USFS Fee ruled illegal in AZ

[psmart]

The $80 annual fee is steep, but if you do much galavanting around, it may not seem that bad compared to past years. It is an improvement over systems involving a permit for each separate entity or unit.

The Snowy Mtns National Park (in Australia) is now charging $200 per year for an entry pass! And the pass is valid only in that state!

 

[jrichard]

is this in the noise?

Of course, there's the principle of the efficiency (or lack thereof, as enumerated above) but if you hike a lot, this is a relatively small fee.

I'd be willing to bet that many members of this board are driving around 300 miles round trip to hike in the Whites. Even at 30 mpg , that's on the order of $27. That doesn't include wear and tear, NH out-of-state tolls, etc... or any of the gear related to the trip. IMHO, the best feature of the parking pass is that, to get around the fee, more people are carpooling. At least in my experience.

In past years the New Hampshire F&G department has floated the idea of a hiking fee of some sort to offset rescue operations, perhaps a registration fee similar to fishing, hunting, snowmobile, and ATV registrations. I can imagine some folks getting into a tizzy about that.

 

[forestgnome]

Below are some excerpts from a Dec. 4, 2006 press release issued by the US Department of Interior, outlining a new federal lands recreation pass/permit system.



Now, here’s the part everybody should be very interested in. How much will this cost me?

From the 12/4/06 release:



At least we now have available one pass that covers multiple sites / jurisdictions. The $80 annual fee is steep, but if you do much galavanting around, it may not seem that bad compared to past years. It is an improvement over systems involving a permit for each separate entity or unit.

And look at the benefit to active volunteers! Bless those volunteers’ good hearts for the work they do to make our recreation more pleasant. They now won’t have to wait for passage to Heaven before receiving some of their just rewards.

As an active taxpayer, I’ll still “bellyache” about the add-on Wreckreation fees charged to use federally held public land. And appreciate all the more the no-charge access from state developed trailheads and parking available to those of us who also enjoy hiking in the Adirondacks.

Just call me …

G(rumpy).

I aaume this does not replace the WMNF pass. Many people hike exclusively, or nearly exclusively, in the WMNF or ADKs, etc.

 

[darren]

Every time I hear people carp about parking fees I get a headache from their bellyaching. As a volunteer trail maintainer I spend over a thousand dollars a year out of my retirement income travelling to and from my work sites and paying for the minor items involved in my "volunteer" work. Granted I am allowed to claim twelve cents a mile for volunteer travel, but with fuel costs where they are, that doesn't come close. Of course I have had my GAP for more than five years now so since I no longer have to pay parking fees so it's a wash.....not. So cut the bellaching and chip in where it really makes a difference.

The bellyaching is not about the fee, it is about how they have wasted the money collected from the fees. I'd be much happier if the money had been spent on trail maintenance instead of wasting it on other stuff. If the fees were spent wisely then I think there would be much less complaining.

- darren

 

[Pig Pen]

If you don't want to pay because you don't approve of the way the funds are used, then you shouldn't use the service. (Don't park in the fee parking areas)

Don't bother posting that you have the right to park there because you pay taxes. We pay taxes for alot of things. I pay taxes for "designated downtowns" here in Vermont but I still have to put money in the meter when I park in downtown Montpelier.

 

[dvbl]

...but I still have to put money in the meter when I park in downtown Montpelier.

Montpelier has parking meters?!?!
Another illusion shattered.

 

[rocket21]

If you don't want to pay because you don't approve of the way the funds are used, then you shouldn't use the service. (Don't park in the fee parking areas)

I'm still new to the White Mountain area (I never had to pay to park in the GMNF)...say if I parked along Route 112 at the Champney Falls trailhead instead of in the parking lot, would I get towed or a ticket, or is it okay?

 

[RoySwkr]

I'm still new to the White Mountain area (I never had to pay to park in the GMNF)...

Yes, the GMNF decided to reduce middle management instead of charging fees, they also have cheaper campgrounds which drives the skinflints in NH bananas

...say if I parked along Route 112 at the Champney Falls trailhead instead of in the parking lot, would I get towed or a ticket, or is it okay?

You need to park 1/4 mile away from the trailhead, or on private land which is exempt from WMNF fees but not irate landowners. There used to be a WMNF web page on this, but I can't find it's new location.

 

[RoySwkr]

At least we now have available one pass that covers multiple sites / jurisdictions.

Like many Federal announcements this is mostly hype. This pass already existed under another name, "Golden Eagle Passport with hologram" or somesuch, which covered more than the standard GEP. And my sister just bought one only to discover that it still doesn't cover all Federal lands, the BLM site she went to would not accept it supposedly because by joining the program the BLM would have to give a % of each pass sold to the Park Service but would not get a cut of Park Service sales.

 

[audrey]

... And my sister just bought one only to discover that it still doesn't cover all Federal lands,.....

When we hiked the Mt Charleston Wilderness in Nevada (Toiyabe National Forest), we parked near a closed campground (November) and placed Pat's Golden Eagle pass on the windshield, only to return at the end of the day to find a note and a ticket from the ranger...some blah blah about that parking lot not being covered by the pass. We were then $8 poorer. Lots of loopholes out there, folks!

 

[rocket21]

You need to park 1/4 mile away from the trailhead, or on private land which is exempt from WMNF fees but not irate landowners. There used to be a WMNF web page on this, but I can't find it's new location.

Good to know...any idea how closely they police this distance? Is it in the WMNF's jurisdiction or is it in the hands of the state police at this point (side of road)?

 

[DougPaul]

You need to park 1/4 mile away from the trailhead, or on private land which is exempt from WMNF fees but not irate landowners.

I'm not sure of the wording, but you also have to be off the pavement or out of the right-of-way or some such.

Doug

 

[Willie]

Court watch

... in the case United States v. Wallace, Magistrate Judge Pyle set the matter for trial on May 31, 2007.

 

[RGF1]

DMS that fee adds up FAST! . Why should we have to pay for land we already paid or sort of lke me chargingyou twice for a gallon of gas !
I cannot go intothe detials of it othr than being taxed twice for the same sevive i hope thi ruling is expaned upon . It is abusred to have you acess to alnd t yopu already paid fro limtee more .
ask a Western Slope resident Um that is me at times . you think WMNF has fees go west ! you want fees try iming at popular locations in Co lots of social trqils to the trails even on NPS land !

. Fees are pali n wriong pweriod we paid once we do not needto apy again I hate paying ot drive up to the naroon bells onUSFS labd i paid once every Aporil why shuld I pay again for a Fred Flinstonelooking restroom and tourist facitly where things are soldat a huge marke up run by a private company ?

So why pay feeagain Oh i cant go ther but it east of hear anda huge quagmire

 

[Willie]

Slow wheels of justice ...

... trial reset to July 2, 2007.

... reset, again, to August 20, 2007.

... reset, again, to September 4, 2007.

... reset, again, to September 5, 2007, at 1:30 p.m. before Chief Judge John M. Roll.

 

[Willie]

A bench trial (no jury) was held before Chief Judge Roll on September 5, 2007. Before trial, the United States voluntarily dismissed one of the two citations. As to the second citation, Wallace was found guilty of violating 36 C.F.R. § 261.15 (Failure to Pay Fine), a Class B Misdemeanor. Wallace was fined $100.

 

[RoySwkr]

Before trial, the United States voluntarily dismissed one of the two citations. As to the second citation, Wallace was found guilty of violating 36 C.F.R. § 261.15 (Failure to Pay Fine), a Class B Misdemeanor.

I have been up that road, but the guy I was with had an annual pass

Presumably the govt dismissed the citation for parking outside a closed picnic area and won on the citation for parking at an open picnic area with facilities. The magistrate had ruled that the fee sign was in part illegal and hence unenforceable but apparently the judge said it was OK to collect otherwise legal fees. Note that the individual was an activist who had ignored 4 previous Opportunity To Pay notices.

Note also that under parts of the magistrate's decision which were not appealed most of the fee areas in the WMNF are illegal:
"...never in the 42-year history of fee-charging on federal lands has fee-charging for trailheads ever been contemplated by Congress..."
"...A fee cannot be charged for roadside picnicking nor for camping if it is in an undeveloped campground."

 

[sardog1]

Note also that under parts of the magistrate's decision which were not appealed most of the fee areas in the WMNF are illegal:
"...never in the 42-year history of fee-charging on federal lands has fee-charging for trailheads ever been contemplated by Congress..."
"...A fee cannot be charged for roadside picnicking nor for camping if it is in an undeveloped campground."

Um, there was no part of the magistrate judge's order that was "not appealed." That order dismissed both citations on the theory that they were not authorized. The district court judge overruled the magistrate judge on both citations. Then the U.S. Attorney decided not to proceed at trial on one of the citations. The defendant was convicted on the other charge.

The reasoning of the magistrate judge is nothing to rely on as a result. You could make the same arguments in a different federal district, but you'd be starting from scratch. In this case, "You (don't) pays your money, you takes your chances."