In a decision that could bring an end to the national Adventure Pass program, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the U.S. Forest Service cannot charge for hiking, walking, picnicking or visiting undeveloped areas of national forest land.
http://www.sgvtribune.com/ci_19973360
Makes sense...
End of the Adventure Pass?
Undeveloped areas is the key word here. The USFS has been festering the last few years about how they can abide by the actual wording of the law. To this point, they really haven't been.
What it comes down to is at some point sooner than later, they are going to have to define "developed sites" better, AND then have those required amenities at those developed site available where they can then say a pass is required.
So basically, expect to see picnic tables and trash cans going up next to those potties where their aren't any now, and have to pay a fee at those locations, while all along the roadsides where there are no developed sites where all the snowplayers and river bottom dwellers that trash the forest (who cost the most to clean up after)will get away with paying nothing since they won't be parking in an area that has those amenities.
What it comes down to is at some point sooner than later, they are going to have to define "developed sites" better, AND then have those required amenities at those developed site available where they can then say a pass is required.
So basically, expect to see picnic tables and trash cans going up next to those potties where their aren't any now, and have to pay a fee at those locations, while all along the roadsides where there are no developed sites where all the snowplayers and river bottom dwellers that trash the forest (who cost the most to clean up after)will get away with paying nothing since they won't be parking in an area that has those amenities.
-
666-The Beast
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:08 pm
propaganda
We have never seen a trail project done at the Gabes from this A.P. racket. I hope someone can tell us how much the administrative costs are! Double taxation for sure, along with the deceptive so called parking tickets... 666
go to your local forest service office and ask to see the annual adventure pass accomplishment report. Every year, each district of USFS (as well as the forest as a whole) are required to turn in year end accomplishments using AP money, complete with before and after pictures and other information on projects.666-The Beast wrote: ↑ propaganda
We have never seen a trail project done at the Gabes from this A.P. racket. I hope someone can tell us how much the administrative costs are! Double taxation for sure, along with the deceptive so called parking tickets... 666
Now, the biggest problem with this program is that it was supposed to supplement the allocated funds the government provided to the agency.
However, our wonderful politicians keep cutting the budget and relying more on the AP dollars, which are shrinking as well. So in the end, most of that money now raised by AP funds is going towards paying employee salaries. Really not what it was meant for. it's not the USFS' fault on this, blame your elected politicans in DC.
were supposed ta have some pass thing to go walk in the mountains?? wtf? since when? 
I go ta lotsa mtns, never had any pass...Oh! wait, ONCE I got a PARKING lot pass in Idyllwild, but thats for tha car. A person needs a pass? They can go fuk 'emselves, i aint buying some shit everday i go run on the trails. Thats stupid. Money doesnt maintain trails I use, deer do, and people, by walkin on em....sometimes there are no trails. Dont need to "make" them....except for city people who cant route-find i guess, then thay can pay i suppose.
...Or is it just an LA/san gabriel thing? Ive never paid to hike or run in the santa rosas, san Jacintos, the sierra, desolation wilderness or in the big bear area, ever. never even saw anything that said i was supposed to. In desolation wilderness, we spent a whole week up there camping and shooting, just parked at a dirt turnout n went up , no one said anything..., no ones ever asked to see any pass from me...so it doesnt seem ta be enforced....
I go ta lotsa mtns, never had any pass...Oh! wait, ONCE I got a PARKING lot pass in Idyllwild, but thats for tha car. A person needs a pass? They can go fuk 'emselves, i aint buying some shit everday i go run on the trails. Thats stupid. Money doesnt maintain trails I use, deer do, and people, by walkin on em....sometimes there are no trails. Dont need to "make" them....except for city people who cant route-find i guess, then thay can pay i suppose....Or is it just an LA/san gabriel thing? Ive never paid to hike or run in the santa rosas, san Jacintos, the sierra, desolation wilderness or in the big bear area, ever. never even saw anything that said i was supposed to. In desolation wilderness, we spent a whole week up there camping and shooting, just parked at a dirt turnout n went up , no one said anything..., no ones ever asked to see any pass from me...so it doesnt seem ta be enforced....
-
PackerGreg
- Posts: 623
- Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:31 pm
Yes, that is the problem. Instead of properly funding national forests, politicians of all creeds have cut their budgets and forced them to rely on the AP. There should not be an AP. You should not have to pay 20 bucks to enter Yosemite or Death Valley. But, those fees are going to be there until the parks and forests get fully funded budgets.Really not what it was meant for. it's not the USFS' fault on this, blame your elected politicans in DC.
everyday - the pass is only for parking a vehicle, just being in the forest is still free. On Baldy, you always see a few cars parked just inside the ski lifts parking lot. As a concessionaire, the lift parking lot is exempt from the pass.
-
PackerGreg
- Posts: 623
- Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:31 pm
Richard, the argument of the plaintiffs in the above decision is that the FS has no authority under current law to charge "solely for parking"; and they, as the court agreed, make a good case as such.
I have no idea what authority the FS has. The courts (maybe Supreme) will decide that question. But, until they do, the AP is in full effect. It only applies to vehicles, not foot traffic.PackerGreg wrote: ↑Richard, the argument of the plaintiffs in the above decision is that the FS has no authority under current law to charge "solely for parking"; and they, as the court agreed, make a good case as such.
-
PackerGreg
- Posts: 623
- Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:31 pm
Yes, I know what the current policy is, I merely stated that there are valid arguments that it contradicts law. However, if you do want to have an idea what authority the FS has regarding parking, the statutes are stated in the relevant document that I posted.
!" have FS write citations all day long. let's have a day in court to dismiss the charge.-
atomicoyote
- Posts: 173
- Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 2:16 pm
The way I read the decision is you need an Adventure Pass at any location that's been developed and needs periodic maintenance - if its got a parking area, a toilet (even a pit toilet or porta-potty), picnic tables, or any other amenties that have to be maintained, then you need an Adventure Pass. Areas like Manker Flats, Icehouse Canyon, and the Baden Powell trailhead all seem likely candidates. The Bear trailhead (the one out of Mt. Baldy Village) might not need one since its in town. Over at San Gorgonio you'd probably need one for most of the trailheads. Exceptions might be Forsee Creek and Fish Creek, but the FS might try to include those since they have message boards and some trailhead markers.
FLREA is not a well-written law (go figure). Lots of wiggle room/gray area in it.
The worst thing FS has done with regards to the fee program is create HIRAs. They were never mentioned in any legislation but were created in the FS Washington Office as a creative interpretation of the law.
I'm all for the AP - and folks enjoying the Angeles will really see a difference if it was taken away - but it would probably be better if Congress dumps FLREA and starts over.
The worst thing FS has done with regards to the fee program is create HIRAs. They were never mentioned in any legislation but were created in the FS Washington Office as a creative interpretation of the law.
I'm all for the AP - and folks enjoying the Angeles will really see a difference if it was taken away - but it would probably be better if Congress dumps FLREA and starts over.
-
cougarmagic
- Posts: 1409
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 5:21 pm
Hmmmm.... yes, I can enjoy Abbey's books and philosophy while understanding that different situations require different solutions. I don't think cutting down the billboards is going to solve the problems on the ANF.
If Ed Abbey spent a holiday weekend in San Gabriel Canyon he'd probably agree.
Don't forget that the road you use to access a trailhead or other recreation area is an improvement that requires maintenance.
Regarding diversion of funds by Congress, it's nothing new. The new FAA reauthorization bill increase sthe security fee but more than half of the funds that will be raised will go to deficit reduction not security or airport infrastructure improvement. The traveling public will only think that fares have increased since airlines are now required to quote airfare with all fees and taxes.
Regarding diversion of funds by Congress, it's nothing new. The new FAA reauthorization bill increase sthe security fee but more than half of the funds that will be raised will go to deficit reduction not security or airport infrastructure improvement. The traveling public will only think that fares have increased since airlines are now required to quote airfare with all fees and taxes.