Ticket for not having wilderness permit

[goatboy]

I think the technically it's a 1/4 mile from the sign, and that the fact that folks haven't been enforcing it doesn't mean that they couldn't.

[Off_White]

I've parked just on the other side of the sign at a bunch of places and never had an issue, even in high profile spots like the aforementioned Blue Lake TH & White Pass where the car sat for 4 days. The 1/4 mile idea sounds really nebulous and difficult to prove, who gets out a tape measure to determine where 1320 feet from the sign is? What if its a hill, are we talking 1320 level feet or feet along the incline plane? A marked boundary is the only thing that can make sense.

[sobo]

...The 1/4 mile idea sounds really nebulous and difficult to prove, who gets out a tape measure to determine where 1320 feet from the sign is? What if its a hill, are we talking 1320 level feet or feet along the incline plane? A marked boundary is the only thing that can make sense.

 

...A Northwest Forest Pass is required if you are parking at or within a quarter mile of many Umatilla National Forest trailheads. (emphasis added) It is also valid in any national forest in Washington or Oregon and in the North Cascades National Park.

Source

It would seem from the above that the 1/4 mile limit is still in effect, and that perhaps those of you parking on the opposite side of the sign from the TH have just been "lucky" in not getting ticketed.

 

Make no mistake, I DO NOT support this illegal (never voted upon by the American public) "law" and I do not consider it binding upon me. I will continue to subvert it at every opportunity presented to me by refusing to purchase the pass. I am a proponent of user fees (you use it, you pay for it), but this is one "user fee" that I, nor any of you, was ever given a chance to vote upon. Given that chance would have changed the whole principle of the thing. As it stands, my principles tell me that until I get a chance to vote on this "Fee Demo" (not "Demo" anymore) program, it is illegal and does not require my compliance, nor do I give it.

[Water]

my understanding in a lot of cases is that there is the sign that says 'entering a fee area, pass required' type verbiage (with a NW forest pass image)

 

If you park before you pass that sign you have not entered a fee area, 1/4 mile aside.

[chris]

I had great success simply writing a letter apologizing for forgetting, including my pass, and asking for forgiveness. Worked every time.

 

Make a copy of everything for yourself before sending it off.

[mr.radon]

No sign problem solved...

[markwebster]

I don't get why everyone is so cheap. $30 for your car for a year, big deal. You spend that much on beer and junk food every weekend.

 

The government is broke because the rich buggers are sitting on all their money, and that isn't changing any time soon. The state is desperately trying to find a way to get a little more cash to help pay for those very parks that we love.

 

You pay to park at Smith, you pay to park at Mt. Rainier, it's just a little more money. Surely you all can afford $30? And don't start in on principles. That's BS.

 

Do you really want to see some of these trailhead access roads completely closed down? How are you going to feel about saving $30 when your favorite climb now requires a 20 mile hike up a washed out dirt road?

[Tyson.g]

+1 for Marks comment!

Cheap ass bastards sell ONE cam or don't re outfit with next years hot new designs.

 

[sobo]

I don't get why everyone is so cheap. $30 for your car for a year, big deal. You spend that much on beer and junk food every weekend.

Yeah, probably. So what? The issue is not how I spend MY money...

 

The government is broke because the rich buggers are sitting on all their money, and that isn't changing any time soon. The state is desperately trying to find a way to get a little more cash to help pay for those very parks that we love.

Oversimplification of the root issue. Blame it on the rich. Of course! How could I not have known that? Did you ever stop to think that if the NFS and the BLM started charging the resource harvesting (consuming) companies what the lumber/ore/minerals they extract from our public lands are ACTUALLY WORTH that we wouldn't be in this situation? No, I didn't think so...

 

You pay to park at Smith, you pay to park at Mt. Rainier, it's just a little more money. Surely you all can afford $30? And don't start in on principles. That's BS.

This is where you are SO FUQ'N WRONG, Mark. IT IS ABOUT PRINCIPLES!!!1 The Fee Demo (not Demo anymore) program is an illegal "law" in that it was never voted upon by the constituency of any state before it "became law." If that is not a complete bastardization and corruption of the principles of the Founding Fathers, then I don't know WTF is.

 

Do you really want to see some of these trailhead access roads completely closed down? How are you going to feel about saving $30 when your favorite climb now requires a 20 mile hike up a washed out dirt road?

Then I'll break out my mountain bike. It needs to see a lot more use anyway...

 

It ain't about the fuckin' $30, Mark. I got plenty of cash lying around if that's how I wanted to spend it. The real thing for me is that this is a "law" that was forced down our collective throats by a Congressman (Ohioan Ralph Regula) without so much as one goddamned acre of federal land in his district. So he clearly never had to worry about repercussions from HIS constituency, because it wasn't in THEIR back yard. The rest of us got stuck with his revenue generation scheme, attached as a rider to the 1996 Omnibus legislation "so that our government could keep functioning." How many fuq'n times have I heard THAT as an excuse to pass a bill???

 

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get to the grocery store. I've got $30 burning a hole in my pocket, and I'm thirsty and got the munchies, too...

[mr.radon]

Mark not to mention the inherent unfairness that the West "left" coast is the only NF that needs this dumb pass. How does CO maintain all those trailheads and camp grounds without a fee? Wait, thats right the volunteers. Nope, won;t find trash cans at CO trailheads, wait didn't I arrive in a car that can carry my trash out? How about the need for crappers, nope don't need those either. not to mention most trail maintenance is actually done by volunteers.

Finally, wait, the big LUMER companies can make a profit off using the forest, but lonely old me has to pay a fee?

 

I guess you are sold on the cry me a river by the government while they blow huge amounts of money to provide college educations (in state status) to illegal immigrants. keep drinking the cool aide.

 

I don't mind if they cut the $$$ spent on the trailheads 95%, let volunteers do the upkeep. Most to the NF money collected is now spent on enforcement.

[mattp]

I agree that it is a matter of principal. Public lands should be public. And when you add up all the fees involved, a simple three day trip to the Alpine Lakes Wilderness, with a night in the campground before the hike in and a permit to camp at Colchuck Lake, costs a serious chunk of change.

 

But Mark is right too: it is fact that the government is broke and most of us who are spending our time complaining on cc.com can afford to purchase passes for all the different public lands we visit.

 

My own approach is to simply swallow what little pride I may have invested in the issue and buy the pass, but write letters to my representatives, show up at public meetings, and vote. Where given an opportunity, I will work against the pass at every turn but meanwhile I realize that they need the money.

[Tyson.g]

Matt you are spot on.

Buy the pass or don't and risk the ticket, but for Pete sake if your panties are that bunched up folks, then use you time to write someone who can actually do something rather than spend your time whining on here.

Remember Johnny it is like the first grade around here, no one likes a whiner.!

[Water]

it is more than obvious that the $30 for the pass does not actually help to get the road repaired or keep the trail maintained in the vast majority of situations. If you followed the money from the 'demo' to what got spent at trailheads you'd see that most of them get about squat spent on them (i mean how much does a parking area cost the forest service each year, how long does a picnic table cost them?) Most TH im at dont have a bathroom nor garbage even---so im wondering what the friggin cost is?

 

then there are probably 5-6 TH in each national forest that get TONS of action and would easily be sustained by volunteer group and do cost lots of money to maintain due to bathrooms and trash/popularity.

[Fairweather]

Maybe if the USFS would set up some car prowl sting operations like MRNP recently did they could show fee payers a ROI. Reopening the Middle Fork, Stehekin, Suiattle, White Chuck, Sauk, Dosewallips, etc, etc, etc, would be a strong demonstration of fee utility and good will too.

[billcoe]

I don't get why everyone is so cheap. $30 for your car for a year, big deal. You spend that much on beer and junk food every weekend.

I agree Mark but 1 have (at least) 2 huge issues.

 

1st) The last time Washington did this kind of fee, (which is now back) they said most of the money went to enforcement, new administrative hires and other bullcrap like signage, people running around collecting, etc etc. They actually made very little (I believe that in the press release the Governor said they made nothing), which is why the Governor got rid of it last time. It wasn't achieving it's objectives as less people were using the parks. If you want to fund the parks, fine, but this tax didn't work well last time. Do something that works and funds the parks not a new group of tax collectors with all the attendant hires for people to sit on their asses and do nothing but bother other people.

 

2nd) It's regressive. I pay the same as a broke widow and 4 kids or an unemployed guy. I make a shitload more. One more way to F** the poor. That's wrong too.

 

There are already tax collecting systems in place Mark, where increasing the tax here or there on this one or that one will not increase enforcement costs. Initiating a brand new tax requires additional manpower and inflates the bureaucracy even more - it's wasteful, at a time we don't need more waste or more unnecessary goverment. That Lucky Larry has to pay the same as me, despite the fact that Larry has no job or income and is scraping by, only serves to piss me off more. If they were to start to evaluate giving folks like Larry a free pass then costs to administer it would rise even more. It's not the $30, you are right about that. It's bullshit. I use my local parks for instance, and the funding comes out of my house payment taxes. If they need more $ for capitol improvements, the will give us the chance to vote on it. Even if I vote no and am overruled by a simple majority, at least I know that: A) Most people wanted it, and B) all they have to do is tweek our existing tax bills they are already sending to me and 100% of the money raised will go towards the intended objective. If they were to start a brand new tax, with all kinds of infrastructure and hires to administer it, I'd oppose it all the way for being wasteful. Which is what we have here.

 

That there is starting to be multiple layers of goverment agencies (federal state and local) dipping into doing this very thing only makes it more painful to see.

[goatboy]

I don't like or approve of the whole Fee Demo system, but it obviously has some of it's root cause in land-management agencies needing to get money from somewhere. They are broke.

 

It is also short-sighted to rip down the signs, etc. which ultimately uses up more money and makes the problem worse for everyone, though it may solve the perpetrator's temporary problem for that particular weekend, etc.

 

I agree with MattP that whether we buy the pass or not, we can at least voice dissent through the proper channels.

[AlpineK]

Nice Bill

 

We all have to pay taxes Mark, but there are exemptions. Take food for example.

 

Exempt Food Sales

Sales of food and food ingredients are exempt from retail sales tax. However, prepared foods, dietary supplements, and soft drinks are taxable. To review food definitions see Special Notices. RCW 82.08.0293; WAC 458-20-244

 

http://dor.wa.gov/Content/FindTaxesAndRates/TaxIncentives/Def_Deductions.aspx#ExmptFoodSales

 

The reason food is exempt is everybody needs it to live. Being taxed on it takes a much bigger chunk of income from somebody making $10/hr as opposed to somebody making $100,000/year.

 

Public lands are a public resource. They should be something everybody has access to. Sure you and me can fork over $30, but what about a family who might want to take the kids for a hike but due to regulations and permit costs can't swing it. It's just one more barrier keeping folks away from land they as a citizen own.

[genepires]

It's just one more barrier keeping folks away from land they as a citizen own.

 

Is keeping the masses away from the wilderness a bad thing?

 

(I am kidding of course...sort of)

[MrGecko]

 

If you want to know where a good chunk of tax money goes take a look at the US's military budget and spending.

 

[Off_White]

...it obviously has some of it's root cause in land-management agencies needing to get money from somewhere. They are broke.

 

They weren't broke when they instituted the fee demo program, so it doesn't seem adequate for that, does it?

 

As Bill points out, much of the money collected goes to enforcement of the fee and associated program costs, not recreational enhancement, and I'm with Fairweather on his list of closed roads we're not getting any action on.

 

I do appreciate the Clear Creek road in Darrington getting reopened so quickly though, that was very welcome and surprising.

[JasonG]

You can thank NCCC and Pilchuck Audubon for a lot of the road closures. The Forest Service would have most of them reopened by now if it weren't for the endless appeals. Not sure about the Dose situation, but I think there is a vocal minority group opposing that one also (and I think the NPS isn't for it). Stehekin Rd is mainly being opposed by NPS and above groups (but I could be wrong), Doc Hastings has a bill that passed the house and died in the Senate that would re-draw the wilderness boundary and allow the Stehekin road to be built on the old wagon alignment (where it should have been in the first place). Write you congressmen and women, and the FS, NPS, etc.- it isn't as simple as a forest pass clearing the way for road work, not when NEPA is involved.

 

The Darrington office will be resending a Suiattle road plan for comment, hopefully this November. I will try and start a thread when I hear about it.

[Jim]

On the original question - had a similar issue, forgot to post my pass and just sent the FS a scanned copy - no problem. You should follow-up and make sure your info got to the right person, however.

 

On the passes in general - I don't have problem paying for a pass. I spend more on a RT in gas for crying out loud.

But the program does have rules and the FS appears to be stretching these at times.

 

Regarding road openings - JasonG has it correct. It often is quite complicated with NEPA, ESA, and stakeholder suits. And many time road were put in place - where frankly that are unsustainable or will just cost to much to keep repairing. I worked on resource studies for the Mt. Loop Hwy repairs and holy cow I was surprised what prortion of the MBS FS road budget was devoted to keeping that road open. Similarly the Suiattle Road is suceptible to flooding and associated damage as is the Stehekin Rd. While it takes a bit more creativity and energy to get through these areas, I'm not sure the long term cost/benefit analysis is worth repairing and repairing these features. IMO.

[JasonG]

I'm drifting but just can't help myself...

 

Jim you make a good point about the cost/benefit of keeping a lot of the roads repaired, it isn't cheap. But I also look at it as spreading the impact of the millions who want to recreate on our public lands. Now, as a dad, I also look at it through the eyes of my young boys, who want to go to the same places I went at their ages. Making things relatively accessible (maintained trails, roads, etc.) for the next generation is important, IMO. And just because some of these road segments are still bikeable (today) doesn't make their non-drivability trivial in the long run. Without frequent brushing, they will turn into alder hells relatively quickly.

 

We are already seeing the a dramatic decline in funding going to the FS and NPS - I think it is a refection of our overall society's lack of regard for recreating on our public lands. Per capita, I get the feeling talking to my grandparents that much fewer people travel overnight in the mountains these days as compared to the postwar era. If this trend continues, will society still want land locked up (via Wilderness Act, logging plans, etc.) that very few use??

 

OK, I'm done. Sorry for the hijack.

[goatboy]

...it obviously has some of it's root cause in land-management agencies needing to get money from somewhere. They are broke.

 

They weren't broke when they instituted the fee demo program, so it doesn't seem adequate for that, does it?

 

 

No, it doesn't.

 

I hate the fee demo program and am not defending their choice to implement it. I am pointing out the illogic and unintended consequences of damaging or removing signage to (maybe) avoid a ticket, but which does drive an impoverished system further into debt.

 

Doesn't seem logical, does it?