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...retired jerry wrote: ↑July 15th, 2019, 2:34 pmthe amount of complaining about $30 fee exceeds it's importance compared to other problems
Explain the forest pass system?
Re: Explain the forest pass system?
Karl
Back on the trail, again...
Back on the trail, again...
Re: Explain the forest pass system?
removed
Last edited by Water on May 6th, 2020, 3:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Feel Free to Feel Free
Re: Explain the forest pass system?
removed
Last edited by Water on May 6th, 2020, 3:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Feel Free to Feel Free
- retired jerry
- Posts: 14424
- Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Re: Explain the forest pass system?
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
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
-
- Posts: 3068
- Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
- Location: Portland, OR
- Contact:
Re: Explain the forest pass system?
Sounds like centralizing their administrative processes has not helped.
- retired jerry
- Posts: 14424
- Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Re: Explain the forest pass system?
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
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
Re: Explain the forest pass system?
removed
Last edited by Water on May 6th, 2020, 3:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Feel Free to Feel Free
Re: Explain the forest pass system?
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.
- retired jerry
- Posts: 14424
- Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Re: Explain the forest pass system?
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.
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.
Re: Explain the forest pass system?
Appreciated!
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...?McCarter wrote: ↑July 16th, 2019, 9:30 amFor 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.
Where was he parked? What has he done in hopes of a dismissal?retired jerry wrote: ↑July 16th, 2019, 9:46 amI'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.
Karl
Back on the trail, again...
Back on the trail, again...