WMNF Trailhead Fees

[TEO]

Caveat lector: I am not a lawyer; the following is my interpretation of the text of the law found on the USDA Forest Service website in the link below.

I would strongly encourage VFTTers to read the 2005 Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA). The language is relatively straightforward and easy to understand. Note in particular, Section 3(f)(4). Section 3(d) & (e) also has relevance to us hikers.

It would seem to me that most White Mountain National Forest trailheads do not meet all of the criteria set out in Section 3(f)(4)(D):

(i) Designated developed parking.
(ii) A permanent toilet facility.
(iii) A permanent trash receptacle.
(iv) Interpretive sign, exhibit, or kiosk.
(v) Picnic tables.
(vi) Security services.

which, as I understand the law, means that the WMNF has no legal standing to charge fees at those trailheads.

The Lincoln Woods Trailhead does, to the best of my knowledge, meet all of those critera, except perhaps security services. If it did, it would, according to the FLREA, have the right to charge a fee.

The criteria set forth in Section 3(g)(2)(A) do not seem to be met by primitive campsites such as those found on the Gale River Road, so again, it would seem to me that the WMNF has no legal standing to charge fees for those campsites (and they may not, I haven't stayed there in years).

Other helpful Forest Service website links:

Summary of the FLREA

About

WMNF Passes

 

[David Metsky]

Moderator Warning
Keep politics out of this thread. Do not attack the poster; but you can rationally discuss the topic of the thread.

 

[hikingnclimbing]

Hmmm... very interesting! I willingly pay my fee (or buy my pass) to be able to use the trailheads. But I write it off to helping to support the trails and the parking lot that keeps my car out of the way of traffic.

I never thought of it in terms of supporting some of the items that you listed, especially security. I am very curious as to what they consider to be security at the trailheads. Perhaps I am thinking of more modern day security, but things like cameras and guards jump in to my head. I certainly don't expect someone to make sure that my car stays safe all day. I take it as part of the risk of parking at the trailhead.

That all being said, I sure would appreciate a porcelain throne for at the end of a long day on the trail.

 

[dug]

Interesting. I haven't bought a pass since it first came out. The person I go with does...and he usually drives. But to say I haven't 'illegally' parked at a trailhead would be a stretch.

I wonder how loosely you could define the criteria, though?

(i) Designated developed parking. **These are met
(ii) A permanent toilet facility. **Does a nearby bush count?
(iii) A permanent trash receptacle. **A receptacle for biodegradable waste? i.e the ground?
(iv) Interpretive sign, exhibit, or kiosk. **"Interpretive sign" is open to interpretation. Could a trail sign with a mileage marker count?
(v) Picnic tables. **Define table. Does a rock count?
(vi) Security services. **Is there a defination of 'security'? I feel safe from jaguars, alligators, and polar bears at the trailhead. Does that count?

 

[BIGEarl]

Caveat lector: I am not a lawyer; the following is my interpretation of the text of the law found on the USDA Forest Service website in the link below.

I would strongly encourage VFTTers to read the 2005 Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA). The language is relatively straightforward and easy to understand. Note in particular, Section 3(f)(4). Section 3(d) & (e) also has relevance to us hikers.

It would seem to me that most White Mountain National Forest trailheads do not meet all of the criteria set out in Section 3(f)(4)(D):

(i) Designated developed parking.
(ii) A permanent toilet facility.
(iii) A permanent trash receptacle.
(iv) Interpretive sign, exhibit, or kiosk.
(v) Picnic tables.
(vi) Security services.

which, as I understand the law, means that the WMNF has no legal standing to charge fees at those trailheads.

The Lincoln Woods Trailhead does, to the best of my knowledge, meet all of those critera, except perhaps security services. If it did, it would, according to the FLREA, have the right to charge a fee.

The criteria set forth in Section 3(g)(2)(A) do not seem to be met by primitive campsites such as those found on the Gale River Road, so again, it would seem to me that the WMNF has no legal standing to charge fees for those campsites (and they may not, I haven't stayed there in years).

...

I too am not a lawyer. It seems to me there are a couple ways to interpret the law. The term “area” is not defined. It is possible that “area” applies to the full WMNF, and not the individual trailheads. The individual trailheads could be just a part of the “area”. In other words, a location within the “area”. If this is the case then it seems to me the criteria is met. As long as there is room for interpretation regarding the scope of this term the debate will continue.

My vehicle has an annual pass. Its cost was just over the cost of two gallons of diesel fuel. Pretty cheap parking, pretty expensive diesel, or both . I’m happy to help offset the maintenance costs associated with these facilities. I’m sure the costs associated with keeping them plowed and open in the winter is substantial and I’m a year-round user.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

See also this: http://www.rocksontop.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=4486

Tim

 

[giggy]

mine expired in 2007 and I won't get another one. I don't head to the whites as much as I used to and a good part of the year, late fall, winter, spring, I am climbing or in the pressies usually - and park where one is not needed.

I think its a BS pass anyway. I hear hikers use the typical justification such as ohhh - the trailheads are plowed, etc... Its small money, but IMO - its an additional tax from the feds to nickle and dime hikers - whom most won't question the tax.

no thanks - I don't see the need to pay to park on public federal land. I will use the bathroom in the woods like an animal, hike out my trash, and use the plowed roads - plowed by NH (not feds) b/c they want people up north to contribute to their economy. If NH gets fed money to plow - then I say I pay my share in NH gas tax when up there.

just say no to fee's to hike national land - no matter how small. I do pay to get into national parks b/c I don't have a choice. But - I don't have to like it.. and if I do heave to hit a at trailhed. I will just toss the 3 bucks or whatever ir is now in. not breaking the "law" - just avoiding it when possible.

thanks for the link - shows how BS this fee really is. A pilot program - yea right.

 

[WhiteMTHike]

This phrase is probably the catch-all they use to charge fees. I'm sure hiking applies to the bold portion.

Permits are required to use National Forests lands when there is commercial gain, or when there is an impact on Forest resources.

 

[carole]

I...park where one is not needed.

If anyone is interested where those area might be...
no fee parking

 

[TEO]

Also note Section 3(d)(1)(A-F):

(d) Limitations on Recreation Fees.--

(1) PROHIBITION ON FEES FOR CERTAIN ACTIVITIES OR SERVICES.--The Secretary shall not charge any standard amenity recreation fee or expanded amenity recreation fee for Federal recreational lands and waters administered by the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, or the Bureau of Reclamation under this Act for any of the following:

(A) Solely for parking, undesignated parking, or picnicking along roads or trailsides.

(B) For general access unless specifically authorized under this section.

(C) For dispersed areas with low or no investment unless specifically authorized under this section.

(D) For persons who are driving through, walking through, boating through, horseback riding through, or hiking through Federal recreational lands and waters without using the facilities and services.

(E) For camping at undeveloped sites that do not provide a minimum number of facilities and services as described in subsection (g)(2)(A).

(F) For use of overlooks or scenic pullouts.


If you like to stop at swimming holes, then pay particular attention to Section 3(g)(2)(J).


The WMNF rangers obviously do a lot of good work and I would like to think that all of us appreciate it. If, however, the WMNF does not have the authority to charge fees at most trailheads, which is my understanding of the law, then it is unethical for it to do so, especially since most users are likely unaware of the law and the controversy that surrounds it. This is why I bring up this topic on VFTT, to make sure that as many people as possible are aware of the actual law. So again, I encourage everyone to read it and decide for themselves how to act.

Here's an idea: if you feel that the WMNF is under-funded and deserves your support given your frequent use, but think that they do not have the authority to charge user fees at the trailheads that you use, contact the office in Laconia (six-zero-three.five-two-eight.eight-seven-two-one) and ask how to make a donation that would go directly towards the WMNF's operating expenses, perhaps even to a particular station.

 

[peakn]

You can look at this from a strictly legalistic viewpoint if you wish. I do happen to believe that the Forest Service is underfunded. Since I don't have the time or inclination to try to change the situation I would be happy to pay parking fees to help support our playground- that is if I didn't have a Golden Age Passport. So please pay your parking fees. Thanks everybody!!!!
Seriously, since I am involved in trails maintenance in the WV Valley area, the lack of available FS funding is very apparent.

Harry

 

[Motabobo]

Those fees are a joke. Anyone can afford them. Come to Quebec and enjoy our silly SEPAQ rates, then you can complain.

 

[Solitary]

I do happen to believe that the Forest Service is underfunded. Since I don't have the time or inclination to try to change the situation I would be happy to pay parking fees to help support our playground- that is if I didn't have a Golden Age Passport. So please pay your parking fees. Thanks everybody!!!!
Seriously, since I am involved in trails maintenance in the WV Valley area, the lack of available FS funding is very apparent.

Harry

I agree with Harry.

The ecological consequences of losing wilderness (on water cycles, biodiversity, carbon cycles, and so on) impact everyone, including people who never set foot on a trail. So all citizens should take a hand in supporting the parks, and I'm certainly happy to pay that portion of my taxes that goes towards that end.

On the other hand, immediate use (hiking, biking, camping, atving, etc.) has a huge NEGATIVE impact on wilderness. Ironic isn't it, that if we really wanted to help the parks, we should stay home? I view parking fees, etc. as an additional user tax that helps to offset the damage that my presence causes. So I'm happy to pay it, it's one way to give back to the wilderness that has given me so much.

 

[DrewKnight]

I agree... $25/yr doesn't seem like much to pay

I use the White Mountain National Forest virtually every weekend, all year long, in one form or another... I don't feel like $25 for two vehicles is too much to pay to support the resource, especially since it seems to me to have been significantly underfunded for some time.

From a purely personal economic standpoint, $25 (plus whatever tiny percentage of the huge federal tax bill I pay every year) is a much better per-hour-of-enjoyment rate than, say, the $40 we might blow on a rainy weekend afternoon going to see the latest "Die Hard With a Cane and Hearing Aid" sequel (matinee, popcorn, soda for a family of four).

 

[dentonfabrics]

From a purely personal economic standpoint, $25 (plus whatever tiny percentage of the huge federal tax bill I pay every year) is a much better per-hour-of-enjoyment rate than, say, the $40 we might blow on a rainy weekend afternoon going to see the latest "Die Hard With a Cane and Hearing Aid" sequel (matinee, popcorn, soda for a family of four).

Positively. I agree with Drew and the previous posters. The Forest Service (and NH Fish & Game while we're at it) are grossly underfunded. I'm happy to pay the $25 to access a year's worth of fun.

bob

 

[sierra]

Im proboly pushing it here, but here goes. First off, I never have paid for a pass, day or year. If a govt agency is underfunded why is that my responsibilty? I pay a huge sum of my weekly earnings to the govt, which by the way Im not complaining about, I support my govt dont get me wrong. But if a peticuliar agency ie. Forest service is underfunded then they can complain to thier bosses and get more money. I just find it ironic that on one hand the gov. cant support its own agency's then on the other hand they can come up with 200 billion for lets say not so great uses imo.

 

[griffin]

But if a peticuliar agency ie. Forest service is underfunded then they can complain to thier bosses and get more money.

I think it's more a matter of US complaining to their bosses - aka, Congress and the administration.

I don't like it either, but I don't see my not paying a (relatively minor) parking fee as some kind of protest is going to accomplish anything.

As to whether the fees are legal (the OP's original question, I think), I can't argue. But I do seem to remember a recent court case we discussed that upheld such user fees.

 

[TEO]

As to whether the fees are legal (the OP's original question, I think), I can't argue. But I do seem to remember a recent court case we discussed that upheld such user fees.

Just to clarify, my first two posts are not asking questions, rather they're providing easy access to the law and I'm saying that I think the WMNF fees are not in accordance with that law.

But, more importantly, can anyone point me to that recent court case?

 

[peakbagger]

It has been reported in the press previously that the federal district court routinely throws out any attempt at challenging parking tickets issued for no parking pass violations. I unfortunately do not have any links to these reports. Essentially, it isnt worth the courts time to open up a can of "worms". I have heard from a law enforcement official that the tickets as issued are missing some key items that them not prosecutable. Ultimately if 90% of the people pay for the pass (including me) and 90% of the people who receive the ticket, pay for it, the net result is a low cost revenue source for the WMNF.

 

[griffin]

I dug up one of the discussions here:
http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=14210&page=4&pp=15&highlight=fees+ruled+illegal

This is the last page.

Short version (but correct me if I'm wrong):
Someone appealed the fines he got for not paying a parking fee to a magistrate.

The magistrate rule that the fees were illegal.

The magistrate's ruling was appealed.

The court that heard the appeal overturned the magistrate's ruling, reinstating the fines for not paying the fee.

John Law decided to drop all but one fine anyway.