Adventure Pass ruled illegal

[cynthia23]

LOL Zip! Only on this board can one learn about the thoughts of Botswanian cattle herders on intrusive government.

[KathyW]

You don't need an Adventure Pass anywhere unless you are using facilities such as a restroom, picnic table...etc. If you just park in the area and walk through to the trailhead you do not need an Adventure Pass.

I notice that the SBNF is still ticketing vehicles in some areas, such as the South Fork Trailhead, when they have no idea if the person is using the facilities or not. If you get a ticket and go to court it should get thrown out if you were just parked at a trailhead and not using the facilities - just make sure you have a copy of the court rulings when you go to court.

I think it is so wrong that the SBNF is still playing the bully and thinks they are not subject to court rulings. It is even worse if they are charging people with misdemeanors for not having an Adventure Pass when one is not required. Any ticket they issue is a criminal offense; so if you pay that $100 fine you are pleading guilty to a misdemeanor. There is nothing less than a misdemeanor when it comes to the Feds; so don't look at it like a parking ticket.

Even if you support the idea of giving the USDA money to build more restrooms and kiosks, there is a bigger issue here and you should not allow yourself to be bullied into buying an Adventure Pass when it's not required.

[Wildhorse]

Several years ago, I parked at Humber Park without an adventure pass and received a "Notice of Noncompliance." It told me to pay the $5 daily permit fee, and that was all. No $100 fine. I had an annual pass, but had forgotten to put in on the dashboard. I showed the Notice of Noncompliance and my pass to a person working at the Forest Service office in Idyllwild and explained that I had forgotten to put it on the dashboard, and that person just voided the notice. I realize that this is not exactly the same set of facts as not having a pass. A friend who works for the Forest Service told me that if I had not had a pass, I would only have been asked to pay $5. I learned that the Notice was not the same legally as a citation and the payment was not legally the same as a fine.

When I read about the $100 fine in the discussion here, I wonder if Forest Service practices vary from district to district, or if the Forest Service policy has changed in the last few years.

[Hikin_Jim]

I don't disagree with you, Kathy, but the Forest Service's position is that the ruling of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals only applies to Mt. Lemmon. There is a case pending in Southern California, but no court decision has yet been made. In other words, you could very well get stuck with a misdemeanor, a misdemeanor that you may or may not easily get removed/reversed once the pending case is resolved.

Now, if you do get a ticket, of course go to court and have a copy of the original Mt. Lemmon ruling in hand, Adams v. U.S. Forest Service. But I personally wouldn't risk getting a ticket until the matter is resolved legally. YMMV.

HJ

[RichardK]

A few years ago, I parked at Icehouse Canyon and forgot to hang the Adventure Pass tag. I received a courtesy notice (not a ticket and certainly not a misdemeanor) asking that I mail in the daily $5 fee. I could have submitted a copy of the tag, but found it easier to just send the $5. The forest service needs the money.

[KathyW]

I don't disagree with you, Kathy, but the Forest Service's position is that the ruling of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals only applies to Mt. Lemmon. There is a case pending in Southern California, but no court decision has yet been made. In other words, you could very well get stuck with a misdemeanor, a misdemeanor that you may or may not easily get removed/reversed once the pending case is resolved.

Now, if you do get a ticket, of course go to court and have a copy of the original Mt. Lemmon ruling in hand, Adams v. U.S. Forest Service. But I personally wouldn't risk getting a ticket until the matter is resolved legally. YMMV.

HJ

Jim: The So Cal Case was ruled on last April. Judge Terry Hatter Jr. ruled against the fees. http://www.westernslopenofee.org/pdfupl ... dgment.pdf So, it's not just the Mt. Lemmons case. I have experienced first hand the court throwing out charges related to the Adventure Pass because of the court rulings.

More on that case: http://westernslopenofee.org/index2.php ... &newsid=36

[KathyW]

Make a donation or do volunteer work if you think the USDA needs the money, but do not condone the USDA's behavior in this matter. It is not okay for a Federal Agency to ignore the rules and continue to charge fees that are not allowed. It's even worse that they bully people into paying the fees with the threat that they will be charged with crime if they do not pay.

Yes, you might just get warning and a notice to pay the fee, but if you refuse to pay the fee you might also end up in Federal Court. At least once it gets to court, the charge should be dismissed if you didn't use the facilities.

I guess the USDA is counting on people just paying the fee instead of refusing to pay the fee when it is not required. That's a real shame.

[Wildhorse]

It sounds like what may be happening is that the USFS is issuing notices of noncompliance and then taking some people, at least, to court accusing them of a misdemeanor if they do not pay the fee. One can only assume that they are not doing this for the fine money because of what this process costs.

Most of the USFS paid employees I have known have been gentle people, dedicated mostly to preservation of the forest. Something must be going on at higher levels over this. The bullying and other hard ball tactics must originate at that higher level. I have seen bullying of the public and even of volunteers at the BLM. I have seen it in city government as well - in fire departments, for example. One example, I observed a few years ago, was when the Idyllwild Fire Chief started carrying a gun, and made a very public display of it, to show the seriousness of his intent to force people to rake leaves away from their homes in the forest. If you did not rake, the chief was going to visit you with a threat and his gun.

I agree with Kathy W that it is not okay for the USFS to ignore the rules and the courts, and not okay to threaten people with draconian penalties. That is not democracy. That is not the way of the government of a free people. It is the way, instead, of a totalitarian government.

[Hikin_Jim]

Jim: The So Cal Case was ruled on last April. Judge Terry Hatter Jr. ruled against the fees. http://www.westernslopenofee.org/pdfupl ... dgment.pdf So, it's not just the Mt. Lemmons case.

Whoa! I'm out of date.

Now that's really fascinating -- fascinating in that there are still signs at a lot of FS parking lots that say "Parked vehicles must display an Adventure Pass." Maybe the FS won't enforce it, but they're perfectly happy to intimate that one still has to pay the fee -- and take advantage of ignorance. If a private entity did what the FS appears to be doing, I believe that the courts would hold them in contempt. That's really sleazy.

The practical effect of the court's ruling is that the Adventure Pass is almost effectively dead. How would it be possible to determine whether a person parked at a trail head is simply hiking or has used the picnic bench or potty that the FS has installed? Perhaps that person just stopped to take a few photos. Perhaps that person just wanted to take a look around. Short of having a ranger stand at the bathroom door collecting fees, there's no way for the FS to enforce the Adventure Pass.

The one positive outcome of the AP is that the FS has installed a lot of potties and picnic tables at trailheads. I think the FS was betting that they could charge for the AP if amenities were simply present. The court ruling makes it clear that the FS must prove use not merely the presence of amenities. Very interesting.

HJ

[Ed]

Whenever this topic comes up, some people maintain that access to our public lands should be free, others that we already pay for it with our taxes.

Regarding the first, any introductory economics course teaches that all resources are scarce, and none are truly free.

Regarding the second, I looked on the web for figures for the USFS budget and federal tax revenues. I'm not a federal budget expert and spent only a few minutes on this, so my figures could be wrong, and I would certainly be interested in corrections. But this is what I found. The USFS budget seems to be about $5.5 billion per year, federal tax revenues about $3 trillion per year. This makes the USFS budget about 0.18% of federal tax revenues. So if you paid $20,000 in federal taxes last year, you contributed about $36 to the USFS budget. In other words, slightly more than the annual Adventure Pass. Or less than two round-trip fares on the PSAT.

Personally, I have no problem with user fees, except for the collection issue (it costs money to collect them). They are inconsequential compared to what we spend on cars, gas, cell phones, boots, clothing, equipment, etc. In return we receive services in the form of roads, parking lots, restrooms, trash cans, trails, fire fighting, and SAR. And public safety. If you don't think public safety is important, if it weren't there our mountains would soon be overrun with vagrants and criminals, and we would be hiking in armed groups. And I say this as someone who is no fonder of our land managers - USNFS, USNPS, BLM, California State Parks - than I am of the people who provide me with my car, gas, cell phone service, boots, etc.

Like someone else above, I was once cited because I had not posted my pass, and simply mailed in the $5.