Forrest Service Parking Permit

mark1980 · October 12, 2010

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 · October 12, 2010

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 · October 12, 2010

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 · October 12, 2010

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 · October 12, 2010

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 · October 12, 2010

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 · October 12, 2010

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

billcoe · October 12, 2010

Then pay Larry's fine jackass. Or STFU.

pink · October 12, 2010

Then pay Larry's fine jackass. Or STFU.

+1

jordansahls · October 12, 2010

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 · October 12, 2010

FUCK THE FOREST SERVICE

billcoe · October 12, 2010

FUCK THE FOREST SERVICE

+1

ivan · October 12, 2010

FUCK THE FOREST SERVICE

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

KaskadskyjKozak · October 12, 2010

Then pay Larry's fine jackass. Or STFU.

+1

+1

KaskadskyjKozak · October 12, 2010

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 · October 12, 2010

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 · October 12, 2010

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 · October 15, 2010

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 · October 16, 2010

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 · October 16, 2010