9th Circuit Appeals Court rules USFS cannot charge a fee if you're just hiking

[Sun Dance]

There's been quite a bit of discussion going on about the ramifications of this decision over at http://www.nwhikers.net today. I'll give the link and the first post here,then let you read on from there if you're interested.

I wonder if this will ever trickle down to our forests in Utah? I tell you what, those government entities up in Washington absolutely rape their people when it comes to regular taxation, let alone double taxation in the case of using public lands. We have it pretty good here.

Would this potentially mean not having to pay to stop on the Alpine Loop, or to hike Timp? That might be more trouble than it's worth, given the Saturday crowds up there.

http://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewt...er=asc&start=0

vibramhead:

On Feb. 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Forest Service couldn't charge a fee for simply parking at a trailhead and hiking. The Forest Service's authority to charge fees is limited by the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, which prohibits charging fees to persons who simply park at a developed site without using any amenities, but only walk through it to hike trails. You can read the decision here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...9/10-16711.pdf

The Forest Service may only charge a fee for use of sites that contain all of the following amenities: permanent toilet; permanent trash receptacle; developed parking; interpretive sign or kiosk; picnic table; and security services. But, if you're not using any of these amenities, and you're simply walking through, FS has no authority to charge you for parking there. The court rejected Forest Service's argument that it could charge a fee simply for making the amenities available, stating that the law "clearly contemplates that individuals can go to a place offering facilities and services without using the facilities and services and without paying a fee." The court also rejected Forest Service's argument that it could charge a fee for picnicking in undeveloped areas that are "in the vicinity" of developed sites.

The case involved fees charged on the Coronado National Forest in Arizona, but the ruling applies to all national forests within the Ninth Circuit, which includes Arizona, California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Idaho & Montana. Consequently, it appears to me that, if all you're doing is parking at a trailhead, you don't need a Northwest Forest Pass. Just don't use the restroom, toss anything in the trash can, sit down at a picnic table, or read the interpretive signs.

[Sun Dance]

What?

[Don]

What?

Spam. usmanking0092 posted that same sleeping schedule thing in a few other threads.

[Sun Dance]

Since it doesn't look like anyone's mentioned it yet, I thought I'd bump this thread and shout out that the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest is at least aware of the situation and is even talking to local reporters about it:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53...rvice.html.csp

How do we feel about the prospect of not having to pay to recreate in AF Canyon or above Aspen Grove? How about to park along Mirror Lake Highway? From what I can tell, those are really the only significant NF areas that charge entrance fees that might be affected by this decision, should the D.C. arm of USFS decide to do away with the fees.

At first glance, I think it would be great to do away with the fees, but then I think of the crowds already there on the weekends, and of the possibility of increasing those numbers, and wonder whether it would be such a great idea after all.

[Sandstone Addiction]

I don't mind too much about paying a fee, as long as the fee isn't excessive and I get something worthwhile in return. I believe the fee for AF canyon last year was $6 which I think is a little steep--maybe 3 or 4 would be tolerable. What really irritated me was after giving up my money, I had to endure miles of downfall on the trail to Box Elder Peak. People were forced to make new trails to get around and risk breaking legs or worse, tearing their britches. A real PITA after dark. This was in late July, so it wasn't like they didn't have adequate time.

[reverse_dyno]

I prefer the way Oregon does it with the Northwest Forest Pass. You can get a yearly pass and it allows you to park at trail heads and picnic areas. In Utah there are too many different fee areas. I go into the backcountry nearly every weekend and I hate always having to pay some fee. Often I do not even know whether or not I need to pay the fee in the first place! Example, you can hike in the Uintas and not pay the Mirror Lake road fee as long as you go far enough into the Uintas and are no longer in the Recreational Corridor. Now, the question is where exactly is that boundary?

I doubt the people that go and play outside are going to change their behavior regardless of the fee. It is expensive to buy all the equipment and drive somewhere to go hiking. That seems to me more of the barrier to outdoor play than a $10 or less daily parking fee.

[Iceaxe]

I never pay... I already own the land (as a citizen of the USA), why should I pay to hike on land I already own if I'm not using any facilities?

I always grab a pay envelope and toss the stub on the dash, I just don't bother to place the money in the evelope and drop it in the slot. I used to not even bother to do that until I was hassled by some wannabe rangers one day.

Mod Note: I moved this thread to Hiking as I think it will do better in that forum.