USFS Fee ruled illegal in AZ

[el-bagr]

Arizona Star article

On September 5, a federal magistrate dismissed Forest Service charges for two $30 fines for failure to purchase a $5 day use pass for the Mount Lemmon-Sabino Canyon area of the Coronado National Forest.

Magistrate Pyle ruled that the Forest Service exceeded its congressional authorization when it charged fees for certain things that parallel the WMNF fee system: parking to use a trail, for roadside or trailside picnicking, for camping outside developed campgrounds and for roadside parking in general.

As you might recall, the "fee demonstration program" was initiated following a 1996 law. Over 4,500 sites around the USFS system started charging fees pursuant to that law. In 2004, another law was enacted limiting the USFS's right to charge fees, but by 2005 less than 500 of the 4,500 had dropped their fees.

One upshot of all this is that those who protest the fees in the WMNF may have a better chance of fighting their fines, though there is likely to still be a fight. On the other hand, if the WMNF changes its practices to eliminate the forest pass system, user fee revenues are likely to plummet, leaving the WMNF underfunded and thus either unable to carry out its services or hungry for revenues from other sources such as timber harvesting.

 

[onestep]

Parking pass, what parking pass?

...so does this mean I am or am not a scofflaw

Onestep

 

[Bob]

here we go !

Parking Pass- We don't need no stinking Parking Pass...

 

[sardog1]

Here's the magistrate judge's Order in U.S. v. Wallace.

Let's be clear about what this is and is not. A federal magistrate judge typically handles pretrial motions and other preliminary matters. The parties can also agree to have a case decided by a magistrate judge to expedite a decision on the whole case. In other words, it's the lowest level of decision-making in the federal courts.

In no way is this a binding precedent on the Forest Service elsewhere in the U.S. outside Wallace. Given the money at stake here, I would imagine serious consideration is being given to an appeal that could reverse the decision.

So, if you decide not to pay for parking, be ready to be ticketed. You and your lawyer can use Wallace to try to persuade the judge in your own case, but it's not a silver bullet yet.

 

[darren]

On the other hand, if the WMNF changes its practices to eliminate the forest pass system, user fee revenues are likely to plummet, leaving the WMNF underfunded and thus either unable to carry out its services

Oh No!!!!! No more heated bathrooms at trailheads and no new chainsaws for Ranger Dick!!!!! What will we do?!?!?!?!?!

- darren

ps: yes, that was sarcasm in case you couldn't figure it out

 

[Waumbek]

Free parking

Take an Oldie with you and ask him or her to bring along the Golden Age pass, which can be obtained at any NF or NP ranger station in the country, e.g., the one at Exit-32, I-93, N. Woodstock/Lincoln. You'll need your driver's license to prove that you're 62. They used to be free; now they cost $10. Then see if you can beat the Old Timer up the hill. Good luck!

 

[Grumpy]

Yo, Waumbeck!

Those Golden Age Passorts rule! Mine is/was my special birthday gift to me this year. It paid for itself several times over as Mrs. G. and I galavanted through various national parks and national monuments and national forests around the country this summer. Such a deal!

G.

 

[el-bagr]

For what it's worth, the federal government will appeal the magistrate's ruling. (Good research and analysis, sardog. Magistrates are judicial, but their rulings must at least be adopted by judges. Often it's a rubber-stamping, but on a controversial issue such as this, I would expect another full analysis from the court.)

Arizona Star article on the notice of appeal (not a great read, but it's my source)

Darren, maybe if the bathrooms weren't heated, Gary Moody wouldn't have dived in.

 

[Willie]

Update

For those who care ...

On January 16, 2007, the Magistrate Judge's order, which dismissed two citations that a hiker received from the Forest Service for failure to pay a recreation fee while in the Mt. Lemmon recreation area, was vacated by the Chief Judge. The citations were reinstated. On March 13, 2007, the hiker's motion for reconsideration was denied.

No word, yet, on the disposition of the citations or whether this matter will proceed to trial. Stay tuned....

 

[Grumpy]

Thanks for the update, Willie.

G.

 

[Pig Pen]

Someone remind me of why we are supposed to object to paying for a service that we use.

 

[Grumpy]

Someone remind me of why we are supposed to object to paying for a service that we use.

As we close in on April 15 -- Federal Income Tax filing deadline date -- I am reminded, over and over again that I pay and pay and pay and pay for the acquisition and maintenance of public (federal) forest lands. Then I also get to pay a "use" fee for taking a walk on the land my money has helped buy.

G.

 

[onestep]

HIKE FREE OR DIE!!

(oop's, the fee is for parking )

 

[Pig Pen]

As we close in on April 15 -- Federal Income Tax filing deadline date -- I am reminded, over and over again that I pay and pay and pay and pay for the acquisition and maintenance of public (federal) forest lands. Then I also get to pay a "use" fee for taking a walk on the land my money has helped buy.

G.

So maybe there is a guy from Keene who doesn't hike, and whose taxes also go toward purchasing and maintaining public lands. By your logic, maybe he and all the other non-hikers should stop paying taxes for public lands and you and I pick up the difference.

 

[dms]

Someone remind me of why we are supposed to object to paying for a service that we use.

Phil I agree with you 100%. I just can't get angry about a small fee like this. But, since I will soon be 62, I will gladly spend $10 for my Golden Age Passport!

 

[Pig Pen]

Phil I agree with you 100%. I just can't get angry about a small fee like this. But, since I will soon be 62, I will gladly spend $10 for my Golden Age Passport!

Dennis! You earned it!

 

[griffin]

So maybe there is a guy from Keene who doesn't hike, and whose taxes also go toward purchasing and maintaining public lands. By your logic, maybe he and all the other non-hikers should stop paying taxes for public lands and you and I pick up the difference.

The question isn't about paying for something you don't use, it's about paying AGAIN.

That said, not enough of what we pay in taxes is being directed to the USFS

 

[Pig Pen]

The question isn't about paying for something you don't use, it's about paying AGAIN.

That said, not enough of what we pay in taxes is being directed to the USFS

Why do I always have to straighten you guys out?

The question isn't paying again. The question is about the people who the government forces to pay once for something they don't use.

People who don't use public lands at all are forced to pay taxes for them even though they don't use them. Those of us who use public lands are basically doing so on the backs of these people. Is it too much to ask that we pay an extra $3.00 per trip or $20.00 per year for the priviledge?

 

[Nessmuk]

Interesting. I am visiting family in AZ this week. This very morning I paid $5.00 to park at a trailhead for a desert mountain hike. Put the money in the envelope, drop it in the box. No attendant in sight. The envelope was numbered but there was no receipt stub, so how do they know who in the parking lot has paid?

Last year in California I did a similar thing, but part of the envelope with a matching number is torn off to put on my dashboard.

 

[griffin]

People who don't use public lands at all are forced to pay taxes for them even though they don't use them.

I'll save the argument for whether the non-hiker benefits from the preservation of forests and other national parks whether or not s/he uses them for another day.

We all pay taxes for all kinds of things we don't use, or wouldn't want to. In fact, we all probably oppose at least something that our tax money is used for. It's not an a la carte system.

I