Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 17, 2012, 10:58:43 PM
Not sure if this case will affect the Discover Pass program the State of Washington is running, but it looks like we are now free to use undeveloped National Forest land free of charge.
Post by: dreamingbig on February 19, 2012, 03:19:58 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 19, 2012, 04:17:55 PM
It may also not have an effect on any effect on federal passes in WA. The "Adventure Pass" is a USFS pass in California only, and it is essentially required to even enter national forests in undeveloped areas. Whereas in WA the only "fee areas" I know managed by feds are developed areas such as trailheads and campgrounds.
Post by: 400out on February 19, 2012, 04:26:01 PM
Post by: ghosthunter on February 19, 2012, 05:42:25 PM
This ruling has no effect on the Discover Pass, or any other state pass in WA.
It may also not have an effect on any effect on federal passes in WA. The "Adventure Pass" is a USFS pass in California only, and it is essentially required to even enter national forests in undeveloped areas. Whereas in WA the only "fee areas" I know managed by feds are developed areas such as trailheads and campgrounds.
Well unless I a reading wrong. They ruled that the FS could not charge you to park in an area where a majority of amenities were present if you did not use the amenties. No where does it say a trail is a amenity.
There are lots of places in this state that you are charged at a trail head just for parking. on federal lands. And several places I have hunted that they brought in porta podies. The ruling says permanent restrooms.
Post by: ghosthunter on February 19, 2012, 05:46:01 PM
And why would it not w0rk on Wildlife areas? All the ones I have been on are undeveloped.
Post by: bigtex on February 19, 2012, 05:54:01 PM
This ruling has no effect on the Discover Pass, or any other state pass in WA.
It may also not have an effect on any effect on federal passes in WA. The "Adventure Pass" is a USFS pass in California only, and it is essentially required to even enter national forests in undeveloped areas. Whereas in WA the only "fee areas" I know managed by feds are developed areas such as trailheads and campgrounds.
Well unless I a reading wrong. They ruled that the FS could not charge you to park in an area where a majority of amenities were present if you did not use the amenties. No where does it say a trail is a amenity.
There are lots of places in this state that you are charged at a trail head just for parking. on federal lands. And several places I have hunted that they brought in porta podies. The ruling says permanent restrooms.
Here is the federal law definition of "amenity" for recreational fees:
(f) Standard Amenity Recreation Fee.--Except as limited by subsection (d), the Secretary may charge a standard amenity recreation fee for Federal recreational lands and waters under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, or the Forest Service, but only at the following:
(1) A National Conservation Area.
(2) A National Volcanic Monument.
(3) A destination visitor or interpretive center that provides a broad range of interpretive services, programs, and media.
(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.
The problem with the Adventure Pass is the USFS required it at entire areas, very similar to how the Discover Pass is required at entire areas such as a whole state forest. 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.
Post by: bigtex on February 19, 2012, 05:55:55 PM
Also i think the same arguments could be used against the state at least where they are demanding a pass to cross or drive on undeveloped state lands. If the argument is that this is double taxing, Why wouldn't it work?
The argument for the lawsuit wasn't that it was double taxing, it was the USFS in California violated the requirements of the FLREA (which I just posted above).
"The court reversed a district court ruling, saying the federal authorities violated the 2004 Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA)."
Post by: ghosthunter on February 19, 2012, 05:59:44 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 19, 2012, 06:02:03 PM
OK there are many trail heads that have a sign saying pass required but have none of the amenties.
:yeah: I was just going to say the same thing. In fact I can't think of any trailheads that I would use for hunting (in the Wenatchee NF), that have ANY of those amenities. :dunno:
Post by: boneaddict on February 19, 2012, 06:31:07 PM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 19, 2012, 06:45:28 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 19, 2012, 07:23:02 PM
"The strongly worded, 15-page decision says any member of the public who walks, hikes, rides a horse, picnics on the side of a road, camps at undeveloped sites, even parks in a national forest "without using facilities and services" is allowed to do so without being charged. Charging a fee, such as the Adventure Pass, even for someone who visits an area with amenities but doesn't use them, violates the FLREA, according to the decision. "
And "Those who go to a place in the forest with "a majority of the nine amenities" such as picnic tables, permanent toilets, garbage cans and running water, may be charged, the court said.
However, the court's ruling concludes the federal statute says "individuals can go to a place offering facilities and services without using the facilities and services and without paying a fee."
"This includes not being charged simply to park, said the court. "
So it would appear that you can visit and park at a place that has the amenities, but as long as you aren't using them, you don't have to pay. Say you parked at a developed trail head with permanent outhouse, picnic area, and garbage cans, and as long as you just go hiking, they can't charge you from what I read.
And lastly this quote.....
"It (the 9th Circuit decision) is binding on all the western states."
So at least as far as USFS land, this decision is binding in Washington State.
Now to look into the laws governing the Discover Pass.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on February 19, 2012, 07:32:40 PM
OK there are many trail heads that have a sign saying pass required but have none of the amenties.:yeah:
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 19, 2012, 07:34:40 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 19, 2012, 07:36:37 PM
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
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 21, 2012, 06:12:28 AM
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.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 21, 2012, 01:55:09 PM
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.
Post by: dreamingbig on February 21, 2012, 02:26:09 PM
Post by: 280ackley on February 21, 2012, 09:25:20 PM
This is a interesting and important decision coming out of the 9th.
Post by: bigtex on February 21, 2012, 09:30:28 PM
Security is supplied on a highly irregular basis by SnoCo SD.
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.
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.
Post by: 280ackley on February 21, 2012, 09:31:20 PM
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.
Post by: bigtex on February 21, 2012, 09:34:41 PM
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
Post by: 280ackley on February 21, 2012, 09:49:42 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 22, 2012, 05:36:08 AM
Security is supplied on a highly irregular basis by SnoCo SD.
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.
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
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 22, 2012, 05:43:57 AM
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.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 22, 2012, 06:33:39 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 22, 2012, 06:45:11 AM
Post by: fireweed on February 23, 2012, 10:55:32 AM
Post by: steen on February 24, 2012, 03:09:44 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 24, 2012, 09:15:03 PM
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.
You don't need the Discover Pass for the elk feeding area, a WDFW pass you get with your license is good enough....
Post by: bigtex on February 24, 2012, 09:18:08 PM
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.
The issue is the way the Discover Pass bill was written, it is NOT DNR's fault. The bill allowed DNR to "designate" those siteas as "designated rec areas", had they wanted some type of control they (they legislature) could have included in the bill which DNR areas needed the pass or have said that those areas currently managed as DNR rec areas are the only areas that the pass is needed.
To me a "loophole" is something that takes a while to find out, this was in plain english right in the bill.....
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 25, 2012, 12:01:55 PM