Adventure Pass ruled illegal

[KathyW]

Try this link for info on the ruling:

http://westernslopenofee.org/index2.php ... &newsid=36

There are a number of groups that benefit from the recreation fees and they let their voices be heard in support of these fees. Politics as usual.


Here's a good summary of the history of recreation fees:


http://westernslopenofee.org/index2.php ... &pageid=17

[Brian]

I don't mind paying $30 for 365 days of U.S. Forest Service. This includes toilet paper and the best search and rescue. I hike to avoid politics!

[Hikin_Jim]

Don't count out the Adventure Pass just yet.

While there was indeed a ruling in 2012 by the 9th Circuit Court that basically the USFS could not charge if one were simply walking through or otherwise "using" a natural area without amenities, the Forest Service is saying that the court's ruling only applies to the one area (Mt. Lemmon near Tuscon, AZ). The FS claims that it may continue to charge elsewhere for all access including just hiking or personal photography. There's currently a case pending where some people in Southern California have sued the FS to have the Mt. Lemmon ruling applied to the four local national forests (Cleveland, San Bernardino, Angeles, and Los Padres). In the mean time, the Forest Service continues to post signs at trailheads and such stating that the Adventure Pass is required. The Forest Service also states that the pass is required on their website(s).

Since you can get fined $100 per violation, I personally would probably just get the pass until the court rules. See also this San Gabriel Valley Tribune article.

In the mean time, I notice that the FS has been installing bathrooms and emplacing picnic tables at a lot of trailheads. Gee, now why might they do that? Well, the The Federal Land Recreation Enhancement Act (which essentially authorizes programs like the Adventure Pass), lists a series of amenities for which the Forest Service can charge. It would seem that the Forest Service knows darned well that they can't charge for just hiking and is taking steps to prepare for the inevitable: Court ordered ending of the Adventure Pass for areas without amenities. I'm sure the FS realizes that it's only a matter of time before the courts rule that the 9th Circuit Court case applies to all areas within their jurisdiction. The Forest Service's assertion that the 9th Circuit Court's ruling doesn't apply throughout their jurisdiction would be pretty laughable if there weren't money involved. Said assertion seems merely an effort to buy time, time to install potties and picnic tables.

HJ

[zippetydude]

When I would forget to renew my pass or discovered too late that it had expired, the fine was just $5.00 or the cost of a one day adventure pass. I thought this was a great policy because if I got to the trailhead at say 5:00 a.m., realized my error, and had to turn around and go back and wait until I could buy one, it would have made me start hours later than I had planned. Even better, (at the advice of a ranger) when I'd get a ticket, I'd just swing by the Mill Creek Ranger Station and pick up an annual pass, then send in a copy of that instead of the fine. The ticket served its purpose of making me get a pass, and I ended up spending no more than I would have if I had realized beforehand that my pass had expired.

Is $100 just a threat or are people actually getting hit with that kind of fine. Seems exorbitant.

z

[Robert Hunt]

Hi Z. Quite a few years ago, I purchased a pas & hung it from my mirror as requested while parked near Cedar Creek Falls in San Diego. I returned from my hike to find a $100.00 ticket on my windshield for having no pass. I wrote a scathing letter accompanied by a copy of my pass & never heard back. Maybe this was just a threat & my copy proved I at least purchased a pass at some point. Anyhow, I did recieve a $100.00 ticket.

[Hikin_Jim]

I'm not sure what the current status of the $100.00 ticket is now. For me, I'd rather not take the risk, so I just get the pass.

Hopefully the issue will be clarified by the courts soon.

HJ

[zippetydude]

Strange how our government can't seem to decide anything definitively. No matter which side of the argument you're on, it's awkward to have a big "maybe" hanging out there.

Same with national policies: Immigration, in whatever form is ultimately decided to be the preferred method, is now a haphazard mishmash of policy vs. implementation such that the executive branch is redefining the law by deciding who they will enforce the policy with and who they will not. (I'm not making a value judgment here, I'm talking about a separation of powers that is supposed to exist according to the constitution.)

Also, it strikes me as odd that state governments can pass a law legalizing marijuana when it is a federal offense to possess it. Bizarre that a person can be standing in Colorado, possessing a quantity of marijuana in his hand and partaking of it in a recreational sense, and although he is in violation of federal law (it's a Schedule 1 narcotic like heroin according to the feds) nothing will happen to him. If he takes one step and crosses the border into another state, he could end up with years of prison time. How is that possible?

BTW, I'm not arguing either side on those issues! I just find it crazy that different branches (executive vs legislative) and different levels (state vs federal) of government can be in direct conflict and it doesn't seem to precipitate immediate action and the creation of a reasonable resolution.

So, to buy the pass or not to buy it? Welcome to Limbo.

I guess we should see about getting Congress good and high, then deport them all. Afterwards, we could let in a bunch of good, honest people who would like to immigrate to the US. We can have them vote on the adventure pass and I, for one, would accept their decision either way with no qualms. So, everybody wins!

z

[Hikin_Jim]

Zip for President!

HJ

[cynthia23]

I generally agree with your points, Zip, about the irrationality of varied government policies (my personal dis-favorite is widely varied criminal sentencing policies) but the devil's advocate in me (or the anarchist?) might make the point that having a sprawling, multi-branched government with warring factions, does limit its power over individuals, which can be a good thing. Sometimes you don't want government to be too efficient.

[zippetydude]

I was reading a history of Botswana and one of the old timers they interviewed (from when it was still a British protectorate) said, "The British would come and tell the chiefs that they had to do this thing or that thing, and the chiefs would say, 'Yes! We will do that!' But they never did anything. It was a good form of government. People don't want to be told what to do. They want to be left alone to tend their cattle." I totally agree. Yes, a government is a necessary evil, but some degree of ineffectiveness is nice!

z