Adventure Pass ruled illegal

[halhiker]

http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/20 ... -park-fee/

Let's try this one.

[HH8]

http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2014/05/13/37417/court-rules-against-adventure-pass-park-fee/[/list]

Well, that link is already gone, but I found this
http://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/r5/passes-permits/recreation/?cid=stelprdb5291028&width=full

[Hikin_Jim]

Hal's link is working for me.

From the link:

...the pass generated millions of dollars to help maintain the public land and facilities for the public to enjoy. Without this flow of income, how will the US Forest Service be able to maintain facilities like bathrooms, picnic tables, and paved parking lots?

The answer is that the Forest Service won't be able to maintain things, and volunteer programs will be cut back as well. The ruling basically makes the use of the pass all but unenforceable. I see this as a loss not a win. I'm happy to pay $30/year to help our local forests.

HJ

[zippetydude]

I generally am against almost every form of government intervention, but in this case the passes were enforced so gently and the result, at least in some places, was so positive, that I came around and was quite willing to pay the $30 a year.

The positive result I refer to is this: I used to live near Lytle Creek, and when I would go up there I would find hundreds of cars parked in every legal (and many illegal) locations, with party people drinking and leaving beer cans and used diapers everywhere. It was disgusting. After the passes went into effect, there were only a few cars, and the people I encountered were people like us, who love the wilderness and are respectful of it.

I would never have thought $5 could deter the hordes of partiers, but it did. So I loved the result. If it's essentially unenforceable after the recent ruling, then I hope the old situation I described doesn't return.

z

[Mike P]

Hal's link is working for me.

From the link:

...the pass generated millions of dollars to help maintain the public land and facilities for the public to enjoy. Without this flow of income, how will the US Forest Service be able to maintain facilities like bathrooms, picnic tables, and paved parking lots?

The answer is that the Forest Service won't be able to maintain things, and volunteer programs will be cut back as well. The ruling basically makes the use of the pass all but unenforceable. I see this as a loss not a win. I'm happy to pay $30/year to help our local forests.

HJ

Like HJ and Zdude, I definitely saw improvements around the forest. I didn't mind paying the 30 bucks, especially as I consider myself a heavy user of the forest.

[whitebark]

The same thing happened here in Washington with the NW Forest Pass (same thing as the adventure pass)... it was ruled illegal to enforce the pass requirement for simply parking. However, if there are some simple enhancements beyond a parking lot, the pass could still be required. Judging from what I've seen around here, the minimum facilities at a trailhead requiring a pass include a restroom and at least one picnic table.

So the situation is not a total loss. If the Forest Service is smart, they will do what they did in the Northwest and drag a few old picnic tables to trailheads. Toilet + picnic table = pass required.

[halhiker]

Humber has a toilet and maybe some picnic tables. They can probably still charge.

If you miss paying, you could donate to the SB Mountains foundation. It's through them I volunteer at the Tahquitz Peak Lookout.

http://mountainsfoundation.org

[climbant]

I'm glad it finally got thrown out. It disturbs me that a Government that is based on individual liberties and freedom so easily limits it. Public lands are just that, public lands with . However it brings up a real problem, the chronic underfunding of the USFS and other land management agencies and mismanagement within. I think we would be surprised (not me) that if a real audit of the Adventure Pass Program would be done it would probably show a huge amount of waste. Something needs to be done with land management, restricting access isn't the answer IMHO.

[cynthia23]

I understand climbant's points, but generally feel okay about helping fund the Forest Service. I agree though that access to public lands ought not to be restricted to the point that low income people can't afford to enjoy them. With that in mind, how is it that the tram is allowed to charge such a high fee to ride the tram up? In essence, they're severely restricting access. Granted, anyone can walk up and then down (ha ha!) but of course we know that most people can't. I know many children in Palm Springs who have NEVER been up to Mt. San Jacinto because there's no way their parents can afford the tram fee--for a family of four, it's close to ninety bucks. That's outrageous. It shouldn't be that high. Granted, the tram is expensive to run, but it's wrong that a private company is making money off public lands.That offends me far, far more than the Adventure Pass.

[Ed]

I have no problems with the Adventure Pass program. There are costs, we have to pay for them with either general tax revenues or user fees, and user fees are more targeted. I have no love for any of the land manager organizations, but I have no reason to think that they are more wasteful than other branches of government or private-sector organizations. As for low income people, they spend far more on a trip in gas, food, drink, etc. than the $5 fee. The litter they leave often represents far more than $5 of purchases and often costs more than $5 to pick up.

I think hikers are an ignored and neglected constituency. That is partly because, unlike bikers, off-road vehicle users, hunters and fisherman, and even the horse people, we are not organized to exert pressure. But it is also partly because we are not a significant source of revenue.