How "OregonHiker" is this forum?

[retired jerry]

"unambiguously prohibited"

clearly doesn't allow charging if they don't provide the three services

only a conspiracy theorist would interpret those decisions to mean they can't charge a fee if the three services are provided

ambiguous whether I'm being trolled, or I'm doing the trolling

[Water]

Jerry,

you and I are on good terms, and I realize I'm a stickler about permits, but you've been obtuse about this.

If you actually read the ruling, the judge says in very clear wording, paying to park, without using said amenities, to simply go hiking, is not allowed. the REA (recreation enhancement act) is clear that they cannot charge for parking.

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

It's not a conspiracy theory idea, seriously, go read the above decision. There are multiple instances where it clarifies what the REA allows and does not allow, and that regardless of amenities offered (it's 6 amenities), for hiking, camping in undeveloped areas, and picnics..the FS has no grounds to 'charge' you. It clearly makes the case that if you were dropped off as such a trailhead, you would not have to pay a fee/have the pass. The FS is absolutely not permitted to charge for parking.

the FS can charge you a fee if you want to use their services. Hiking a trail is not considered one of those services. Neither is parking alone.

[retired jerry]

I have no ill will towards any of you that believe it's not legal, just something to argue about for no good reason

The case in Tuscon was that the FS couldn't charge anywhere along a miles long road just because there were those amenities at one location. They could only charge in the area next to the amenities.

"The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (“REA”)
prohibits the United States Forest Service from charging fees
“[s]olely for parking, undesignated parking, or picnicking
along roads or trailsides,” for “hiking through . . . without
using the facilities and services,” and “[f]or camping at undeveloped
sites . . . .” 16 U.S.C. § 6802(d)(1)(A), (D) & (E).
Despite these clear prohibitions, the Forest Service collects
fees from all drivers who park their vehicles in a mile-wide
piece of the Coronado National Forest running along the 28–
mile Catalina Highway, the only paved road to the summit of
Mount Lemmon, a heavily used recreational area an hour’s
drive from downtown Tucson, Arizona. "

That looks pretty clear to me

[mjirving]

But can I post trip reports from outside of Oregon?

(Clearly anything is on the table after the divergence of this thread! )

I just pay the small cost and don’t worry about it. And enjoy my emergency bathroom stops at the trailhead. That’s worth $35 or whatever it is if I only need it once a year! (I know...it’s the principle of the thing)

Mike

[retired jerry]

Back in the bad old days before the senior access pass, I would continue to use the pass after it expired. At least for a month or two. Mostly just unintentional.

I just walked through the Burnt Lake trailhead and glanced at a couple cars parked, they had passes.

I later walked through Ramona Falls trailhead. There were maybe 100 cars? 200? I forgot to look and see how many had permits.

I parked outside Lost Creek campground. I think maybe there's a little less chance of being vandalized? I had my senior access pass on the dashboard with phone number to my wife, they could have called her and asked about it. The camp host ratted me out to the FS and they put this imposing fluorescent orange sticker on it saying that it was abandoned and if I didn't move it within a week they'd tow it

[Water]

what you quoted is part of the judge's opinion against the FS.

You've multiple times quoted that, it's a very quick summary at the start. Yes, the HIRA was in question, as it derived it's existence from REA. The HIRA is just a method of applying the REA fee collection. Please read the discussion part of the court case. There are numerous instances that the judge directly points to REA conditions, not just the HIRA situation. The nuts and bolts of NWFP is derived from REA, and REA very plainly (judge's words) does not allow to pay to park and hike/backpack, picnic, even if there are amenities at a location.

This list of prohibited fees includes those that are: “[s]olely for
parking, undesignated parking, or picnicking along roads or
trailsides”; “[f]or persons who are driving through, walking
through, boating through, horseback riding through, or hiking
through Federal recreational lands and waters without using
the facilities and services”; and “[f]or camping at undeveloped
sites that do not provide a minimum number of facilities
and services as described in 16 U.S.C. § 6802(g)(2)(A).” 16
U.S.C. § 6802(d)(1)(A), (D), & (E). The statute is abundantly
clear that a standard amenity recreation fee cannot, under any
circumstances, be charged for those activities.

[4] A. The Forest Service is prohibited from charging an
amenity fee “[s]olely for parking.” 16 U.S.C.
§ 6802(d)(1)(A). There is nothing ambiguous about that text.
If all a visitor does is park, and he is charged a fee, that fee
is imposed “[s]olely for parking.” If a visitor parks at Mount
Lemmon, he is charged a fee. If a visitor goes to Mount Lemmon
but does not park there, he is not charged a fee. See
United States v. Smith, 740 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1124
(D. Ariz. 16 U.S.C. § 6802(f)(1)-(3) 2010)
(“It is apparent that Mr. Smith would not have received
a ticket had he not parked a vehicle, i.e., had a friend delivered
him to the trailhead and retrieved him the following day.
Accordingly, what Mr. Smith received was actually a ticket
for parking, clearly prohibited by the plain language of the
statute.”). It may often be the case that a visitor, after parking,
does something else. Then the fee would not be “[s]olely for
parking,” and so long as the “something else” is not another
activity for which subsection (d)(1) prohibits an amenity recreation
fee, the agency is free to charge him. But if a visitor
does nothing other than park, the fee is solely for parking and
is therefore plainly prohibited by the REA.



it's not just a HIRA thing. It's a REA thing. And the REA says:

[2] But the REA prohibits the Forest Service from charging
that fee, even in a place where subsection (f) would otherwise
authorize it, “for certain activities or services.” 16 U.S.C.
§ 6802(d)(1). This blanket “[p]rohibition on fees for certain
activities or services” forbids fees, among other things:
“[s]olely for parking, undesignated parking, or picnicking
along roads or trailsides”;
“[f]or persons who are driving through, walking
through, boating through, horseback riding through,
or hiking through Federal recreational lands and
waters without using the facilities and services”; and
“[f]or camping at undeveloped sites that do not provide
a minimum number of facilities and services as
described in 16 U.S.C. § 6802(g)(2)(A).”

[retired jerry]

solely for parking

if you park where there are those amenities, then it's not solely for parking, it includes the amenities, even if you don't use them

there's another case that comes closer to what you're talking about

it would be interesting to have a case that's more clear cut, like parking at the Burnt Lake trailhead

the Tuscon case has that 28 mile road, so that confuses it

it would be nice if congress passed a law that said the FS can charge for a trailhead, if the money is used to maintain the trail. Then they wouldn't have to waste money on the amenities.

[Eric Peterson]

Ugh Jerry, lets not enable this current congress and Zinke doesn't need any ideas either

[retired jerry]

I don't think this congress will be passing laws to pay for trail maintenance, they have more important things to do

(softball pitched, ready to hit out of ball park)

[viking]

I have been using the same pass for 6-8-10? Years so far. I don’t think the ticket writers look very closely.