I tried finding a similar list for Gifford Pinchot - where a NWFP is accepted but the interagency pass is not, and couldn't find one. I found a page that lists all sites where a NWFP is required in the GP, and below it says that interagency passes are accepted at any of those sites. But I think I will call to get confirmation of that.
In addition, the Mt Adams Ranger District seems to do a lot less of concessionaire agreements than other national forests, or than the northern Cowlitz district, which sort of covers the land north of Adams and east of MSH.
BTW, we have been through this thing about when fees are allowed multiple times, and selective cherry picking of the regs to make a point is tiresome. But I have learned that arguing it and searching the full regs to make that point again and again is a waste of time. Folks who are interested can look up that history elsewhere. But there are many trailheads that require no fees if you want to avoid them.
Strange experience at Frog Lake Day Use area
Re: Strange experience at Frog Lake Day Use area
Cherry-picking? Huh? I thought I was 100% on topic. The topic was which pass to post and someone else posted the regs which say no fees can be charged for these very activities, and there are a couple of court cases that address this very issue, and I was replying to a question Chip Down asked for clarification. That sounds 100% on target to me. But is someone else want to call it cherry-picking, I guess it is the season to be picking cherries. Following the law seems to be the pits.
Re: Strange experience at Frog Lake Day Use area
Cherry picking doesn't mean off-topic, it means you only use info that supports your position, ignoring others. When those court decisions are looked at in full, it is clear that the NWFP is legal and allowed, though there have been cases of individual locations it was wrongly applied to. It is allowable when certain extra amenities are provided. And yes, you have to pay whether or not you use the amenities because we have no way of knowing if you use them. But they are easy to avoid anyway. On Mt Adams I think that there is only one trailhead that requires a NWFP.
This all is a bit off-topic regarding the abuses of concessionaire impact on passes.
This all is a bit off-topic regarding the abuses of concessionaire impact on passes.
Re: Strange experience at Frog Lake Day Use area
Let's be really clear on this.
The Golden Age Pass is sold to persons by the federal government for use on all public lands. The effort to privatize public land through the concessionaire agreement constitutes out-right fraud. There is no possible argument to the contrary.
The Recreational Enhancement Act is specific to USFS land and specifically states which activities which cannot be charged fees and the courts have agreed, using the very specific phrase "unambiguously prohibited." Shame on anyone who calls this cherry-picking when we are talking about these very specific activities.
The originator of this string should not have been denied use of the public land because they had "the wrong permit" which was actually the right permit. And, there should have been no permit required because it is specifically stated in the REA which the USFS is required to follow, as so specifically stated by the courts.
I will continue to make this point because "turning the other cheek" to go hike some other trail is quickly becoming less of an alternative. More trails are requiring fees, and those that don't are not maintained. The monies which originally went to trail maintenance were diverted elsewhere (I personally knew the accountant for MHNF who told me this at the time it was done). We have looked the other way for too long. The time when your public lands are completely privatized will happen during your lifetime if the current rate of change continues.
This is a hiking forum and its participants should support access to trails. Anything else should be considered conspiracy to commit a crime. This crime had been known as a "land grab" but now it's probably just complacency. Either way, it does not support your continued access to public land.
The Golden Age Pass is sold to persons by the federal government for use on all public lands. The effort to privatize public land through the concessionaire agreement constitutes out-right fraud. There is no possible argument to the contrary.
The Recreational Enhancement Act is specific to USFS land and specifically states which activities which cannot be charged fees and the courts have agreed, using the very specific phrase "unambiguously prohibited." Shame on anyone who calls this cherry-picking when we are talking about these very specific activities.
The originator of this string should not have been denied use of the public land because they had "the wrong permit" which was actually the right permit. And, there should have been no permit required because it is specifically stated in the REA which the USFS is required to follow, as so specifically stated by the courts.
I will continue to make this point because "turning the other cheek" to go hike some other trail is quickly becoming less of an alternative. More trails are requiring fees, and those that don't are not maintained. The monies which originally went to trail maintenance were diverted elsewhere (I personally knew the accountant for MHNF who told me this at the time it was done). We have looked the other way for too long. The time when your public lands are completely privatized will happen during your lifetime if the current rate of change continues.
This is a hiking forum and its participants should support access to trails. Anything else should be considered conspiracy to commit a crime. This crime had been known as a "land grab" but now it's probably just complacency. Either way, it does not support your continued access to public land.
Re: Strange experience at Frog Lake Day Use area
You mean the picnic thing? No, I was just amused that the guy with the Yogi avatar is mentioning picnics, that's all.
Re: Strange experience at Frog Lake Day Use area
Maybe I was the one digressing. We have no disagreement on the concessionaire issue. All Federal sites run by concessionaires should include a clause to allow all permits that would be usable if there was no concession.
I think on other difference in our perspective is that I spend a lot more time in the GP as opposed to MH NF. There are few concessions in the Mt Adams District and there also is a stronger trail maintenance effort from NF staff that clears most, if not all, maintained trails every year, irregardless of fee status. Hood and Adams are the same distance for me, but I go to Hood far less mostly because of the far larger crowds.
I think on other difference in our perspective is that I spend a lot more time in the GP as opposed to MH NF. There are few concessions in the Mt Adams District and there also is a stronger trail maintenance effort from NF staff that clears most, if not all, maintained trails every year, irregardless of fee status. Hood and Adams are the same distance for me, but I go to Hood far less mostly because of the far larger crowds.