Just hiking? “Then pay no Nat’l Forest fee,” Court says

[Heroique]

Did anyone else hear about the recent Federal Court (9th Circuit) decision about fees in Nat’l Forest lands? (The decision relates to Coronado NF in Arizona, but would apply to: Arizona, California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Montana, Nevada, Idaho, Hawaii.)

The upshot for landscape photographers, as I understand it:

If all you do is drive into a NF, park, and hike – and don’t use site facilities – the NF can no longer charge you for doing so. (Keep in mind we’re talking Nat’l Forests – not Nat’l Parks, Nat’l Monuments, Nat’l Seashores, state forests, etc.)

As most LF-ers here know, many NF sites currently require a standard amenity fees (SAF), which in everyday language is a “parking fee.” For example, here in Washington state, we pay the typical $5/day fee for parking at many NF sites, or can purchase the annual Northwest Forest Pass for $30. I think you California LF-ers have an Adventure Pass, right?

There appear to be two key issues in this decision for LF-ers who drive to NF trailheads:

1) Most significantly, the Nat’l Forests can not charge a fee to people who simply park and hike at Nat’l Forest trailheads & other sites – provided they don’t use site facilities. (Apparently, these people can use “designated, developed parking” listed below w/o a fee, for they’re still simply parking and hiking.)

2) More broadly, the Nat’l Forest can not charge fees for any site, unless, among a few other requirements, the site includes all of the following amenities:

• Designated, developed parking.
• A permanent toilet facility.
• A permanent trash receptacle.
• Interpretive materials (a sign, exhibit, or kiosk).
• Picnic tables.
• Security services (meaning the area could be patrolled by USFS or local law-enforcement personnel).

-----
What do you think? Your first reaction might be, “Great! No more fees for my forest trips!”

But you might also believe it’s a good idea to help fund Nat’l Forests through such fees. I do, and gladly pay them. From this perspective, the decision apparently means many NF trailhead sites will have to drop fees, and experience more usage, as a likely consequence. (For how many sites that you visit, after all, actually have these six amenities?) Moreover, if one is simply parking and hiking w/o using facilities, then no NF site can charge a fee, no matter how many amenities it has. So, you might view this decision as good news, or bad news indeed.

I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know when the decision would become active, but it seems that even though it’s being sent to district courts, it’s technically the law of the land for now, whether or not your local NF has formally caught up with it.

[John Kasaian]

I'm confused.

[Heroique]

Here’s the shortest possible version:

Nat’l Forest fees are going away for many sites – and for all visitors who only park & hike.

[Brian Ellis]

Here’s the shortest possible version:

Nat’l Forest fees are going away for many sites – and for all visitors who only park & hike.

Not exactly. Or at least not yet. And if ever, only in the States within the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction.

I only skimmed the case but it appears to me that all the 9th Circuit did was reverse the District Court's granting of the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The case has been remanded to the District Court "for further proceedings consistent with this opinion." Exactly what the District Court will do now is unknown though the 9th Circuit has made its interpretation of the statute pretty clear. And what the Forest Service might do in all the States not within the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction if the plaintiffs in this case ultimately prevail is unknown.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is generally considered the nuttiest of the federal courts of appeal, having been reversed by the Supreme Court more times than any other circuit court of appeals (or maybe more times than all the others put together, I forget which). So just because the 9th Circuit does something is no guarantee that other courts of appeal will follow if cases like this arise in other jurisdictions.

[Sal Santamaura]

...The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is generally considered the nuttiest of the federal courts of appeal...

"Generally considered" only by those who lean hard right. Like, for example current Supreme Court majority. Those with a liberal outlook (who make up a large portion of our country's population) generally consider the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to be appropriately progressive. I've not reviewed the specifics of this case and am simply responding to your generalization.

...been reversed by the Supreme Court more times than any other circuit court of appeals (or maybe more times than all the others put together, I forget which)...

The Supreme Court majority reversing those decisions is generally considered by those with a liberal outlook (who make up a large majority of our country's population) to be the nuttiest in a long, long time.

[Steve Smith]

$5 a day seems very reasonable to me, even if the only facility you use is the car park.


Steve.

[Peter De Smidt]

$5 a day seems very reasonable to me, even if the only facility you use is the car park.

Steve's right.

[Heroique]

2) More broadly, the Nat’l Forest can not charge fees for any site, unless, among a few other requirements, the site includes all of the following amenities:

• Designated, developed parking.
• A permanent toilet facility.
• A permanent trash receptacle.
• Interpretive materials (a sign, exhibit, or kiosk).
• Picnic tables.
• Security services (meaning the area could be patrolled by USFS or local law-enforcement personnel).

I use the Nat’l Forests all the time in my region – the forests & fees are everywhere – so for many years running, I’ve happily paid $30 for the annual Northwest Forest Pass. I don’t even use NF facilities, except very rarely, and I still feel like I’m getting a great deal.

The more I think about this “just-hike-and-pay-no-fee” rule, the more unhappy I am with it – probably just as unhappy as the Nat’l Forests.

If I see anyone parking “just to hike” and paying no fee – certainly their right – I better not see them reading the interpretive sign, or I’ll remind them to pony up!

[Thad Gerheim]

Steve's right.

Hey, this would mean I would owe more than $1050 since the beginning of last October. And what about today, when I parked in five different spots along the Salmon River? Peter, if you go as a cow and bring along your calf the fee is only $13.20 for the month and that includes all you can eat. The county I live in is about the size of New Hampshire and 97% federally owned! This is public land that belongs to the people in New Jersey too, which is good because they and the politicians from all the other states make the choices as what to do with it, and therefore should pay their fair share also.
Really, this is a tough one since the government keeps cutting funding for our public lands. I'd, maybe, be for an annual fee or a tax on hiking boots.

[ROL]

$5 a day seems very reasonable to me, even if the only facility you use is the car park.


Steve.

"Car Park". How quaint. You ain't from around these parts are ye? Seriously, not a western sensibility. Think more in terms of FREE–DOM to use public lands in any way you or your Mexican drug cartel can defend with your right to bear arms.