Oregon Hikers

Give them the benefit of the doubt Adam. Look at all the money they're spending on the trails in that document
(Not a penny listed, it's all facilities, and increase of revenue by 600k from the public for access/use).

Over 500!!! people completed their questionnaire that helped inform their position. Even though it skewed 57% to 43% in favor of primitive experience over developed, they're going ahead with developing more toilets!

adamschneider wrote: ↑

January 4th, 2020, 10:10 pm

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.

I'd love to see how they enforce the per person trail head cover charge at just about any trail head. They can't even enforce it at JRO if you just want to hike.

Water wrote: ↑

January 4th, 2020, 10:41 pm

Over 500!!! people completed their questionnaire that helped inform their position. Even though it skewed 57% to 43% in favor of primitive experience over developed, they're going ahead with developing more toilets!

I am hopeful (but not informed) that the FS has some mandated standard of cleanliness for trails which might the reason for the toilets. How many of us have seen the piles of toilet paper in the woods from women who arrive at popular trail heads without toilets?

johnspeth wrote: ↑

January 5th, 2020, 6:24 am

Water wrote: ↑

January 4th, 2020, 10:41 pm

Over 500!!! people completed their questionnaire that helped inform their position. Even though it skewed 57% to 43% in favor of primitive experience over developed, they're going ahead with developing more toilets!

I am hopeful (but not informed) that the FS has some mandated standard of cleanliness for trails which might the reason for the toilets. How many of us have seen the piles of toilet paper in the woods from women who arrive at popular trail heads without toilets?

Uh, from *women*?!

"I am hopeful (but not informed) that the FS has some mandated standard of cleanliness for trails which might the reason for the toilets. How many of us have seen the piles of toilet paper in the woods from women [people] who arrive at popular trail heads without toilets?"

Logic does not apply

There's a law that says they can charge a fee at a trailhead if it has three (or six?) amenities - toilet, table, garbage can

They can't charge for just accessing undeveloped public land

Congress should pass a law that says they can charge at a trailhead if the fees are used to maintain the trail

Better yet, congress should just fund trail maintenance because it's so inefficient and unfair to charge a fee, enforce it,...

The FS gets a bad rap on this

in my opinion

best not to get into an argument on the internet whether men or women are the most disgusting, or whether those legal rulings unambiguously prohibit the fee if they have the three (or six?) amenities (they don't)

Water wrote: ↑

January 4th, 2020, 10:41 pm

Over 500!!! people completed their questionnaire that helped inform their position. Even though it skewed 57% to 43% in favor of primitive experience over developed, they're going ahead with developing more toilets!

If it's the survey I'm thinking of, it was developed to produce a particular result (wasn't a good-faith genuine survey). I aborted, because it was clear the U$F$ intended to use the survey to support what they already intended to do. Instead I submitted a very short simple profanity-laden comment indicating I was aware of their scheme, and was refusing to participate in the sham.

Now that I've actually seen the survey results (of 500 whole people), we can be crystal clear whenever someone says:

The thing is that when the Forest Service does surveys of facility users, paying for toilet facilities always comes out on top.

That first, basically 60% of people would rather a primitive experience vs developed. But when they're forced to answer what they want about developed sites, they say bathrooms. So it's not representative at all of what people actually want or where they want money to go.

People who prefer a primitive experience (I'm one of them) have plenty of options still, including trailheads that do not require a pass at all, though since I get a free pass due to volunteering, the pass is not really an issue for me. Also important to remember that the survey was only one of the methods of getting public input. Many groups that represent their members who recreate in various ways were a part of the process.

This document is about the RSA, whose goal is to match annual facilities maintenance with available resources. That means you either raise fees or lower services. The USFS does not have a way to actually increase funds provided to it from the general funds. The only way that they can increase resources is to either increase fees or recruit more volunteers. And most of the new or increased fees are for facilities like campgrounds.

As to trail maintenance for that wilderness experience, it seems to me that Gifford Pinchot does a pretty good job at keeping trails in shape, at least when compared to the scenic area or Mt Hood. And most of the trailheads on Mt Adams and Indian Heaven do not require a pass. A few new ones will require fees, but there still will be plenty that do not.

Yeah, I have sympathy for FS

Congress should authorize funding for trail maintenance, it would be negligible compared to total budget

I think overall, trails are in pretty good shape everywhere I go

retired jerry wrote: ↑

January 5th, 2020, 8:05 am

There's a law that says they can charge a fee at a trailhead if it has three (or six?) amenities - toilet, table, garbage can

No, there isn't. Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act has been interpreted by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as stating fees cannot be collected unless the amenities are actually used by the person(s) whom the FS wants to collect a fee.

They can't charge for just accessing undeveloped public land

best not to get into an argument on whether those legal rulings unambiguously prohibit the fee if they have the three (or six?) amenities (they don't)

There's no argument. Here's the ruling:

https://www.westernslopenofee.org/wp-co ... manded.pdf

Here's the part from the ruling that addresses being able to be charged:

For the foregoing reasons, we 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.