New Northwest Forest Passes

[drm]

Nobody has ever commented as to how on earth they are supposed to know whether you use amenities if you are parked there. Of course they could add facial recognition cameras to the toilets. Then we would know.

I would add that in surveys of the public, providing toilets is the overwhelming favorite use of the money.

[retired jerry]

"If you just park, hike, use undeveloped sites and don’t use the garbage can, port-a-potty/vault toilet, picnic bench, etc — they cannot require the NWFP."

That's what I disagree with - if you park in the designated area with the amenities they can charge even if you don't use the amenities. If you look through those cases it's a little bit ambiguous. We need a lawsuit to determine unambiguously.

If you park outside the designated area and walk through the designated area they can't charge. Even if you use the amenities. That's how I read those cases.

The problem is that the Forest Service (and other agencies) doesn't have enough funds to maintain trails. NWFP is a means to provide some funds. If you go to a trailhead and look at vehicles, a lot of them have the pass hanging from the rear view mirror. The amenities provide some benefit - people often have to use the toilet when they first arrive at a trailhead, the garbage can reduces garbage strewn around. I'll often set my pack on the picnic table.

The congress did, at least partially, address the issue of the Forest Service budget being depleted on fire fighting. They should allocate a little more funds for trail maintenance and not require NWFP.

[xrp]

"If you just park, hike, use undeveloped sites and don’t use the garbage can, port-a-potty/vault toilet, picnic bench, etc — they cannot require the NWFP."

That's what I disagree with - if you park in the designated area with the amenities they can charge even if you don't use the amenities. If you look through those cases it's a little bit ambiguous. We need a lawsuit to determine unambiguously.

If you park outside the designated area and walk through the designated area they can't charge. Even if you use the amenities. That's how I read those cases.

The problem is that the Forest Service (and other agencies) doesn't have enough funds to maintain trails. NWFP is a means to provide some funds. If you go to a trailhead and look at vehicles, a lot of them have the pass hanging from the rear view mirror. The amenities provide some benefit - people often have to use the toilet when they first arrive at a trailhead, the garbage can reduces garbage strewn around. I'll often set my pack on the picnic table.

The congress did, at least partially, address the issue of the Forest Service budget being depleted on fire fighting. They should allocate a little more funds for trail maintenance and not require NWFP.

Here’s the judge’s ruling:

Adams is quite clear. The Forest Service is prohibited from charging a fee solely for parking. If a visitor does nothing other than park, the fee is solely for parking and is, therefore, plainly prohibited by the REA. Adams, 671 F.3d at 1143-44. "[W]e conclude that the REA unambiguously prohibits the Forest Service from charging fees in the Mount Lemmon HIRA for recreational visitors who park a car, then camp at undeveloped sites, picnic along roads or trailsides, or hike through the area without using the facilities and services." Adams, 671 F.3d at 1146. Each Plaintiff parked and hiked without using facilities and services.

This is plain as day. USFS is prohibited to charge for parking/camping/picnicking/hiking if the people don’t use the amenities. You can park right next to the crapper, on the opposite side of the parking lot or a mile away and hike to the crapper and pass by it to the trailhead.

It doesn’t matter if you agree or disagree with it, Jerry. It’s there plain as day, USFS cannot charge for parking, even if you park 12 inches from the crapper.

[retired jerry]

The Mount Lemmon HIRA is a 26 mile section of road. There was one spot where they had amenitities. They were charging for the entire 26 mile section.

What's unambiguous is they can't charge for the entire 26 mile section.

[Limey]

It is my opinion that #6 on the list of required amenities (security services) in itself totally negates the need for a NWFP. How many security services has anyone seen at a trailhead? If they are there, then they are failing miserably as evidenced by all the car break-ins.

[retired jerry]

I have seen law enforcement drive through. But they're squozen for funds too. And it would be impossible to have enough security at every trailhead.

I think the problem is more about drug use and inability to get a good job. Societal problems. Difficult to solve. Break-ins at trailheads is a tiny part of the problem.

[Guy]

I think the problem is more about drug use and inability to get a good job. Societal problems. Difficult to solve. Break-ins at trailheads is a tiny part of the problem.

Drug use yes, inability to get a good job is often because of the drug use or the inability to simply come to work on time every day.

[retired jerry]

definitely - the two are related

[xrp]

The Mount Lemmon HIRA is a 26 mile section of road. There was one spot where they had amenitities. They were charging for the entire 26 mile section.

What's unambiguous is they can't charge for the entire 26 mile section.

Correct! They can’t charge for any of the 26 mile section. They can only charge you the fee if you use the amenities.

[Chip Down]

New pass, old pass, blue pass, gold pass, whatever. I ignore it all.

I bought a day pass once, in an area I figured was probably exposed to enforcement (popular, paved road, weekend). I still feel a little guilty about it. If we all resisted their scheme, it would be unsustainable, it would crumble.