Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 55

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

  1. #1
    Land-Scapegrace Heroique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Wash.
    Posts
    2,929

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

    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.
    Last edited by Heroique; 6-May-2012 at 14:58. Reason: Forgot Hawaii, so added it.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    San Joaquin Valley, California
    Posts
    9,599

    Re: Just hiking? “No Nat’l Forest fee,” Court says

    I'm confused.
    "I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White

  3. #3
    Land-Scapegrace Heroique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Wash.
    Posts
    2,929

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

    Here’s the shortest possible version:

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


  4. #4
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Isle of Wight, near England
    Posts
    707

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

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


    Steve.

  5. #5
    Daniel Stone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Posts
    2,157

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

    If people can't afford to pay $5 to get usage of a table to eat their lunch at, maybe a toilet to poop in before heading out, but they're ok driving their gas-guzzling SUV to the trailhead. And then putting on their $200 Keen hiking boots, and listening to their $300 iphone, I think we need to re-think the whole she-bang. And people need to check themselves at the door.

    $5/day for me isn't even a drop in the bucket for me compared to the cost of film if the light is good. Especially with 8x10 color film. I'd be fine with $10/day. It keeps the forest service staff employed(I hope), and it pays for trash cleanup when I'm not there to help when I see the occasional can or plastic bag.

    If someone's gonna bitch over a $5 parking fee, we're already screwed

    -Dan

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Location
    Baraboo, Wisconsin
    Posts
    7,697

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Heroique View Post
    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.
    Brian Ellis
    Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
    a mile away and you'll have their shoes.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    grand rapids
    Posts
    3,851

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

    I'd like to pay more fees on top of my state park pass, nat'l park pass, boat registration, fishing license, wild and scenic river access pass, boat launch fees, federal, state, and sales tax. Please, where can I send my money?

  8. #8
    Land-Scapegrace Heroique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Wash.
    Posts
    2,929

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

    For the time being in the listed states, I think the Forest Service will probably say you still need to pay fees, but will also instruct their staff not to write citations to those w/o passes who are only parking & hiking.

    And maybe grimace at the loss of revenue that might go to trail & trailhead maintenance.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    South Texas
    Posts
    1,837

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

    I'm on the fence about this one. We already pay taxes for NF care. But I want to support them so they stay open.

  10. #10
    jp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    5,628

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

    Seems no different than what I am accustomed to at White Mountains in New Hampshire. Drive in, park somewhere, go for a hike.

    I'd have no problem supplying a few dollars if it went for upkeep and etc. But it's nature as intended if you don't have to pony up cash to visit a collectively owned resource. Personally, I'm pleased to see my money at work in our forests/parks, far more pleased than some of the other things our government spends money on. As a fee or tax, I can see how it would be bothersome, as many of us slave half the year to pay various taxes and fees we "owe" to the various government entities.

Similar Threads

  1. Which Velvia for forest scenes
    By gnuyork in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 13-Apr-2010, 13:50
  2. Epson court decision
    By Tyler Boley in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 5-Jan-2008, 09:20
  3. If an idiot screams in the forest...
    By Ed Pierce in forum On Photography
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 26-Sep-2003, 09:08

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •