Judge Rules Forest Pass Fee Invalid in Southern California

Use this forum to post links to news stories from other websites - ones that other hikers might find interesting. This is not intended for original material or anecdotal information. You can reply to any news stories posted, but do not start a new thread without a link to a specific news story.
chrisca
Posts: 107
Joined: January 22nd, 2010, 10:48 am

Judge Rules Forest Pass Fee Invalid in Southern California

Post by chrisca » November 22nd, 2017, 6:24 pm

A judge has ruled Southern California's federal recreation pass program invalid in a lawsuit decision.
http://beta.latimes.com/science/science ... story.html

This is the same program as our NW Forest Pass. It could spell the end of our fee program if a similar suit were to be filed here, or if it's taken to the national level.

User avatar
xrp
Posts: 524
Joined: May 2nd, 2012, 10:26 am

Re: Judge Rules Forest Pass Fee Invalid in Southern Californ

Post by xrp » November 23rd, 2017, 7:40 am

That is pretty old news (over 3.5 years) now. It also stems from 2012 rulings against "Pay to Park" fees, including the NW Forest Pass.

I've cited this and the other another court case (Adams vs USFS, 2012) when posting on this forum and other NW hiking forums about there being no need to pay to hike/backpack/etc in National Forests. We in the NW already do not have to buy the NW Forest Pass. This is due to the ruling being made at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals level. That includes Oregon and Washington. As a result, the USFS cannot require any of us to purchase a NW Forest Pass unless we use the improvements at the trailheads.

It's pretty funny because many of the people who decry the proposed increase in US National Park 7-day fees argue that the NW Forest Pass is required and that you're a thief and a cheapskate if you don't buy one.

Aimless
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm
Location: Lake Oswego

Re: Judge Rules Forest Pass Fee Invalid in Southern Californ

Post by Aimless » November 23rd, 2017, 10:41 am

argue that the NW Forest Pass is required and that you're a thief and a cheapskate if you don't buy one.

As far as I know, the NW Forest Pass is still required at trailheads that meet the list of requirements, until your arguments have been tested for their legal validity. I invite you to bring the necessary test case. As for the rest of your assertions, I don't recall anyone but you tossing around such ugly words as thief or cheapskate, in spite of some very lengthy and somewhat heated discussions on the NWFP issue.

User avatar
xrp
Posts: 524
Joined: May 2nd, 2012, 10:26 am

Re: Judge Rules Forest Pass Fee Invalid in Southern Californ

Post by xrp » November 23rd, 2017, 1:56 pm

Aimless wrote: As far as I know, the NW Forest Pass is still required at trailheads that meet the list of requirements, until your arguments have been tested for their legal validity. I invite you to bring the necessary test case.
Fragosa et al vs USFS.
As for the rest of your assertions, I don't recall anyone but you tossing around such ugly words as thief or cheapskate, in spite of some very lengthy and somewhat heated discussions on the NWFP issue.
I think you need to go check and see if you have Alzheimer’s. Why would I say you’re a thief or cheapskate when I advocate not paying for the NWFP? Is there no end to your hate?

User avatar
Guy
Posts: 3333
Joined: May 10th, 2009, 4:42 pm
Location: The Foothills of Mt Hood
Contact:

Re: Judge Rules Forest Pass Fee Invalid in Southern Californ

Post by Guy » November 23rd, 2017, 10:49 pm

Aimless wrote:
As far as I know, the NW Forest Pass is still required at trailheads that meet the list of requirements, until your arguments have been tested for their legal validity.

Going from memory here but I think at least 2 times here in the Columbia George area people have contested their ticket for not having a NW Forest Pass and requested a court hearing. In both cases the USFS dropped the charges before going to court. Some would say better to drop charges on the few that contest than risk a local ruling saying the pass is not valid.
hiking log & photos.
Ad monte summa aut mors

User avatar
drm
Posts: 6133
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: The Dalles, OR
Contact:

Re: Judge Rules Forest Pass Fee Invalid in Southern Californ

Post by drm » November 24th, 2017, 9:11 am

Whatever the legality here, the system in So Calif is different. I have family there and visit every year. The permit there applies to parking anywhere within the forest. It's not just for specific places within the forest that have certain listed amenities like it is here.

User avatar
xrp
Posts: 524
Joined: May 2nd, 2012, 10:26 am

Re: Judge Rules Forest Pass Fee Invalid in Southern Californ

Post by xrp » November 24th, 2017, 2:57 pm

drm wrote:Whatever the legality here, the system in So Calif is different. I have family there and visit every year. The permit there applies to parking anywhere within the forest. It's not just for specific places within the forest that have certain listed amenities like it is here.
The Sno*Park pass is required for Sno*Parks because you are paying for the seasonal improvements (the clearing of the snow).

The NW Forest Pass isn’t required at all.

Adams vs USFS (Feb, 2012, I think) ruled that the USFS can’t charge for parking, but it can for amenities. Did you notice that the USFS put a ton of amenities everywhere over the summer of 2012? I noticed that picnic tables, garbage cans, new vault toilets or port-a-potties, etc, showed up at lots of rather obscure (low use) NF trailheads that I hike every summer.

That must have cost the USFS a good bit of money.

Then Fragosa et al vs USFS ruling came out and clarified that the USFS can charge, but only if the people being charged are using the amenities. So basically, they’d have to staff at the trailheads and audit those using/not using the toilet, picnic table, etc.

In short, sit on the picnic table, throw your garbage in the can and use the table = you are required to have NW Forest Pass (or Adventure Pass in CA). If you sit on a rock next to the picnic table, take your garbage home and pee behind a tree = you are not required to have a Pass.

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 14398
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Judge Rules Forest Pass Fee Invalid in Southern Californ

Post by retired jerry » November 24th, 2017, 3:31 pm

The ruling that said people have to use the facilities was for a stretch of highway that people parked all along. There were facilities at one spot. FS can't charge for parking all along that highway just because there are facilities at one spot.

It's a different case for a trailhead with facilities. They can charge even if you don't use the facilities.

Yeah, those picnic tables, garbage pickup, and outhouse are rather expensive. That law was intended for day use areas. The FS sort of piggybacked on it for trailheads.

Our congress should amend that law to say they can charge for a trailhead if they spend money improving the trail, don't need picnic table, garbage pickup, and outhouse at trailhead.

User avatar
xrp
Posts: 524
Joined: May 2nd, 2012, 10:26 am

Re: Judge Rules Forest Pass Fee Invalid in Southern Californ

Post by xrp » November 24th, 2017, 4:57 pm

retired jerry wrote:The ruling that said people have to use the facilities was for a stretch of highway that people parked all along. There were facilities at one spot. FS can't charge for parking all along that highway just because there are facilities at one spot.

It's a different case for a trailhead with facilities. They can charge even if you don't use the facilities.
What does this mean then:

“PARKING FEES IN NATIONAL FORESTS STRUCK DOWN - AGAIN

In a ruling issued April 28, 2014, Senior U.S. District Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr. found that the United States Forest Service cannot charge fees to visitors who park their vehicles and head off down the trail without using any developed facilities, such as picnic tables and bathrooms, that may be adjacent to the parking area.”

And

“This case, Fragosa et al v. US Forest Service, hinged on whether the Forest Service can require an Adventure Pass anywhere amenities are present, even if a visitor does not use them and only parks there while traveling through undeveloped areas.

In his ruling, Judge Hatter said decisively that they can not.”

In summary, the USFS cannot require you to buy a permit to park and use undeveloped areas.

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 14398
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Judge Rules Forest Pass Fee Invalid in Southern Californ

Post by retired jerry » November 24th, 2017, 6:37 pm

The case I was thinking of was:

http://forestpolicypub.com/2014/04/30/f ... -fee-case/

"In an earlier case, Adams v. U.S. Forest Service, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2012 that the Forest Service was similarly in violation of the FLREA when it charged visitors to Mt Lemmon, near Tucson, a fee to park anywhere along a 28-mile roadway that provides access to numerous backcountry trails."

Fragosa is a settlement agreement.

http://www.westernslopenofee.org/wp-con ... mended.pdf

It has a list of trailheads (exhibit A) that meet the facilities requirements (toilet, garbage, picnic table,...). The Forest Service can only charge at those sites. The parking area is within 1/2 mile of the facilities, boundaries specified for each.

The Forest Service can not charge for parking in a large area, like they had been, just because somewhere there are facilities.

Post Reply