Adventure Pass Fee issues

[FIGHT ON]

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/ci_19974329

[Mrs. Hillbilly]

A "unenforceable" government act/rule gets the dagger....

[InTheWood]

I'm of mixed feelings about this one. I dislike paying for the adventure pass, however I also understand that our mountains are near a big population center which puts a lot of pressure on them. The fee probably reduces the numbers of people who use the forest and I selfishly think that is to my benefit.

The other thing I worry about is that the state will find other ways to make up this loss of funds... like making the state roads that go into a forest area toll roads for example.

[Wrightwood]

http://www.wrightwoodcalif.com/news/Adams.vs.USFS.a.pdf

[Leftfield]

From what Ive read, nothing is going to change here because the local camping and parking areas meet all the requirements as stipulated by the Court.   Also...just to be clear...this isnt a State of California issue.  This is a Federal issue.   

[Joe Schmoe]

The way I read it (I was going to post a boiled down version, but the board has a post length limit[!!!]), the Forest Service can only charge the fee at sites with certain minimum number of amenities.  They specifically cannot charge someone who wishes to park, drive through, hike, walk or picnic (the uses that typically apply around here) in the forest unless it is within a specifically defined area (think a small area, delineated with visible markings/signs...not the entire forest) that has the minimum number of amenities.  I don't think the intent of the lawsuit was to get them to disallow charging fees for parking/camping at developed campsites. 

I've purchased adventure passes nearly every year, and I can't imagine what places like Azusa Canyon will look like without funds from other sources.

EDIT: maybe I see what you might have been trying to say about things not changing.  The old Adventure Pass policy, as I learned here, allowed you to park within the forest without an adventure pass and not be cited, except in a few areas listed on a map cited somewhere here on the board.  Given that, I could see how some might think that this new ruling would mean no change.  However, as I understand it, the old policy was to cite if you if were out "recreating" and didn't have a pass, whereas the new Adventure Pass policy (again, as I read it here) called for you to be cited even if you weren't out "recreating" and didn't have a pass.   This new court ruling seems to prohibit the Adventure Pass thing entirely...essentially saying you can't place a fee on the ENTIRE forest.

[Leftfield]

Yep...they cant put a fee on the entire forest but it looks like the fees will still apply to local favorite camping spots and parking along the Hwy 2 around the slopes. 

Of course there isnt enough forest personnel around to collect the fees anyway.

wheres a lawyer when you need one?

[FIGHT ON]

I don't know what it was like before they started using the adventure pass system. What was it like? Can anyone briefly say what it was like from 1900 up to now? The conditions and approx dates of the changes and why they happened?

[snowave]

I'm not going to argue whether this ruling is right or wrong, good or bad.... but there is another significant viewpoint to consider that applies to our socal forests that many might not consider (however, it was mentioned above with San Gabriel Cyn as an example).

The Angeles (and other socal forests) have a very unique situation not found on most other forests. While most other forests have the majority of their use concentrated at developed sites, we get a TON of use outside of developed sites... mainly along the roadways, (i.e. snowplay on all 3 districts, and waterplay at Big Rock Creek, San Gabriel Canyon, etc. ). A very large percentage of collected adventure sales and violation funds come from this type of recreation

So if the rules change because of this, and they only require the pass at "developed sites",  that very large percentage of the people coming to the forest to "recreate" for these things like snowplay and waterplay, will not be required to pay for the pass.

However, these same type of people recreating in this way also take up a considerable amount of resources and funding to maintain restrooms, clean up trash, etc.

So I guess I'm saying, it's not so cut and dry with our forest when relating to this issue here.

[K9luvr]

I don't know what it was like before they started using the adventure pass system. What was it like? Can anyone briefly say what it was like from 1900 up to now? The conditions and approx dates of the changes and why they happened?

Recreation within the national forest system has been increasing, especially in the west as more and more people have moved to the west and settled next to or near National Forests.  There was a big push in the 1960's and then in the 1980's to build "developed" recreation areas (picnic grounds, campgrounds, overlooks, etc.).  But as typical with federal budgets, there are always "sexy-wexy" pushes to put up facilities but the government is notorious for little to no monies for maintenance.  Many of these 30-50 year old facilities have a lot of "deferred maintenance" issues and are in desparate need of repair or replacement.  Overall dollar amounts have been going up but when you calculate "real dollars" (averaging out for inflation, etc.) recreation dollars have been decreasing for the past 20 years.  All this time the "cost of doing business" keeps going up.  So, you will see less and less monies get to the ground.  Also, the demands on the agency have become more, and the likelyhood of being liable and losing/settling lawsuits also adds to the cost of doing business. 

The idea behind Fee Demo and then the Recreation Enhancement Act was to supplement dollars to deal with things like deferred maintenance, add to the ability to manage areas and to have more "presence" out on the ground.  Unfortunately, right after the authority to charge a fee, congress began to drastically cut the amount of recreation dollars to the National Forest System (add to that, the increase in the cost of suppressing fires and monies were shifted over to pay for large scale fires). 

[Joe Schmoe]

The only way I can see to address the roadside nonsense of Azusa Canyon is to develop the heavy traffic areas to the point of meeting the minimum number of amenities, create a parking lot and charge to park...like state beaches.  In areas where there's not enough room for all of that, place the parking lot above or below the hotspot, place the amenities in or directly adjacent to the parking lot (which still gives you the freedom to charge), then have a trail lead to the hotspot.  Then place No Parking signs/barriers where heavy roadside parking used to occur to make sure people use the lot.  Not only would you get to collect parking revenue (state beaches charge ridiculous sums of money for parking), violation of No Parking zones would also bring in revenue. 

Add parking fees for Burro Canyon and Crystal Lake.   It' only $8/day for the OHV area?  Wow.  It's twice that just to park at a state beach...and parking doesn't even approach the impact of OHVs.  You gotta spend money to make money.

[K9luvr]

Under the Recreation Enhancement Act, you are specifically prohibited from charging a "parking fee", it has to be an amenity fee.  It may seem like splitting hairs, but there are people like the West Slope Anti Fee Coalition that are adamantly opposed to charging any fee and if you don't get it exactly right, there will be a lawsuit....

[Joe Schmoe]

You're right.  I reread the ruling and I definitely misinterpreted.  Because people can choose to park and NOT use any of the amenities that might be there at the parking lot, I can't see any way for the fee to be charged in Azusa Canyon's roadside horror show scenario.

[Wrightwood]

[Joe Schmoe]

[lagomorphmom]

While we're at it, at my last family reunion in Wisconsin, we were trying to see as many harbor light towers as we could on Lake Michigan. We were charged at the gate of the park as we entered (it was a State or Federal Park Service park). We did get out of the car and walked around but used no facilities. I don't see the difference.

[tcaarabians]

And, while we're at it read the stories in the LA Times about park officials 'hiding millions of dollars" in their state budget. Stories running today and yesterday.  I do not know if this story is correct or some over-zealous someone. But, it doesn't sound good. www.latimes.com   cheryl o7o

[SkierBob]

I want a refund 

[dustyduck]

The $5 daily fees are being challenged in California after a federal judge ruling in Arizona

http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_23142443/four-hikers-challenge-forest-adventure-pass

[SoCalGal]

Good news first - not local, but an inspiring hike:
http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_23140014/redlands-native-looking-climb-peaks-cause-late-may
Blog of the hiker in the story:
http://24n24.blogspot.com/p/24n24-epic4epic-endeavor.html

- and news that doesn't seem good to me, although maybe it's a better concept than it seems:
http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_23142443/four-hikers-challenge-forest-adventure-pass

The hike in the first story seems like an amazing endeavor, but the man looks very fit and ready for the trip.  The second story - well, I often used to work in National Forest areas, and I thought I saw a LOT of physical improvements in restrooms and camps when they started the Adventure Pass; I always thought it was a great way to get funds directly where they would do good.  But maybe its time is past - ?  Just throwing it out there.