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

[Drew Wiley]

National Forests aren't hurting for funds. You've got timber harvesting, grazing, mining, drilling, recreation, and a great many private inholdings. Every time I pass a Forest Service marker stating, Land of Many Uses, I am subconcsiously reading it as "Land of Many Abuses". The amt of land is invoved is vast, and the Forest Service has more deadbeat incompetent employees than just about any other agency I can think of, except the military perhaps. Some districts are well run, but many are not. It is also a very big complex system, with only a fraction of it overlapping into designated Wilderness or protected parklands. Don't confuse it with the Natl Park system.

[Drew Wiley]

Oh - just missed your post Heroique. Thanks for the link. And indeed, I don't think I ever
visit those kinds of crowded spots. My weekend choices can be pretty popular statistically,
like Pt Reyes (NP), or the East Bay Regional Parks, but given the amt of land involved, its
pretty easy to find solitude. I grew up on Natl Park land, right across the road from the
head Forest Service dude, who had a hot feud going with the landowner in the other direction, all stemming from a survey error back in the 40's. If you got the necessary degree for a "serious" job in the Forest Service you got stuck in some office pushing paper
(or now keyboard buttons). Only high-school dropouts got jobs in the field, mostly doing
nothing except an ocassional arson job for overtime pay.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Actually, Heroique, that is not a run-on sentence because it's well-structured. It's a f-ing long one though.

[falth j]

With all of the pressure on our park systems to produce or close,


I don't mind paying the toll, it is short shrift for the experience.


Unfortunately, someone in government seems to have made a poor decision to allow concessionaires to occupy property, but the property they use and occupy is being run into the ground.

There seems to be little in the way of maintenance or repairs being accomplished at some parks in the way of facilities maintenance let alone, improvement.

For a mere $10 bucks, you can get a lifetime pass if you are but 62 years of age.


Witness the state of califonia's sanctions to close over 70 of its state parks because of 'budget constraints'.

Perhap's it is the one good value we as taxpayers get for such a benefit received.


Roads are great for the most part.

I can't imagine attending any park without a potty, and thrown in the bargan is free toilet paper!

And, some quibble about the 'fee'?

[Frank Petronio]

They threaten to close parks so you vote for their pork-barrell budgets. The politicians are really nothing more than extortionists.

[Jeff Conrad]

The Ninth Circuit is nutty? Clearly in the eye of the beholder. They indeed have the greatest number of reversals because they hear more cases—they’re 2.5 times the size of any other circuit. The last time I checked, their rate of reversal was higher than the average of the other circuits, but only slightly so. In one sense the 9th Circuit are a bit nutty because the judges span the political spectrum. Chief Judge Kozinsky (a Reagan appointee) is somewhere near the middle, at times with a decidedly libertarian streak. One of his more interesting opinions was in Duran v. City of Douglas (1990), aka the “finger” case.

But as relates to the original post, we need not concern ourselves with the sanity of the Court. Given the statutory language, a decision other than the one reached would have demonstrated utter contempt for the English language as expressed in the plain words of the statute. This has nothing to do with whether it’s reasonable for the FS to charge a fee—it’s rather a matter of law. I agree with Judge Gettleman that the statute is overly prescriptive—it’s akin to having the kernel of a computer OS provide trigonometric functions. But the law is as it is, and if it isn’t reasonable, the FS should seek to have it amended rather than blatantly violate it.

The FS garner no sympathy for claiming “Chevron” immunity, which simply held that when a statute requires specifics (essentially, an agency regulation) to implement, the agency’s interpretation of language is given great deference because they are assumed to possess the expertise in the regulated area, especially on complex technical issues. Chevron involved such issues; the REA does not. To me, claiming Chevron immunity demonstrates that the FS want the freedom to interpret ordinary words how ever they damn well please, with no accountability. I respectfully disagree.

It’s tough to forget the outrageous interpretation the FS made of some of the plain terms in Public Law 106-206 (which covers photography and filming on federal lands). Technically, these terms are in the FS Handbook rather than regulation, so they might not support a conviction. Provided that someone had the time and energy and money to contest a citation. And field challenges to People with Guns usually get resolved in favor of the possessors. I’ve long imagined that any challenge to these interpretations would be met with a claim of Chevron immunity—looks like I’m not simply paranoid ... though defining a “prop” is hardly comparable to defining a “new stationary source,” there’s apparently no assurance that someone would maintain that it is. If nothing else, the Adams court’s decision would seem to disfavor such nonsense.

The FS have a track record of pushing it with respect to entrance fees. For years, a Golden Eagle Pass (now a National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass) supposedly avoided entrance fees to FS lands, covered by the additional $15 cost over that of a National Parks Pass. Yet many FS locations required “shuttle fees” and similar BS to enter the lands. Protests usually got nowhere; I usually paid the fee in preference to dying in a gun battle with the ranger (especially since I wasn’t armed). I probably had triable cases, but couldn’t see tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to save $50 worth of bogus entry fees.

I have no problem with reasonable entrance fees. But they should be charged in accordance with laws. If an entrance fee should be charged, the law should be changed to allow do doing. And I really have an issue with paying an entrance fee for which I’ve already paid a fee to avoid (though I concede I haven’t been hit with this for a while).

Having said all that, I repeat what I’ve previously said many times: most rangers—be they in any of the federal agencies, or even in the California DPR—are great folks, far more eager to help than to hassle. Unfortunately, there are a handful of assholes—such as our friends in Malibu Creek State Park—who seem to see their main roles as pushing people around. And laws that even remotely lend themselves to misinterpretation serve to enable such miscreants. And for good or for ill, the actions of the few miscreants are remembered long after the actions of helpful majority are forgotten.

Again, the issue here isn’t with whether a modest entrance fee is reasonable, but rather a matter of the FS obeying the law. I thinks the Court’s opinion speaks pretty directly to the latter.

[John Kasaian]

I don't know of a single National Forest which I am familiar with that charges fees for day use (at least in the past 50 years) National Parks & National Monuments and State Parks, yes, but no National Forests.

[Heroique]

Here’s a typical fee sign we see in Washington (and Oregon) national forests – often at popular trailhead parking sites.

Also, the two types of Northwest Forest Pass you can hang from your vehicle’s mirror when you park at areas like this. This particular pass is for Washington and Oregon:

• The orange pass is the $30 annual pass. I’m the proud owner of one of these.
• The blue pass is the $5 day pass. On this one, you write the date of your visit in the white box. In ink, my friend!

The similar pass for (Southern) California is the Adventure Pass.

If all you do is park and hike w/o using facilities, the appellate court’s decision says: Throw the passes away, no fee for you. Good news for some, unhappy news for others. (See post #1 for the complete list of “9th Circuit” Western states).

[Jim Jones]

I don't mind paying for the use of federal and state parks, forests, and historical sites. It's a tiny fraction of the cost of visiting such places. The improvements such money pays for can greatly enhance my visits. I don't even mind paying taxes, escept to support the recreation of freeloaders.

[Michael Gordon]

I'm happy to pay the fee once the the DOI begins to charge fairly for grazing, timber, and mining royalties on western public lands (you can graze a cow on NF public lands for $1.35 per month, and they want $5 from me to take a half-hour walk? WTF?). This is a very complex issue and only a fraction of your fees stay on the local forest; the rest goes to DC. If you think you're helping to keep the forest doors open and the forest in good shape by being taxed twice to use your public lands, you have a lot of reading to do at this site: http://www.westernslopenofee.org/

At least in Southern California, the fee demonstration program (note that it has not been permanently authorized by congress) spends more on collection than on what the collected fees are alleged to do: Habitat Restoration, Visitor Services, Repair, Maintenance, & Facility Enhancement, Law Enforcement. If the USFS can flip these figures and actually follow the LAW as set forth by the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, I'll consider contributing beyond what my taxes already do.