Forrest Service Parking Permit

[mark1980]

The F.S. used to be more involved in forest management, managing the natural resource as an income source form logging. That income from logging is limited today and I’d rather pay an access fee than see logging operations paying for the upkeep of roads.

 

Extractive private usage of public lands has never earned the general public anything. It has always cost the tax payer $$. For instance, many of the damn roads built by loggers get turned over to the Forest Service, who then in turn credit the loggers for building it!!! Then the Forest Service has to maintain the damn thing! That in my book that practice is a subsidy. If crap like that went away I might be will to pay to play but until the subsidies for extractive industries ends - forgot it.

You’re wrong on that one. Timber harvesting in our national forests has always contributed to the public coffers. It's questionable if the contribution is of a high enough value to offset the cost of developing the public land for logging; selfishly I’d rather see an untouchched landscape from a mountain viewpoint, but the public still sees a benefit. A portion of the sale of timber is supposed to be returned to the community from which it came from and the employed loggers and the companies they work for contribute to the tax base thru their personal income taxes and the business taxes paid by their employers, and then there is the raw material that is processed into a product, and that creates jobs, private sector jobs that aren’t paid from tax dollars, and that product is sold and taxed. Then shipped and taxed and sold again, all of which the public benefits from. If it wasn’t so, what would legitimize the existence of the forest service; accept to manage the public forests for recreation.

[Lucky Larry]

Well, all the fees sure leave out a lot of poor/unemployed folk who use to go to the outdoors because it was the cheapest thing happening before it became trendy and hip. Is this a form of socio-economic discrimination? The cost (taxpayer money) of one nuke (not a usable resource) would pay for a heck of a lot, wouldn't it?

[genepires]

While I am not for the parking fees, it is only $30 a year and there are a lot of poor people buying $5 coffee drinks on a regular basis. If they can afford to drive to the trailheads, they can afford the parking fee. The arguement against parking fees based on eliminating the poor doesn't hold.

[mattp]

I disagree with that, gene, though that wouldn't be my main argument. I don't think rich or poor should have to pay to access public land.

 

But with all the fees it cost something like $70.00 for two couples and two kids to camp overnight in Leavenworth, park at the trailhead, and camp in the wilderness for two nights on a recent trip I took. Yes, gas for two cars to Leavenworth and back cost more than half that, but still the cost certainly can be prohibitive.

[billcoe]

As an FS employee all I'm going to say is that the upkeep of "your" (our) public land is expensive. I don't like it any more than the next person, and I get no free passes (believe me, I wish I did), but the reality is that nice trailheads, shitters, fire crews/management, range management, wilderness communication, law enforcement (for those truly abusing our land), and many other things are sorely underfunded from the government budget unfortunately. So...we all do our part and enjoy our land that we have to work and pay for. Left unkempt and unregulated, it would be much worse.

 

If you pay the fees, you don't get nasty tickets in the end. Probably time to suck it up and fall in line. It sucks, I know.

 

The government isn't making money at this. Oh no. The money is all going for the maintenance of the program. I suspect that over time they will just lose more and more money and use that as the excuse to increase the fees.

 

See, I pay more in income taxes than Larry makes in salary. I don't complain about the tax system as it is relatively fair. The more I make, the more I pay. I don't complain about that although I do dislike that my country is spending more than it makes and we are going to shaft the next generation with this debt load needlessly. No, it's not the $5 that pisses me off, I got $5 coming out my ass and I wake up in the morning flushing them down the toilet. It's not the $5 or the $30, $100 or any amount of money at all. Shit, I had a season ski pass for many years, you should price one of those out sometime. Its the stupidity and unfairness of the thing that angers and outrages me - put it in the budget and pull it out of my income taxes so it can be fair, or stop doing the trail maintenance and let volunteers do it all or the trails can disappear.

 

I am for smaller government, and if it means your ass gets fired and you have to go get a real job wherein you are productive and you can't be a parasite anymore sucking poor peoples blood, I'm all for it. Screw you and screw this program and screw the forest service. Pricks.

 

Oh, and screw your $75 tickets to poor people who can barely feed themselves and want to enjoy the lands that they own you motherfucking parasites should be ashamed.

Edited October 12, 2010 by billcoe

[j_b]

Noticing that Larry the tool doesn't seem to work very hard and is getting fat behind the wheel doesn't mean that "big government" is the problem. The burden of adequate proof is on those who claim that "big government" is the issue. Everybody can anecdotally point at some waste but all organizations, including those for profit, generate waste and unless one can also show that eliminating it is possible and that it would enable to manage public land adequately without resorting to user fees, I don't see any objective reason to believe that this waste results in "big government" and that "smaller government" is desirable.

 

People don't account for the fact that funding for public land management has been wholly inadequate for a long time and money has to come from somewhere. Without analyzing budget numbers it is impossible to tell whether additional sources of funds are absolutely needed today. Anybody knows whether Parks have answered the AAC and others' requests for financial data?.

[ZimZam]

"Probably time to suck it up and fall in line." The battle cry of a lemming. It sucks, but then again you know.

[billcoe]

Then pay Larry's fine jackass. Or STFU.

[pink]

Then pay Larry's fine jackass. Or STFU.

 

 

+1

[jordansahls]

I don't think that the Forrest service does anything that volunteers couldn't do with regards to general land management. With the exception of the occasional fire or road/bridge repair it seems like we are being asked to pay for shit we could do ourselves. I understand that the money has to come from somewhere, but I was under the impression that the money came from our taxes (naive, I know). So now we get taxed twice, once by the fed and again with a ticket, Its bullshit.

 

Plus, anyone who has climbed anything somewhat remote in the cascades has been on climbers trails or game trails that aren't maintained. I don't buy into the whole, "you-wouldn't-be-able-to-have-trails-if-it-wasn't-for-the-forest-service" argument.

 

Plus, if you want a good example of Forest service access policy's try getting out to certain areas in the Winter. All they do is gate shit. They take the idiot populace stance, "sure we could just leave the gates open and post a big sign saying your on your own, but instead we're going to intervene and decide for you because people are stupid and need our help".

 

What a mess!

 

 

[pink]

FUCK THE FOREST SERVICE

[billcoe]

FUCK THE FOREST SERVICE

+1

[ivan]

FUCK THE FOREST SERVICE

but tom vilsack seems like such a nice guy....

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Then pay Larry's fine jackass. Or STFU.

 

 

+1

 

+1

[KaskadskyjKozak]

But with all the fees it cost something like $70.00 for two couples and two kids to camp overnight in Leavenworth, park at the trailhead, and camp in the wilderness for two nights on a recent trip I took. Yes, gas for two cars to Leavenworth and back cost more than half that, but still the cost certainly can be prohibitive.

 

Camp site 10-20 for one night

TH 5

 

that's 15-25. Where are you coming up with the other 50 bucks?

[j_b]

Then pay Larry's fine jackass. Or STFU.

 

I guess you couldn't come up with greater than anecdotal evidence that public land management is over-funded and unusually wasteful so you came up with a lame comment. Somehow I am not too surprised since it's par for the course with most "small government" types (who weren't really concerned about "big government" when regressives controlled government. Go figure ....)

[tomtom]

Just a friendly reminder about the fffd! up parking situation at The Bend in Tieton River Canyon. What a nice little buisness they have there making $136 per ticket. Three of us got tagged on that particular day. Huge turn-out that would fit about 100 cars and has signs that are so faded and posted behind a tree no less and only posted on one side. What a joke. Oh yeah its a fishing permit you must purchase.

 

Nope.

 

You can park there with a DFW Vehicle Use Permit, which is cheaper than a fishing permit.

[shinsain]

I don't think that the Forrest service does anything that volunteers couldn't do with regards to general land management. With the exception of the occasional fire or road/bridge repair it seems like we are being asked to pay for shit we could do ourselves.

 

I guess you should break out your environmental science, geology, civil engineering, range management, ecology, and fire ecology degrees that you've got hiding in your back pocket...hop in your car and start rolling. Oh, and remember to hit up the hundreds of miles of trail maintenance while you're at it (Time to dig out that 'ol pulaski hiding in your garage!).

 

I understand that the money has to come from somewhere, but I was under the impression that the money came from our taxes (naive, I know). So now we get taxed twice, once by the fed and again with a ticket, Its bullshit.

 

I guess if you must look at a ticket as a government tax you can look at it as a tax on doing something dumb. No one ever forced another person to do something dumb, so maybe that person deserves it.

 

Plus, anyone who has climbed anything somewhat remote in the cascades has been on climbers trails or game trails that aren't maintained. I don't buy into the whole, "you-wouldn't-be-able-to-have-trails-if-it-wasn't-for-the-forest-service" argument.

When did people start maintaining game trails?

 

Plus, if you want a good example of Forest service access policy's try getting out to certain areas in the Winter. All they do is gate shit. They take the idiot populace stance, "sure we could just leave the gates open and post a big sign saying your on your own, but instead we're going to intervene and decide for you because people are stupid and need our help".

Oh now you're just being silly. Silly boy.

Edited October 15, 2010 by shinsain

[Snowman_Jim]

Well, it wasn't a parking permit but I just came back from court today for a traffic type ticket issued by the USFS which was dismissed by the US Attorneys office. With their apologies.

 

The alleged violations were related to vehicle and driver licensing by the state of Oregon. No moving violations were alleged at all. It was issued in a parking lot at a trailhead. So now we have a federal agency attempting and pretending to be involved in vehicle and driver paperwork issues. I would think this is still something very much a state power under whatever is left of the 10th amendment.

 

The USFS lady couldn't write a ticket for state law violations so she wrote it for violating a CFR which refers to special orders issued by the agency. This was back in May.

 

I asked the clerk who covers all this stuff in Portland at the US Attorneys office for a copy of the forest order violated as well as the specific ORS (state) statutes violated. Eventually they dug up an order that is ancient. It refers to specific ORS statutes, none of which apply and one of which no longer even exists. For good measure she threw in copies of a bunch of ORS sections that govern how the state does things, are not referenced in the forest order, and have no relevance at all.

 

She told me it would be set for court when I pointed the above things out in a written response. I got a phone message a while ago that it was today in Medford so I drove over there ready to make the case. Nobody seemed to have me on their list and there was no indication of where to go. After eventually being routed to a courtroom with trials and sitting through one the law clerk prosecuting this stuff said they were dismissing it. Nice of them to tell me. She seemed straight forward though and said she had never been given my contact info by the others when it was bounced around all over.

 

She spoke to me afterward and told me that the forest order was a worthless piece of junk ("as I had pointed out in my letter" in her words). She also apologized for the inadequate and shoddy discovery response from Portland.

 

So if you get a USFS ticket of any kind be sure to research it. Ask the US Attorneys office for any specific info that is relevant such as local forest orders, etc. Make them be very specific about what law they are charging you with - they seem to like CFRs that are vague and refer to other documents they hope and assume you won't ask for.

 

It may seem like a lot of time and effort but it isn't really. I found everything I needed, or references to what I needed to ask for, online with little trouble. The biggest waste of time and money was driving to Medford which should not have been necessary.

 

The other trial I sat through was also USFS. The judge did not just listen politely, find the guy guilty, and impose a slap on the wrist judgment. This is sometimes how these CVB trials go, but he gave the defendant adequate time and guidance, asked good questions himself of both parties, and spent time deliberating. In fact he didn't even render a decision but took the case under advisement. It was a pleasant surprise. So if you get a good judge you do have a chance to make your case and you do have a chance of winning if your case is good enough. When it comes to fees many of them clearly violate the authorizing legislation.

 

The US Attorneys office has much more to lose than a defendant in terms of being embarrassed in federal court. They are expected to be 100% on top of their game, random citizens aren't. And most citizens aren't appearing regularly. They will try to build a solid case, but if they are fed garbage by the USFS and the end result is likely to be an embarrassment in court they will dismiss it. (However, in some cases its not about the specifics as much as an underlying issue or an effort to create precedent. This has been true of fee issues in some cases.)

[Snowman_Jim]

Well, it wasn't a parking permit but I just came back from court today for a traffic type ticket issued by the USFS which was dismissed by the US Attorneys office. With their apologies.

 

The alleged violations were related to vehicle and driver licensing by the state of Oregon. No moving violations were alleged at all. It was issued in a parking lot at a trailhead. So now we have a federal agency attempting and pretending to be involved in vehicle and driver paperwork issues. I would think this is still something very much a state power under whatever is left of the 10th amendment.

 

The USFS lady couldn't write a ticket for state law violations so she wrote it for violating a CFR which refers to special orders issued by the agency. This was back in May.

 

I asked the clerk who covers all this stuff in Portland at the US Attorneys office for a copy of the forest order violated as well as the specific ORS (state) statutes violated. Eventually they dug up an order that is ancient. It refers to specific ORS statutes, none of which apply and one of which no longer even exists. For good measure she threw in copies of a bunch of ORS sections that govern how the state does things, are not referenced in the forest order, and have no relevance at all.

 

She told me it would be set for court when I pointed the above things out in a written response. I got a phone message a while ago that it was today in Medford so I drove over there ready to make the case. Nobody seemed to have me on their list and there was no indication of where to go. After eventually being routed to a courtroom with trials and sitting through one the law clerk prosecuting this stuff said they were dismissing it. Nice of them to tell me. She seemed straight forward though and said she had never been given my contact info by the others when it was bounced around all over.

 

She spoke to me afterward and told me that the forest order was a worthless piece of junk ("as I had pointed out in my letter" in her words). She also apologized for the inadequate and shoddy discovery response from Portland.

 

So if you get a USFS ticket of any kind be sure to research it. Ask the US Attorneys office for any specific info that is relevant such as local forest orders, etc. Make them be very specific about what law they are charging you with - they seem to like CFRs that are vague and refer to other documents they hope and assume you won't ask for.

 

It may seem like a lot of time and effort but it isn't really. I found everything I needed, or references to what I needed to ask for, online with little trouble. The biggest waste of time and money was driving to Medford which should not have been necessary.

 

The other trial I sat through was also USFS. The judge did not just listen politely, find the guy guilty, and impose a slap on the wrist judgment. This is sometimes how these CVB trials go, but he gave the defendant adequate time and guidance, asked good questions himself of both parties, and spent time deliberating. In fact he didn't even render a decision but took the case under advisement. It was a pleasant surprise. So if you get a good judge you do have a chance to make your case and you do have a chance of winning if your case is good enough. When it comes to fees many of them clearly violate the authorizing legislation.

 

The US Attorneys office has much more to lose than a defendant in terms of being embarrassed in federal court. They are expected to be 100% on top of their game, random citizens aren't. And most citizens aren't appearing regularly. They will try to build a solid case, but if they are fed garbage by the USFS and the end result is likely to be an embarrassment in court they will dismiss it. (However, in some cases its not about the specifics as much as an underlying issue or an effort to create precedent. This has been true of fee issues in some cases.)

[genepires]

right on and good job. I am not sure what happened but it sounds like you kicked some fed ass in court.

 

 

[billcoe]

Good on your snowmanjim! This might apply to Larry as well, the meat of the post is towards the bottom, I bolded the text. From: http://www.westernslopenofee.org/

 

 

 

 

"RED ROCK PASS DECISION STANDS FIRM

 

 

 

The Forest Service allowed the deadline for filing an appeal in the case of U.S. v Smith to expire without acting.

 

This confirms the decision by U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Aspey that the Red Rock Pass fee area surrounding Sedona, Arizona is significantly out of compliance with federal law.

 

The Coconino National Forest responded with a press release that's downright breathtaking in its audacity:

 

"Red Rock Country Continues To Be A Fee Area."

 

The press release disregards the Judge's description of the Forest Service's interpretation of the law as "absurd" and simply lists all the - supposedly wonderful - ways they spend the money.

 

That's a little like a thief claiming it's all right to steal if you also donate to the United Way.

 

The Coconino "is reviewing the area to determine appropriate changes in light of the court's decision" so perhaps - in time - they will get the message and bring the Sedona area into compliance with federal law.

 

Meanwhile, anyone - in Sedona or anywhere else - who receives a Violation Notice, and who was not using a developed facility, would be well advised to read the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, review Judge Aspey's Decision, and consider whether their circumstances warrant asking for their Violation Notice to be dismissed, citing U.S. v Smith as precedent.

 

DON'T BE FOOLED BY A NeRF!

 

If you receive - in Sedona or anywhere else - something that looks like a ticket but does not say "Violation Notice," it is not a ticket!

 

The Forest Service uses a device called a Notice Of Required Fee (NRF) to intimidate people into paying fees without the burden of having to prove in court that the fee is authorized or that the accused is guilty of not paying it.

 

An NRF might as well be called a NERF - it carries about the same punch as a nerf ball. An NRF is NOT A TICKET!

 

 

Much more about NRFs in Bill Schneider's latest piece for NewWest.net:

Forest Service Moves To Intimidation To Collect More Entrance Fees. "

[jordansahls]

I don't think that the Forrest service does anything that volunteers couldn't do with regards to general land management. With the exception of the occasional fire or road/bridge repair it seems like we are being asked to pay for shit we could do ourselves.

 

I guess you should break out your environmental science, geology, civil engineering, range management, ecology, and fire ecology degrees that you've got hiding in your back pocket...hop in your car and start rolling. Oh, and remember to hit up the hundreds of miles of trail maintenance while you're at it (Time to dig out that 'ol pulaski hiding in your garage!).

 

You got me there, I way over simplified. I should have been more specific by saying something like "general access" or "trail accessibility".

 

I understand that the money has to come from somewhere, but I was under the impression that the money came from our taxes (naive, I know). So now we get taxed twice, once by the fed and again with a ticket, Its bullshit.

 

I guess if you must look at a ticket as a government tax you can look at it as a tax on doing something dumb. No one ever forced another person to do something dumb, so maybe that person deserves it.

 

Um, ok, how about the examples given by more than a few posters of getting hit with bullshit tickets (see the below posts). Doesn't sound like they did anything "dumb" to me.

 

Plus, anyone who has climbed anything somewhat remote in the cascades has been on climbers trails or game trails that aren't maintained. I don't buy into the whole, "you-wouldn't-be-able-to-have-trails-if-it-wasn't-for-the-forest-service" argument.

When did people start maintaining game trails?

 

You know what I meant. Whose being silly now?

 

Plus, if you want a good example of Forest service access policy's try getting out to certain areas in the Winter. All they do is gate shit. They take the idiot populace stance, "sure we could just leave the gates open and post a big sign saying your on your own, but instead we're going to intervene and decide for you because people are stupid and need our help".

Oh now you're just being silly. Silly boy.

 

Try getting out into the Maude area in the north cascades during the winter months, or out on Nooksack River road, or up to Pilchuck or any area past deer creek (which they gate).

 

If you have spent anytime climbing around here in the last five years you would know that more and more areas are being gated. Nothing silly about not having access to our forests. I don't know about you, but I don't much like being told how to access my land.

[Crux]

Ran across a news item that seems germane to this thread: Britain may sell off forests to raise cash.

 

No further comments from me here.