Adventure Pass

[Knocker of rocks]

Whereas with the USFS pass for WA it is only required at certain areas such as trailheads, which as long as it has those items I listed it is legal.

You are actually mistaken here.  There are areas such as the Harts Pass area, where the Federal Pass is required everyplace, not just campgrounds, trailheads and other recreational areas.  The Harts Pass area is actually quite large and engulfs several miles or roads in both Whatcom and Okanogan Counties

[Knocker of rocks]

Here is the federal law definition of "amenity" for recreational fees:
....................
(4) An area--
(A) that provides significant opportunities for outdoor recreation;
(B) that has substantial Federal investments;
(C) where fees can be efficiently collected; and
(D) that contains all of the following amenities:
(i) Designated developed parking.
(ii) A permanent toilet facility.
(iii) A permanent trash receptacle.
(iv) Interpretive sign, exhibit, or kiosk.
(v) Picnic tables.
(vi) Security services.

So under the recreational fee law if a site has developed parking, a permanent toilet, permanent garbage can, some type of info sign, picnic table, and security (such as LE or agency personnel patrolling) then fees can be charged.

There are literally hundreds of trail heads in the Cascades where the USFS is requiring the NW Forest Pass's, but only supplying a rudimentary parking lot and a trail sign.  Security is supplied on a highly irregular basis by SnoCo SD.  Toilets, garbage and tables are several miles of rough road away. 

The Clear Creek trail head in the Darrington District is a particularly egregious example of the USFS violating both the letter of the law, as well as the intent.  Questioning the veracity of these fees at this location results in veiled threats by the USFS to completely close the road several miles down stream from this wide spot on the road.

[Knocker of rocks]

The more I read about this decision, the more likely I think that this could spell trouble for the NW Forest Pass. 

I believe this Ninth District decision in Arizona (not in CA as a earlier poster stated) could be applied to the entire Ninth District.

It was found that individuals who do not use the ammenities do not need a pass.  Walking was found to not be a use of the ammenities.  In areas where the USFS does not supply parking lots for hikes ( as is common in such areas as Darrington, Harts Pass and the 542 Highway area), and if no other ammenities are proven to be used, a pass can not be required.

[dreamingbig]

If the US Forest service loses the revenue from the forest pass they will have to find it from other sources or adjust their budget.  My gut says it will be the former over the latter.

[280ackley]

Well the thread I started on this got locked.  Sorry I missed this one somehow, I bet I wasn't the only one.

This is a interesting and important decision coming out of the 9th.

[bigtex]

Here is the federal law definition of "amenity" for recreational fees:
....................
(4) An area--
(A) that provides significant opportunities for outdoor recreation;
(B) that has substantial Federal investments;
(C) where fees can be efficiently collected; and
(D) that contains all of the following amenities:
(i) Designated developed parking.
(ii) A permanent toilet facility.
(iii) A permanent trash receptacle.
(iv) Interpretive sign, exhibit, or kiosk.
(v) Picnic tables.
(vi) Security services.

So under the recreational fee law if a site has developed parking, a permanent toilet, permanent garbage can, some type of info sign, picnic table, and security (such as LE or agency personnel patrolling) then fees can be charged.

Security is supplied on a highly irregular basis by SnoCo SD.

Well you are sort of correct here. "Security" is provided by all Sheriff's Departments in the national forests. You then have one USFS Law Enforcement Officer in each USFS Ranger District. You then have USFS non-law enforcement employees who can write citations for petty offenses. These all fall under the "security" realm.

In addition most Sheriff's Departments in the state receive funding from the USFS to actually staff a Deputy to patrol USFS lands full time. These contracts may simply be from Labor - Memorial Day or year round, it just depends on the area.

[280ackley]

If the US Forest service loses the revenue from the forest pass they will have to find it from other sources or adjust their budget.  My gut says it will be the former over the latter.

Where does the revenue go from forest passes?  Revenue from what timber sales they might put up doesn't stay in the forest it goes back to DC.

[bigtex]

If the US Forest service loses the revenue from the forest pass they will have to find it from other sources or adjust their budget.  My gut says it will be the former over the latter.

Where does the revenue go from forest passes?

Revenue stays local:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/mbs/passes-permits/recreation/?cid=stelprdb5336422

[280ackley]

So Timber Sale revenue goes back to DC, forest pass revenue stays local.  Maybe if TS revenue stayed local (and they logged at least what is allowed in Clinton's NW Forest Plan) they wouldn't need to charge forest passes.

[Knocker of rocks]

Here is the federal law definition of "amenity" for recreational fees:
....................
(4) An area--
(A) that provides significant opportunities for outdoor recreation;
(B) that has substantial Federal investments;
(C) where fees can be efficiently collected; and
(D) that contains all of the following amenities:
(i) Designated developed parking.
(ii) A permanent toilet facility.
(iii) A permanent trash receptacle.
(iv) Interpretive sign, exhibit, or kiosk.
(v) Picnic tables.
(vi) Security services.

So under the recreational fee law if a site has developed parking, a permanent toilet, permanent garbage can, some type of info sign, picnic table, and security (such as LE or agency personnel patrolling) then fees can be charged.

Security is supplied on a highly irregular basis by SnoCo SD.

Well you are sort of correct here. "Security" is provided by all Sheriff's Departments in the national forests. You then have one USFS Law Enforcement Officer in each USFS Ranger District. You then have USFS non-law enforcement employees who can write citations for petty offenses. These all fall under the "security" realm.

In addition most Sheriff's Departments in the state receive funding from the USFS to actually staff a Deputy to patrol USFS lands full time. These contracts may simply be from Labor - Memorial Day or year round, it just depends on the area.

You're just pointing out the minor minutia you are aware of and completely ignoring the meat of my statement.  My point is that the USFS is not following the wishes of Congress, and as such, the NW Forest Pass is highly challengable.

I doubt that when Congress mandated "security" that they envisioned "one" USFS LEO who may be many miles away, and several other employees writing up minor infractions.

These are just further examples of the USFS charging us fees to use our property, but not holding up their end of the bargain.  I would expect to see further legal challenges to these fee programs

[Knocker of rocks]

Maybe if TS revenue stayed local (and they logged at least what is allowed in Clinton's NW Forest Plan) they wouldn't need to charge forest passes.

Never will happen.  Too many people (including Congress) would be fearful of funding fiefdoms without control.

[Skyvalhunter]

One they(USFS) have going for them and are undoubtedly banking on is you don't just go to your local court to challenge a ticket for say parking at a trailhead designated forest pass required. It is a federal court and most people end up paying the ticket instead of challenging it in federal court.

[Knocker of rocks]

It normally takes a citizens group to mount a challenge, not a private citizen going to court over a single ticket.

[fireweed]

I think there is a real parallel here between this case and the Discover Pass which, on DNR land, is supposed to be limited to: "department of natural resources developed or designated recreation areas, sites, trailheads, and parking areas."  The DNR basically found a loop-hole--the word "designated" and set about creating designated recreation areas on paper only--timberland with absolutely no facilities.  I was watching as the original DP law passed and the DNR had a list of designated sites on their website and this list contained only developed areas.  Now they are stretching to try to justify their decisions by claiming logging roads are recreation facilities.  I think if you got a ticket for parking or driving on DNR land with no real recreation facilities you might be able to challenge our state law in the same way these folks challenged the USFS law. 

[steen]

I guess I never heard of the Adventure Pass before.  I learned about the Discover Pass when I got an infraction while enjoying the State Park in Birch Bay with my grandson last summer.  That was confusing to me since I already have the one hunters get with their licenses.  I already bought my Discover Pass this year because we went to the elk feeding station in Naches last weekend, which seems like double dipping to me since I already pay through my hunting licenses ( which are many) to see the elk being fed by hunter's funds.  I'd be pissed if it changed this year and I had to pay again for some other stupid pass.