities"
16 USC § 6802(f)(4)(D)
I originally listed just three amenities b/c I assumed those were the ones most likely to be missing.
I am very sympathetic to the fact that the FS is desperate for fees. But, as I first mentioned, the FS is now proposing to charge people for day hiking in the Three Sisters area outside of Bend. There will be no "annual pass" for this. You'll have to pay each time you want to day hike. To me, that's a very dangerous precedent. If successful, there is no reason that other fee-starved forests in Washington and elsewhere won't follow suit.
So if the FS wants to implement an entire new fee system, I think it's fair to see if they are currently complying with the minimum legal requirements associated with the NWFP. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Foist
Sultan of Sweat
Joined: 08 May 2006
Posts: 3725 | TRs
Location: Back!
|
The Adams case was pretty clear to me: it held that, even if the parking location had the required amenities, the FS could *not* charge a fee for simply parking and walking. That decision was based on a close reading of the statute. The FS has taken a different position, in direct violation of the decision and the statutory language. They do this because they can get away with it.
No, it makes no sense to require that the FS prove that every user actually used the amenities (eyeball tracking to make sure they read the kiosk?). Yes, we need more money for trails. But that is what the law says. The answer is simple: change the statute. In the meantime, as citizens, we should all be concerned with the executive branch's increasing willingness to simply ignore the law. Procedure matters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chief Joseph
Member
Joined: 10 Nov 2007
Posts: 5544 | TRs
Location: What Verlot Forgot.
|
| Foist wrote: |
| The Adams case was pretty clear to me: it held that, even if the parking location had the required amenities, the FS could *not* charge a fee for simply parking and walking. That decision was based on a close reading of the statute. The FS has taken a different position, in direct violation of the decision and the statutory language. They do this because they can get away with it. |
That's exactly right, most "Sheeple" will just simply pay the fee and go on their way, that is actually good for those of us who know better. I have never been one to waste money and now that I am retired and on a fixed income, I am even more diligent.
--------------
Go placidly amid the noise and waste, and remember what comfort there may be in owning a piece thereof. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeff
Ramen Elitist
Joined: 18 Aug 2008
Posts: 3028 | TRs
Location: Someone get me out of Everett, WA
|
| Like a lot of other people, I never liked the NWFP but I considered it a donation and begrudgingly paid it. Until they started adding two license plate spots on the pass. It's like they went from " here is how you can help fund the FS" to "we think you are cheating us out of money." So now I just park in the first pullout outside of the fee area. Although I am confident that I could legally park at the TH as long as I don't use the amenities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 4525 | TRs
Location: Seattle
|
| Chief Joseph wrote: |
| That's exactly right, most "Sheeple" will just simply pay the fee and go on their way, that is actually good for those of us who know better. I have never been one to waste money and now that I am retired and on a fixed income, I am even more diligent. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
