Oregon Hikers

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DO ... 670981.pdf

not exhaustive by any means. YAY fees! Why is it I can't find anywhere on Gifford Pinchot's website how much they spent on trail maintenance in any year? Or how many miles of trail was maintained by employees vs volunteers, etc in a given year? I would take estimates. Is this a very difficult metric to track?

trailheads with no fees that will become fee trailheads:
snowgrass (2021)
siouxon (2021)
june lake (2021)
smith creek (2021)
marble mountain (outside of snopark season) (2021)
crest camp (2021)
east crater (2021)
falls creek falls (2021)
south couldwater (2021)

increased fee:
ape canyon TH (2021)
norway pass TH (2021)
ape cave (2020)
climbers bivouac (2021)
independence pass (2020)

other:
south climb #183 (mt adams cold springs) - new expanded amenity fee for 'bivouac' climbers, aka people sleeping in their car or next to their car.
coldwater lake (re-establish monument standard amenity fee, do major renovation to tune of $860k)

Water wrote: ↑

December 27th, 2019, 3:30 pm

Why is it I can't find anywhere on Gifford Pinchot's website how much they spent on trail maintenance in any year? Or how many miles of trail was maintained by employees vs volunteers, etc in a given year? I would take estimates. Is this a very difficult metric to track?

Tracking it and getting it up on the website are two very different things. It's not like the website for a single national forest is some Wordpress site that they have 100% control over. I once asked for total counts of trailhead permits filled out, and it was suggested that I submit a Freedom of Information request. I eventually got those numbers without a FOIA request, but these kinds of things can be buried deep in the bureaucracy. And the people who do the field work are often the most resistant to doing or fighting the bureaucracy, so maybe they don't even try.

What we need is a class action lawsuit that will get USFS' attention. The phrase "unambiguously prohibited" is somehow ambiguous. Too bad one of couldn't make a citizen's arrest. There's got to be a pro bono lawyer somewhere out there that will enforce Adams vs USFS or Bark vs USFS. They were federal court decisions after all.

Until then, those who love to pay fees can rejoice in the illegality of it all.

BigBear wrote: ↑

December 30th, 2019, 12:46 pm

The phrase "unambiguously prohibited" is somehow ambiguous.

You mean like ... shall not be infringed?

I guess it's time to escalate the resistance.
(Yeah, right, like that will happen.)

Mass movements are very hard to create. Individual choices are easier to implement, but may change nothing and result in costs you prefer not to pay. Do what you think best.

What does it mean to “become fee trailheads” ?

Northwest Forest Pass required?

That’s already not applicable per two 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rulings on charging for using the outdoors.

xrp wrote: ↑

January 3rd, 2020, 7:28 pm

What does it mean to “become fee trailheads” ?
Northwest Forest Pass required?

Yes, that they're going to make capital improvements with a maintenance outlay that never ends (permanent toilets that require stocking, pump out, lock down in winter, repair when broken, vandalized, etc, and periodic trash service, not to mention the picnic table(s) and informative kiosk, and 'security services', per FLREA). And do so while they have existing maintenance backlogs that they cannot fund. Following the first rule of finding yourself deep in a hole, dig deeper!

That’s already not applicable per two 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rulings on charging for using the outdoors.

I see you've had as much luck getting the forest service to understand as I have.

Water wrote: ↑

December 27th, 2019, 3:30 pm

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DO ... 670981.pdf

not exhaustive by any means. YAY fees!

There's a phrase used throughout that document that they don't bother defining in any way whatsoever...

USFS wrote:Re-establish Monument standard amenity fee for site
or convert site to Monument Pass fee site. Site is
approved Monument Pass Site.

Anyone have more (as in, actual) details about that?

Sidestep around the <cough>limitations</cough> inherent (Adams) in NWFP?

kepPNW wrote: ↑

January 4th, 2020, 9:25 am

There's a phrase used throughout that document that they don't bother defining in any way whatsoever...

USFS wrote:Re-establish Monument standard amenity fee for site
or convert site to Monument Pass fee site. Site is
approved Monument Pass Site.

Anyone have more (as in, actual) details about that?

I wondered about that too. I googled it just now and came up with a 2012 MSHNVM map [PDF], where blue dots are labeled as "Monument Pass required." The only current location listed as requiring an MP is Johnston Ridge Observatory... so maybe they're planning to expand the wristband thing. The ominous thing about this possibility is that JRO charges a fee per person, not per vehicle.