Explain the forest pass system?

General discussions on hiking in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest
User avatar
kepPNW
Posts: 6351
Joined: June 21st, 2012, 9:55 am
Location: Salmon Creek

Re: Explain the forest pass system?

Post by kepPNW » July 15th, 2019, 2:37 pm

retired jerry wrote:
July 15th, 2019, 2:34 pm
the amount of complaining about $30 fee exceeds it's importance compared to other problems
Agreed. If(!) that were what it was about. I'd suggest that to those who complain the most vociferously, it's not the chump change that's grating...
Karl
Back on the trail, again...

(Photos · PortlandHikers)

User avatar
Water
Posts: 1245
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Explain the forest pass system?

Post by Water » July 15th, 2019, 2:44 pm

I like your attitude McCarter. As an attorney can you offer any non-binding, speculative, 'consult your doctor if you need real medical advice' 2 cents on 9th circuit court rulings?

Jerry, except the $30 fee has never been about the cost. It's always and entirely been about the principal of the matter. Including that NWFP was never meant to be sole sources of revenue for trails, but the FS abdicated the budgets they had once the permits came online. And that the NWFP has its origins in pay-to-play commercial interest outdoors industry, because if you pay for your experience it's going to be better! The same way the LEA and now the entire wilderness wide restrictions will go into effect in Central Oregon. About how wilderness access is restricted, monetized, and permitted. You may have been able to plan weekend outings on a whim at the last minute for most of your life but my kid won't be able to.

Who can he thank for the honor of spontaneously planning a lottery application 6 months before he wants to go hiking? Me? Just blame too many people? IMO the FS bears so much responsibility and ire but shrugs and says 'budgets cuts' whilst they treated the forests terribly for years, made recreation a second thought to logging, focus on capital improvements, instead of getting their hands dirty. Make any guesses about FS admin costs as a percentage of budget in 1980 vs 2019... money spent on trail positions vs office.
Feel Free to Feel Free

User avatar
Water
Posts: 1245
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Explain the forest pass system?

Post by Water » July 15th, 2019, 2:50 pm

oh, and the FS has decomissioned numerous trails and camping areas as population went up, then they complain that there's too many people and they don't disburse.. :roll:

thankfully they can't erase the truth that exists on old maps.
Feel Free to Feel Free

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 12774
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Explain the forest pass system?

Post by retired jerry » July 15th, 2019, 3:17 pm

I love you all by the way :)

Weren't trails paid for from lumber fees? there was a period when the amount of timber cutting increased, like when Hatfield and Packwood were senators. Except that was unsustainable so the amount of cutting decreased which left trails underfunded

And of course fighting fires has consumed more of the budget leaving less for recreation

The CCC built a lot of the trails - of course that program is long gone

Congress should pass a funding increase for recreation. Instruct the Forest Service that the public is their customer. They should encourage more people to use the National Forest including the Three Sisters and Jefferson Wilderness. If there are too many people at Green Lakes, build designated sites nearby, like off the trail over to Broken Top. Build a new Ramona Falls Trailhead sized parking area.

Wasn't the NWFP based on the law that says the Forest Service can't charge just for access to National Forest, they can only charge for developed areas. The law specifies the three (or six) amenities required, which is more appropriate for a day use or picnic area. Trailheads don't really fit very well, but that's the only law applicable for charging hikers at a trailhead. If they're going to charge fees for trailheads, they should pass a law that says the fees can go to trail maintenance. Except its inefficient to collect fees and police them, better to just pay for it with income taxes

justpeachy
Posts: 2775
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Re: Explain the forest pass system?

Post by justpeachy » July 15th, 2019, 3:21 pm

Water wrote:
July 15th, 2019, 2:44 pm
Make any guesses about FS admin costs as a percentage of budget in 1980 vs 2019... money spent on trail positions vs office.
Sounds like centralizing their administrative processes has not helped.

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 12774
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Explain the forest pass system?

Post by retired jerry » July 15th, 2019, 4:49 pm

good article

like much of government, on a downward trend since 1970 or so. Government is bad and should be defunded. So there are more tax cuts for wealthy people :)

User avatar
Water
Posts: 1245
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Explain the forest pass system?

Post by Water » July 16th, 2019, 8:10 am

http://www.georgewright.org/222silver.pdf

if anyone wants an actual history on explaining the pass system, where it came from and why.
Feel Free to Feel Free

McCarter
Posts: 11
Joined: June 24th, 2019, 8:27 am

Re: Explain the forest pass system?

Post by McCarter » July 16th, 2019, 9:30 am

Water wrote:
July 15th, 2019, 2:44 pm
As an attorney can you offer any non-binding, speculative, 'consult your doctor if you need real medical advice' 2 cents on 9th circuit court rulings?
Sure i'll take the bait. [insert excessive caveats about this being a personal opinion and not legal advice]. The Adams case certainly makes it clear that you cannot charge fees for just parking and backpacking/hiking in National Forest areas that don't have adequate amenities, lets just say "undeveloped" for the sake of simplicity. Even though the language in Adams is very broad other cases have sided with the USFS when it comes to trailheads that are developed. Both Fragosa and Wiechers (cases discussed on other threads) ended in a settlement that identified all the trailheads in Sequoia National Forest where a fee can be charged. Even if you are just parking and not using amenities it would be almost impossible to police who is using what, which other district courts and I think the 10th circuit have pointed out, meaning you are probably still subject to fees at developed regardless of how you "use" them.

My takeaway is that if you regularly backpack/hike/picnic(?) from trailheads with a toilet you might want a NW forest pass. For example, Pansey Lake TH in Bull of the Woods is rather primitive and has no toilet, so no pass, versus something like the new Mirror Lake TH in MHNF which has amenities and probably a sweet toilet. There are other amenities requirements, but the "toilet rule" seems an easy enough rule to live by.

Anyways. Loving all the responses here. That Silver article is great, his declaration in the Kapka Butte Sno-Park dispute is a great read as well, really unfortunate that he lost that fight.

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 12774
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Explain the forest pass system?

Post by retired jerry » July 16th, 2019, 9:46 am

yeah, people misinterpret the Adams case and that other case to say that if you don't use the amenities then you don't have to pay. A favorite topic here :)

I think what's safe is to look and see if it's posted that a NWFP is required, and if so, then have one.

But you can probably just ignore it and get away with it. I'm waiting to see what happens with my buddy that got an $80 ticket. He said he'll just pay the $80 if they don't dismiss it.

I've heard of a ranger putting a note on window saying to please buy a pass. I think that's more common than a ticket. And most common is for nothing to happen.

User avatar
kepPNW
Posts: 6351
Joined: June 21st, 2012, 9:55 am
Location: Salmon Creek

Re: Explain the forest pass system?

Post by kepPNW » July 16th, 2019, 9:54 am

McCarter wrote:
July 16th, 2019, 9:30 am
Sure i'll take the bait. [insert excessive caveats about this being a personal opinion and not legal advice].
Appreciated! :D
McCarter wrote:
July 16th, 2019, 9:30 am
For example, Pansey Lake TH in Bull of the Woods is rather primitive and has no toilet, so no pass, versus something like the new Mirror Lake TH in MHNF which has amenities and probably a sweet toilet. There are other amenities requirements, but the "toilet rule" seems an easy enough rule to live by.
You knew the word analysis would come to bear, right? ;) Would the suggested "toilet rule" apply to porta-potties, which by their very name don't seem to be a "permanent toilet facility" as written in the law, or...?
retired jerry wrote:
July 16th, 2019, 9:46 am
I'm waiting to see what happens with my buddy that got an $80 ticket. He said he'll just pay the $80 if they don't dismiss it.
Where was he parked? What has he done in hopes of a dismissal?
Karl
Back on the trail, again...

(Photos · PortlandHikers)

Post Reply