USFS Adventure Tax

[Roger]

When I was younger, the forest was free to enter and enjoy for hunting, fishing, camping, exploring, and etc. There were lots of free or very reasonably priced campgrounds.

But in the last 20 years, all has changed:

1. The campground management was contracted out to private companies and in order for them to make a profit, the rates were jacked up sky high.

2. A tax is now required to enter the forest. Even for horesback riding! My wife found that out yesterday.

3. Any repairs to trails has to be done by volunteers or it doesn't get done. BTW - I apreciate all the work that volunteers do and I have considered voluteering after I retire.

4. The general attitude of the USFS employees seems to be "stay out of our forest". Not all have this attitude I'm sure, but it seems to the prevaling attitude.

I'm sick of it all. . . but I'm sure it will only get more restrictive as time goes on and I wonder how long before the BLM jumps on the "Aventure Tax"

[karstic]

I'm sick of it all. . . but I'm sure it will only get more restrictive as time goes on and I wonder how long before the BLM jumps on the "Aventure Tax"

The BLM already has. Dumont Dunes and Glamis require a user permit. And from what I've heard the LE rangers enforce it rather enthusiastically.

[Max7]

Forest Extortion fee

Roger I call it the Forest Extortion fee.

"...Going out into nature is not a commercial transaction I should have to purchase from the government." Scott Morrell-


Fee Programs
Hated forest fee still in force

Mail Tribune
By PAUL FATTIG

Scott Morrell is a law-abiding citizen. He doesn't cheat on his taxes. You won't even catch him jaywalking. But that philosophy is being sorely tested by the Forest Service's Northwest Forest Pass.

"We feel it is an infringement on our rights to enjoy public land," said the avid hiker who lives in Medford. "We all pay taxes on April 15 already."

The pass, which costs $5 per day or $30 per year, is required to park vehicles at many trailheads and other sites on the Rogue River and Siskiyou national forests.

And it's not going away anytime soon.

Forest Service officials, noting that funds raised from the program are enabling the cash-strapped agency to maintain recreation areas that would otherwise be closed, say they will continue the program as directed by Congress.

Instituted by Congress in 1996 as the Recreation Fee Demonstration Project, it allows the Forest Service to collect fees to help support facilities used by recreational users. The test program was extended to September 2002 last year.

But Morrell, a member of Free Our Forests - Rogue Valley, a group opposing the program, hopes to see it stopped in its congressional tracks before it becomes permanent.

"We have no problem with paying fees for picnics and campgrounds," said Morrell, an employee at Southern Oregon University. "But the pass is often needed for undeveloped lands. They are trying to make us pay for just taking a hike."

Earlier this month, Josephine County commissioners unanimously passed a resolution opposing the program. State Rep. Tim Knopp, R-Bend, has also recently introduced a bill opposing it.

"Oregonians should not be taxed in the form of a fee to use their own national forests," Knopp said. "... Public lands belong to all citizens, not just those who can afford it."

He cited a study in the Journal of Leisure Research that concluded the fee discriminates against the poor.

The state legislatures of California and New Hampshire already have come out against such fees, Morrell said.

"We're hoping many such resolutions will be passed," he said, although noting the state legislative bodies carry no clout in Washington, D.C.

"But it is a symbolic gesture, a way of telling Congress that people are opposed to it," he added. "We plan to tweak Congress."

Opposition crosses political ideologies and traditional boundaries, he said.

"The city of Berkeley (California) and Josephine County have both passed resolutions against it," he said, illustrating that the opposition is broad-based.

Those opposed to the passes need to take their argument to Congress, said Rex Holloway, a spokesman for the Forest Service's Region 6 headquarters in Portland.

"There is a philosophical debate that goes with this, and that debate needs to be decided by Congress," Holloway said. "We've decided that if we are going to have these fees, then we will try to develop a system that is as convenient, as easy to understand, as user-friendly and as fair as possible."

The pass is generally required where maintenance is needed, such as picnic areas, day-use sites, trailheads and boat launches, he said.

"We're making (the pass) simpler and easier to get hold of," he said. "What we've heard from focus groups and comment cards is that people are willing to pay the fee if money goes back to pay for the facility it came from.

"Our focus this year is to try to get the word out," he added. "People really get frustrated if they find out about a fee when they go out there."

No-fee sites do and will continue to exist on national forests, he stressed.

"Anybody can take a drive in a national forest without paying a fee," he said. "There are still a lot of opportunities for those who prefer to not pay a fee."

But Morrell believes that agency has taken the program too far.

"They are now charging you for parking on the side of a hill and going for a hike," he said. "Trails have existed here for hundreds of years. We shouldn't have to pay additional taxes for continued access to those undeveloped areas."

In Southern California, a special pass is required to enter national forests, he said.

"It's the camel's nose under the tent," he said. "I'm concerned with liberty and access. Going out into nature is not a commercial transaction I should have to purchase from the government."
http://www.forestservice.info/fees/2...rdtribune.html




CLASS ACTION SUITS TO BE FILED TUESDAY IN ARIZONA, COLORADO
Public Land Owners Taking RAT, Forest Service to Civil Court

By Bill Schneider, 5-05-08

Class action lawsuit claim these and other fees are unlawful. Photo courtesy of the Western Slopes No Fee Coalition.

Enough is enough, say the owners of our national forests. And they may have finally found a way to spike the Recreation Access Tax or RAT.

After years of working through cumbersome administrative channels and several rounds in criminal court, people interested in reasonable and free access to their public land have dragged the Forest Service (FS) into civil court. In addition to asking injunctions against collecting “illegal” fees while the case is being litigated and if successful the fee program terminated, the plaintiffs in the class action complaints--to be filed tomorrow morning in Arizona and Colorado--want all fee collection signs removed and all fees collected through the years under the program returned to the people who shouldn’t have had to pay them.

Suffice to say, it’s panic time in the FS offices back in Washington, D.C.

“We’re so excited to finally find a way to challenge these illegal fees,” Kitty Benzar of the Western Slope No Fee Coalition (WSNFC) told NewWest.Net in an interview today. “The criminal strategy wasn’t working because the FS would just drop the charges when we took it to court. By going to civil court, the plaintiffs are in control. The FS is the defendant so they can’t drop the suit.”

Benzar’s group is not a party in the lawsuits but has assisted the plaintiffs and their lawyers in preparing the litigation.

The Arizona lawsuit has four plaintiffs, including Daniel Patterson, Southwest Director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), who was ticketed on Mount Lemmon last winter while recreating in area with no “amenities,” physical improvements such as campgrounds, picnic tables and toilets, as required by the law the FS is using to impose and increase fees, the Federal Lands Recreational Enhancement Act (FLREA). The other three plaintiffs are Gaye Adams, Greg Lewis and Christine Wallace, who has already been in criminal court several times to challenge the Mount Lemmon fee program.

In Colorado, Mount Evans recreation users and local residents David Scherer and John Licht are listed as the plaintiffs. Mount Evans almost lost its long-controversial fee program last summer when the Colorado Department of Transportation decided to enforce its rules against charging a fee to drive on state highways such as State Highway 5 leading to the top of Mount Evens, but after a high-level, closed-door, unannounced meeting with the FS, the state backed down and allowed the federal agency to continue charging what the plaintiffs consider an illegal fee.

“The FLREA, known as the Recreation Access Tax or RAT, prohibits the Forest Service from charging fees for parking, undeveloped camping or scenic overlooks,” the WSNFC stated in a soon-to-be-distributed press release. “The law also forbids fees for hiking, horseback riding or driving through National Forest land without using any facilities or services.”

Nonetheless, the press release states, the FS has continued charging for parking, hiking, undeveloped camping driving through national forests, and other recreational access even when the public land user does not use any facilities.

Attorney Mary Ellen Barilotti, who filed both class action complaints and who represented Wallace in her criminal actions, stated in the press release that civil court is the only avenue for obtaining a definitive ruling on whether the Forest Service has overstepped its authority.

“Since these are class action complaints,” Benzar added, “more plaintiffs can be added. Anybody who feels they’ve paid a fee they shouldn’t have can join as a plaintiff.”

Benzar told NewWest.Net that public land users interested in becoming plaintiffs in the class action complaints should contact Barilotti at mebarilotti@msn.com.

To read the actual complaints, click here.

To read long list of articles on recreation fee issues, click here.

Source: http://www.newwest.net/city/article/...urt/C104/L104/

[nwoods]

Many members of my club have contributed to Western Slopes No Fee Coalition. I really hope they win. Currently, the Adventure Pass program is hopelessly confusing. Many of the Rangers I have talked to have no idea if certain areas are in the program, or out of it. It's all gotten weird in the past year or two. I still can't figure out how the officials that are trying to preserve the outdoors by closing it can hope to accomplish their goals. It just means that more people are concentrated into the few areas left open, and the use and abuse goes up exponentially.

It's madness.

[Roger]

Geeze I had no idea all this was going on - I thought all this time I thought I was "The voice of one crying in the wilderness"...

[fun4wheelerguy]

You can always Green Sticker your Jeep as I have....... That make you exempt from the Forrest Pass. The extra registration is only $25.00 for two years and much cheaper than the $30.00 each year of the Forrest Pass. And the Green Sticker funds actually are used for trails for restrooms and improvements.

There is an exemption for the Forrest Pass.... Funny but true, If you tell the ranger you are there to have a religous experience and ask him to go pray with you..... He will get in his truck and leave. True story and true exemption !

Brett

[Old Fart]

A couple of things I'll chime in on here....

The % of Adventure Pass money that actually comes back to us for Improvement projects is substantially higher than from Green Sticker funds.

"Large frame" repair projects to trails are still done by the Feds (but most/all of the smaller projects are done by Volunteers). Unless a rather large source of funds is found, this won't change any time soon. And as the AAT manager for Big Bear - I'd rather have AAT clubs than CalTrans any day

Roger - if you're finding USFS personnel that are adopting that attitude - i'd love PM if you have names. I'm unaware of any that have that attitude - but they consider me "one of them", so I may not be seeing what they see.

Brett's idea will work (as long as you also have a license plate), and is true. If you have a Green Sticker, you're exempt from the FAP.

In defense of SBNF - we keep more of our OHV system open year round than any other forest, and our system is HUGE. We muct be doing something right - other forests keep trying to hire my boss away

[SAR Jeeper]

I found if you go to certain sporting good stores here in the S.F.V., and ask them for a second vehicle pass, they'll sell it to you. The second vehicle pass is $5 for the year. Once they asked if I had my annual pass, and I informed them I purchased it the night before, and when I called that morning to see if they had the second vehicle pass, they didn't tell me I needed to bring it in. I got the second vehicle pass.

[karstic]

The BLM already has. Dumont Dunes and Glamis require a user permit. And from what I've heard the LE rangers enforce it rather enthusiastically.

The CORVA magazine said that the BLM also has a permit for the El Mirage area.

[Kodiak Spirit]

What drives me crazy about the pass is that it doesn't take into account the time we miss due to fire etc; its 1 year, good or bad.

What drives me crazy about the day use charge, just say El Mirage, is that they now have to *pay* to do trail maintenance! Here they built a trail, and now that it's popular, they have to pay to use it! it's crazy.

[sarah]

I hear ya Roger, et al.
Tax, tax, tax.

[Mike]

Well, I guess that I am the odd-ball on this discussion. Being an import to the Communist California Republic, I can say that the USFS has always required an Adventure Pass in my memory. It doesn't seem unreasonable though. You actually only need it to 'stop and recreate', but I buy an annual pass every year because I am told that it goes to support the OHV community in the forest as much or more than any other forest activity. This is a nice thing since all the crazies that go up the hill to collect snow to take back down to their front yards in Fontana tend to buy the $5 day passes each time (come on SNOW!).

$30 bucks per year isn't much considering that most other forests are going to have trails that lead to LOCKED gates. If you don't believe me, try to take almost ANY dirt road inside the Angles National Forest!

The SBNF is one of the most OHV friendly areas that we have in all of So Cal. Heck, you should try doing some off-roading in Georgia. If you think skate-boarding is treated like a crime,...

[fun4wheelerguy]

Just remember this was all started by a vision of "Resorts" and big companies that want to privatize America. "Disney" is one of the silent companies that are keeping this going. It is our American right to have public lands, but others think we should pay for it.

Brett

[Max7]

Al Gore / Snow job

. This is a nice thing since all the crazies that go up the hill to collect snow to take back down to their front yards in Fontana tend to buy the $5 day passes each time (come on SNOW!).

Wait a minute aren't Illegal immigrants are already criminals, and now your saying they are trespassing and stealing again? LOL
Sorry ...but I have never seen a Forest Adventure Pass hanging in any rear view mirrors down there on snow days. I'd have to disagree with the theory that the amount of daily pay per use amounts to much help from "all the crazies".

I don't see a large enough percentage of the FAP fees going back to the forest. At least it would ease the sting if it all went back to the forest.


"The % of Adventure Pass money that actually comes back to us for Improvement projects is substantially higher than from Green Sticker funds.

"Large frame" repair projects to trails are still done by the Feds (but most/all of the smaller projects are done by Volunteers). Unless a rather large source of funds is found, this won't change any time soon. And as the AAT manager for Big Bear - I'd rather have AAT clubs than CalTrans any day" Old Fart-

Old Fart, I understand that the you get more back from the the pass than the green sticker, but what is the percentage and where does the rest of the funds go?

According to the San Gorgonio Wilderness Association a 30% decrease since 1994. That means there are fewer dollars and fewer people to maintain facilities such as restrooms, campground and trails at even minimum standards.

To address this need, Congress passed legislation in 1996 authorizing a recreation fee pilot project, that allows the National Forests collect fees for recreation use and invest them locally. Your money will be used right here to improve and maintain the land we all care about. Source: http://www.sgwa.org/pass.htm

Why am I not surprised that Al Gore is behind the Curtains?

History of Enterprise Forest

During 1994 and 1995, the southern California National Forests (Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres, San Bernardino) were working together on several ideas for pilot programs. These pilots involved innovative proposals dealing with “reinventing government” to become more effective and service oriented. Pilot projects were authorized through Vice President Al Gore’s National Performance Review. With the support of Anthony Williams (Chief Financial Officer and Deputy Secretary of the US Department of Agriculture), a regional recreation fee project for southern California was accepted as one of the proposals. This multi-forest effort became known as “Enterprise Forest”.

Part way through the initial planning for Enterprise Forest a new separate authority for national testing of recreation fees was enacted in Public Law 104-134, the Omnibus Rescissions and Appropriation Act of 1996. A decision was made to convert the pilot test of Enterprise Forest (a Vice Presidential Initiative) over to the new statutory authority in PL 104-134, which is referred to as the "Recreation Fee Demonstration Program". Enterprise Forest project #501 became one of the first Fee Demonstrations authorized in the Forest Service.

So lets see I already pay taxes, but Al Gore wants to tax me more because the United States government can't manage a budget. Do you really wonder why Congress has a single digit approval rating right now? Pelosi, Al Gore, Barbara Boxer, Feinstien.
Yep, I am writing another letter and voting.
Best, Max7

[Old Fart]

I don't see a large enough percentage of the FAP fees going back to the forest. At least it would ease the sting if it all went back to the forest.
Old Fart, I understand that the you get more back from the the pass than the green sticker, but what is the percentage and where does the rest of the funds go?

Typical for Fed website, we're a few years out of date:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/sanbernardin...-at-work.shtml

If you've seen any of the improvements to the staging areas (Trestles, Baldy Mesa, Pinnacles) - those were funded by FAP money.