Forum Index > Trail Talk > Forest Pass Required this Year?
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
BigBrunyon
Member
Member


Joined: 19 Mar 2015
Posts: 1458 | TRs | Pics
Location: the fitness gyms!!
BigBrunyon
Member
PostSun Aug 23, 2020 10:28 am 
Complete anarchy in the forest lands!! People ridin' dirty with no forest pass!! No rules!! No one knows what the deal is!!! You have to be tough to survive a hike in such conditions!

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Chief Joseph
Member
Member


Joined: 10 Nov 2007
Posts: 7709 | TRs | Pics
Location: Verlot-Priest Lake
Chief Joseph
Member
PostSun Aug 23, 2020 12:21 pm 
It's not a big deal since 95-98% of the people pay, only us "Elitists" know better.....O' and a few Separatists and Miscreants who just never pay.

Go placidly amid the noise and waste, and remember what comfort there may be in owning a piece thereof.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Cyclopath
Faster than light



Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 7744 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Cyclopath
Faster than light
PostSun Aug 23, 2020 1:56 pm 
Malachai Constant wrote:
Oh yhea the principle confused.gif
I'm going to complain that the forest service doesn't do the maintenance I want, and then I'm going to complain that they don't have enough budget. When I'm done I'm going for a hike, I'm going to park at a pull out somewhere and crap in the woods so I don't have to buy a pass I can easily afford. On principal.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
xrp
Tactical Backpacker



Joined: 01 May 2012
Posts: 369 | TRs | Pics
xrp
Tactical Backpacker
PostTue Aug 25, 2020 8:28 am 
catsp wrote:
xrp wrote:
It is also important to point out that a subsequent 9th Circuit Court case clarified Adams stating that the NWFP is only required if one uses the amenities at the trailhead. If you park and hike and do not use the garbage can, the toilet/vault toilet/picnic table/etc, then you do not have to have the NWFP.
Article: 10th Circuit upholds park fees (this exact scenario). Alpern v. Ferebee, No. 19-1086 (10th Cir. 2020) Seems to be a much more reasonable interpretation.
And that interpretation applies only in the 10th Circuit: Also, is the 10th's ruling implying that the "security services" would be liable for failing to provide security?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9513 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostTue Aug 25, 2020 8:34 am 
xrp wrote:
Also, is the 10th's ruling implying that the "security services" would be liable for failing to provide security?
Please let us know how your court case turns out, but don't expect any financial support for your court costs.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
water
Member
Member


Joined: 07 Aug 2008
Posts: 121 | TRs | Pics
water
Member
PostWed Aug 26, 2020 5:15 pm 
Cyclopath wrote:
Malachai Constant wrote:
Oh yhea the principle confused.gif
I'm going to complain that the forest service doesn't do the maintenance I want, and then I'm going to complain that they don't have enough budget. When I'm done I'm going for a hike, I'm going to park at a pull out somewhere and crap in the woods so I don't have to buy a pass I can easily afford. On principal.
To get to it, the NWFP, originally the Fee-Demo program, was panned as a way for users of the National Forest to increase revenues, in addition to existing appropriations for areas that received lots of use. The NWFP was never conceived or intended to support the full funding of recreational services. However NF districts in effect and with budget constraints already, let appropriated funds go elsewhere and relied more heavily on the supplemental user funds, of which there's no way they can accomplish the work on that money alone. NWFP money has literally paid for puppet shows called 'critters in the cracks' in Deschutes National Forest. It's ironic that our forests near population centers that contribute immensely more to federal coffers end up requiring access fees whereas huge swaths of the inter-mountain west do not require 'passes' for general recreation. If you look at the NWFP 'where the money goes' breakdowns, they don't even list how many miles of trail get maintained with the funds, like they did 10+ years ago in reports when they first started them. Best guess is about 10% of funds collected actually go to trails. The rest is boat ramps, trash service, pump out service, and 'administering special use permits' like when someone conducts a race or event, and other stuff that the FS shouldn't even be touting and where you fees go. You might ask what has even driven this idea that you'd pay to park somewhere for access to public lands? Business interests driven to commodify the opportunity. You see all these people enjoying themselves outside and not paying for it? That's a business opportunity! Look up ARC (American Recreation Coalition) and their rechartering now into Outdoor Recreation Roundtable. I can't find the direct quote but ARC's position since they were formed in 1979 was that 'if you pay for something it will be a better experience for you'.
Quote:
The American Recreation Coalition was formed in 1979 to "catalyze public/private partnerships" on public lands. ARC represents the interests of the motorized recreation industry (snowmobiles, motorcycles, boats, and RVs), ski areas, amusement parks and concessionaires. ARC takes credit for helping create the controversial Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. The program requires buying passes to use even remote and often minimally maintained National Forest trails. Opponents fear commercialization of wilderness and emphasis on higher profit and higher impact activities such as snowmobiling and boating. ARC also introduced a proposal to the House Agriculture Committee on May 8, 1998 that argued private companies should take over Forest Service campgrounds. (http://www.wildwilderness.org/docs/crandall.htm) "Sustaining Members" include American Council of Snowmobile Associations, International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association, Kampgrounds of America, National Marine Manufacturers Association, National Park Hospitality Association, Recreation Vehicle Industry Association, Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association, and the Walt Disney Company.
https://www.nmma.org/press/article/21773
Quote:
said Thom Dammrich, ORR chair and president of the National Marine Manufacturers Association. “We not only have the most at stake when it comes to preserving outdoor spaces, we also have the most at stake when it comes to moving policy forward and providing visitor services that meet the needs of the modern outdoor lifestyle.”
You know, like adding wifi in campgrounds 'modern outdoor lifestyle'. Here's a decent breakdown of Scott Silver (Bend, OR) organization that failed spectacularly in trying to fight against disneyfication of the outdoors. https://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outdoor-activities/hunting/clubs-and-organizations/wild-wilderness.htm#pt1 But don't worry, I'm just a crack pot. Paying for the NWFP is definitely helping things bigtime and is a civic duty! No sense understanding the origin and asking if you support what it represents long term and the attitudes (pay to play) we hold for public lands. Let's belittle the amount compared to a tank of gas and laugh at the principle! ARC/ORR and monied interests thank you for your compassion and support!

feel free to feel free
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
xrp
Tactical Backpacker



Joined: 01 May 2012
Posts: 369 | TRs | Pics
xrp
Tactical Backpacker
PostWed Aug 26, 2020 6:52 pm 
Randito wrote:
xrp wrote:
Also, is the 10th's ruling implying that the "security services" would be liable for failing to provide security?
Please let us know how your court case turns out, but don't expect any financial support for your court costs.
What court case? Oh don’t worry, I know you only like to spend other peoples’ money.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Chief Joseph
Member
Member


Joined: 10 Nov 2007
Posts: 7709 | TRs | Pics
Location: Verlot-Priest Lake
Chief Joseph
Member
PostWed Aug 26, 2020 6:58 pm 
xrp wrote:
Oh don’t worry, I know you only like to spend other peoples’ money.
He wants your corn chips...

Go placidly amid the noise and waste, and remember what comfort there may be in owning a piece thereof.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 1408 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
Member
PostWed Aug 26, 2020 6:59 pm 
The Forest Service publishes information on how NWFP money is used each year. The biggest expenditure category is "repair and maintenance" followed by "visitor services" and then "law enforcement." The forest service indicates some of the revenue is used to match for grant funds (for instance, Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office offers grants and the Forest Service is able to obtain funds form this agency if they can match the grant). My guess is the puppet show near Bend is funded by something like this. And the federal law that allows collection of fees also requires at least 80% of the revenue collected is to be retained and used at the site where it was generated. So 80% of the money that gets deposited in the box at Lake Ingalls must be spent at that location. Not sure how it works for people like me who buy a National Parks pass each year, which also includes a NWFP. Personally, I wish we had a more progressive state and federal taxation system with less loop holes so we wouldn't need to rely on things like the NWFP to fund the Forest Service.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9513 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostWed Aug 26, 2020 7:57 pm 
Personally, I'm OK with paying for the America the Beautiful / NWF pass even if all I get from it is a ranger patrolling the parking lot periodically to check for passes properly displayed. Even that level of patrolling I think discourages trailhead burglers at least a tiny bit.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Sculpin
Member
Member


Joined: 23 Apr 2015
Posts: 1383 | TRs | Pics
Sculpin
Member
PostThu Aug 27, 2020 8:02 am 
It happened again. I drove to the Mineral Creek trailhead, no "fee area" signs. The lot was full, about half the cars had a pass. Pulled mine out and discovered it expired last month. Darn. Loaded up and met a ranger in the parking lot. He made sure I had a free Alpine Lakes permit, but never mentioned parking passes. There are no amenities at this trailhead.

Between every two pines is a doorway to the new world. - John Muir
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 1408 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
Member
PostThu Aug 27, 2020 8:09 am 
For any parking permit law, the government must put you on notice that a permit is required. So if there is no sign indicating a fee is required, or the fee required sign is covered up (which seems to be the case in most places this summer) you don't need a permit.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9513 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostThu Aug 27, 2020 10:50 am 
altasnob wrote:
For any parking permit law, the government must put you on notice that a permit is required. So if there is no sign indicating a fee is required, or the fee required sign is covered up (which seems to be the case in most places this summer) you don't need a permit.
Not exactly true. There are plenty of parking regulations that don't require explicit signage at every point and can result not only in tickets, but also being towed. My wife discovered this the hard way when she parked with the nose of her car protruding 2 inches into the entrance curve of a driveway and returned to find her car towed.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12832 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostThu Aug 27, 2020 11:10 am 
^ Generally the municipal ordinances that deal with that parking offense call for 5 feet of clearance on either side of the driveway opening. I had a girlfriend long ago who had cars towed at least twice a week that were blocking her driveway entrance about half a block away from Alki Avenue. lol.gif Others, off the top of my head, which don't require signage: parking too far away from the curb, or not having the wheels pointed the right way when parallel parking on a hill.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 1408 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
Member
PostThu Aug 27, 2020 12:36 pm 
I said "parking permit law" not parking law. I can think of no situation where a parking permit is required to park, like the NWFP, where the government is relieved of their burden to put the citizen on notice that a permit is required. But for general parking laws, you are correct. A person is presumed to know all of the parking laws in the nation, and all of the traffic laws in the nation. And for all crimes and civil infractions, ignorance of the law is not a defense.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Trail Talk > Forest Pass Required this Year?
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum