NW Forest Pass and Missing Amenities

[Bosterson]

Yes, there are six amenities, but I just listed the three b/c those are the ones that I figured might be missing. The other ones are:

..."Security services."

How does the USFS contend that this amenity requirement is being met, like, anywhere? There is not a single TH, with the exception of maybe like Eagle Creek or something where a ranger is actually physically there all the time, where one could say that security services are being provided. Unless the FS argues that by having someone show up to collect the trash every few days, that amounts to security service...

[retired jerry]

Does it count if the police (state, county, Forest Service, whatever,...) patrol every once in a while

I see police every once in a while

I think every trailhead I've been to has developed parking and kiosk

[cunningkeith]

..."Security services."

How does the USFS contend that this amenity requirement is being met, like, anywhere?

I agree, but my suspicion is that courts would accept something like "we have a ranger that goes there once per month." I just think there's too much wiggle room in the term "security services."

Remember, the FS argued that the term "permanent toilet facility" applies to a port-a-potty that was removed seasonally. But they ended up losing that one . . .

[retired jerry]

For $35 a year do you expect a permanent security person monitoring your car?

[cunningkeith]

For $35 a year do you expect a permanent security person monitoring your car?

Could you throw in a valet too, please?

I think we're all getting to the same point. To actually provide the six amenities that they claim to provide, the FS would have to develop an entirely different fee structure.

I totally understand that the FS is cash-strapped, and that they need more money to do trail work. I just don't like them using a law that wasn't designed for this.

[drm]

Useful perhaps but I would rather get rid of everything at the THs, have excellent trail maintenance on tons of trails, and sure have a pass for all of them, I could actually get on board with that.

Believe me, I have figured that that's your priority. But many people drink coffee in the morning, and when they get to the TH, they want to unload that. There is often a line in the morning. That's why so many guidebooks list whether there are toilets at trailheads, because it is really important to a lot of people. I'm guessing they are mostly dayhikers since backpackers must make their peace with less facilities.

And yes, for those people it probably is more important than trail maintenance. Because they really don't want to go in the woods. They would rather deal with stepping over logs or managing less-than-ideal trail conditions than they would squatting over the ground.

I remember back in the days when I did a lot of budget travel. The joke was that Europeans cared about how clean the restaurants were and Americans cared how clean the toilets were.

[Guy]

Another story - they should be able to use NWFP fees to maintain trails, not have to have those amenities.

The thing is that when the Forest Service does surveys of facility users, paying for toilet facilities always comes out on top. I don't think it's the most popular thing on this site, but I guess that's not representative. And if they were to use NWFP funds for general trail maintenance, then they would have to get rid of the facilities requirement. It might mean that all trailheads would require the pass.

Is it not true though that the USFS isn't even spending all the money it's banking a lot of it. What they collect they should spend on trails.

I actually think toilets are a good idea at popular trailheads for the very reason that they are popular. I'm fine with the NWFP pass if: all the money collected is spent on the trails and necessary facilities where needed like toilets.

Garbage cans just compound problems they should all be removed. If there is a garbage can then there is an expectation that you can leave your garbage in it and that someone will empty it! Who here hasn't seen garbage cans overflowing with trash that then gets spread around because it has not been emptied when full. Most (not all) people will take their garbage home with them if there is no option to leave it behind!

[oldandslow]

I do not have access to a copy of United States Code but from what I read on line, the authority of the Secretary to charge these fees expires on September 30 this year. 16 USC 6809.

[retired jerry]

"I think we're all getting to the same point."

I don't think there'll ever be agreement on this. This seems like a favorite thing to discuss. $35 a year fee. I don't think hardly anyone is prosecuted for violating.

[Thuja]

.