[chumley]

Going the way of the Red Rock Pass, the 9th Circuit today ruled that charging to park along the Catalina Highway is illegal.

Forest Service Fees under attack!

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/court-r ... 963f4.html

Fair Use Exerpt:

PHOENIX — A federal appeals court on Thursday slapped down the U.S. Forest Service for charging fees for those who want to park and hike in the Catalina Mountains.
Judge Robert Gettleman, writing for the court, said the justification used by the federal agency to impose the fees is not only directly contrary to the law but that its arguments are “illogical.” And the court rejected the agency’s contention that even if it cannot charge for parking, it can do so for hiking and camping.

The ruling... overturns a ruling two years ago by a trial judge that the Forest Service was within its rights to charge $5 a day or $20 a year to those who park along the 28-mile Mount Lemmon Highway....

Beyond that, the judge said federal law “clearly contemplates that individuals can go to a place offering facilities and services without using the facilities and services and without paying a fee.”
For example, he said, the law precludes charging someone who walks, boats, rides or hikes through the forest without using the facilities and services.

[azbackpackr]

Woohoo! So, are they going to give people their money back? I figure they'd pnly owe me a few bucks, but not a lot, since I moved away from Tucson in 1999, and have probably been to Mt. Lemmon only about 10 times since then. The fee was in place before I moved, though. I did buy at least one 1-year pass, as I recall.

[azdesertfather]

And I just bought an annual pass last week ... Murphy's Law

[sirena]

@azdesertfather
Even worse- I just bought one Wednesday!

[cindyl]

Forest Service spokesperson Heidi Schewel told 9 On Your Side, "we are not making any changes at this time."

http://www.kgun9.com/news/local/139131759.html

[chumley]

Forest Service spokesperson Heidi Schewel told 9 On Your Side, "we are not making any changes at this time."

I don't care if you're making changes or not. I'm not paying. Feel free to ticket me. That would be the easiest dismissed ticket ever. Just the inconvenience of appearing in court to fight it.

[hikeaz]

Finally ........ a judge who can READ.......... what a concept.

The Law (verbatim)

Services and facilities for which no fee can be charged
(benefit society as a whole):
• General access
• Pass-through travel by car,foot, boat, or horse
• Scenic overlooks and pullouts
• Wayside exhibits
• Parking only
• Dispersed areas with low or no investment
• Information centers at administrative offices
• Right-of-access permitted hunting & fishing access
• Extra services for needs of disabled
• Facility entry & use of standard amenity fee sites and services for persons under 16 & education.

[Jim Lyding]

I can't help but think that there are going to be a lot more roadside parking restrictions. 2-hour time limits to park at overlooks, closure of undeveloped roadside parking, etc.
I never minded paying $20/year to drive up the Catalina Hwy. The law is the law, however.

[jeffmacewen]

I couldn't care less, personally. I suspected for years that most of my $$ wasn't actually helping Coronado that much but it never mattered. $20 seemed like a small price to pay for the services they provided. I'd like to see more information about how much is collected and how it is spent. It's probably on the USFS website, somewhere; but, to reiterate...I really don't care!

I do, however, not relish in the thought of that individual getting away with her baloney. She is a terrible ambassador for the rest of us. I would rather have seen someone attack the legality of the law through LEGAL means...but that's just me.

[hikeaz]

I'd like to see more information about how much is collected and how it is spent. It's probably on the USFS website, somewhere; but, to reiterate...I really don't care!

I do, however, not relish in the thought of that individual getting away with her baloney. She is a terrible ambassador for the rest of us. I would rather have seen someone attack the legality of the law through LEGAL means...but that's just me.

Excerpted from: http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/fee- ... id=1091312

"To get around this constraint (of not being able to charge fees without having the necessary amenities according to the LAW) , Coronado officials followed the example of other forests by designating the Santa Catalina Mountains as a "High-Impact Recreation Area," or HIRA. "They invented HIRAs to be able to continue business as usual, just as they'd done under fee demo, and not have to pay any attention to these new restrictions," says Kitty Benzar, president of the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition, based in Durango, Colo.

But the HIRA concept shows up nowhere in law, she says, and critics consider it a blatant attempt to circumvent the intent of Congress."

Coronado fees collected "between $600,000.00 and $800,000.00" according to the same article.

Only someone who doesn't earn the money wouldn't know how much they took in - not even within 33%! Do you feel we could trust their answer if they were to conjecture how they SPENT it? Me neither.

Presumably the 'she' you mention is 'Forest Service spokesperson Heidi Schewel'?

[big_load]

I think "High-Impact Recreation Area" is another way to say "target-rich environment".

[hikeaz]

I think "High-Impact Recreation Area" is another way to say "target-rich environment".

Roger THAT!

[azbackpackr]

Posted this on Red Rock Lies, also:

A lot of people didn't know you could use your annual national park pass for both Catalina Highway and Red Rock. I have used it for both. Trouble is, at least at Red Rock, they wanted you to place your original card on your dashboard. Same at Madera Canyon, where I have used it for same. This ruins your card after awhile, and also, since the card is worth $80, and so could be cause for a break-in of your car.

At least on Catalina Highway, if you showed them your NPS pass they would give you a paper pass, thus protecting your card.

How many people in Tucson bought the $20 pass not knowing that their NPS pass was sufficient? How many people bought the Red Rock pass who also had the NPS pass? How many people pay to park at Madera, instead of using your card on the dashboard?

[hikeaz]

Posted this on Red Rock Lies, also:

A lot of people didn't know you could use your annual national park pass for both Catalina Highway and Red Rock. I have used it for both. Trouble is, at least at Red Rock, they wanted you to place your original card on your dashboard. Same at Madera Canyon, where I have used it for same. This ruins your card after awhile, and also, since the card is worth $80, and so could be cause for a break-in of your car.

At least on Catalina Highway, if you showed them your NPS pass they would give you a paper pass, thus protecting your card.

How many people in Tucson bought the $20 pass not knowing that their NPS pass was sufficient? How many people bought the Red Rock pass who also had the NPS pass? How many people pay to park at Madera, instead of using your card on the dashboard?

For UNSTAFFED entry this decal (seen below) is sufficient. At STAFFED entrance stations show your card http://www.fs.fed.us/passespermits/annual.shtml for entry and then put it away for safe-keeping, but display the decal on/in your vehicle while you are using one of the 'amenities'.
The decal is free when you purchase your America the FEEutiful Pass, but you DO need to request it.
*One more important note is that TWO different people can own/use/share the Feeutiful card, as there are TWO spaces on the back for signatures (Only ONE card will be issued though).
If you order the card online or buy at REI or the like and want/need the decals, read this reply from Vivian @ USGS (who administers the cards).
"Kurt,
You do not designate that when you place your order. Park personnel at the first National Park that you visit will issue you the decal(s). Thank you very much for your support of America's National Parks.
U.S. Geological Survey
Denver Federal Center, Bldg. 810
Box 25286
Denver CO 80225"

[azbackpackr]

Thanks for adding to my post! I was unaware of the extras. Good info.

Funny, my card didn't work to get me into Parque Nacional de Volcán Poás!

[azdesertfather]

Ok everyone, it's official now...no more fees for hiking and parking along Mt. Lemmon Highway!

They haven't decided yet which areas will be considered "developed" (fee-based), that will surely follow soon.

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/fees-fo ... bdbfd.html

[hikeaz]

Ok everyone, it's official now...no more fees for hiking and parking along Mt. Lemmon Highway!

They haven't decided yet which areas will be considered "developed" (fee-based), that will surely follow soon.

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/fees-fo ... bdbfd.html

Now how to get them to return the money that they've been stealing for the past few years........
I think that we owe a big round of applause to those who are willing to stand up (and fight) for Liberty!
The items required to be considered 'developed' are spelled out in the law. (not that the USFS gives a crap about the law when THEY are the ones breaking it)

[azbackpackr]

On the other hand, the Western Slopes No Fee Coalition is putting out this press release from the USFS. The spin that WSNFC puts on it is that the USFS has no intention of complying with a court order. I am not sure what to think, since I tend to shy away from rabble rouser organizations, since they are always so completely one-sided:

Forest Service memo:
http://www.westernslopenofee.org/pdfupl ... ntinue.pdf

What WSNFC says it means:

FOREST SERVICE DEFIES FEDERAL COURT
Will Continue To Charge Recreation Fees Ruled Illegal By 9th Circuit

In a press release issued March 1, 2012, the US Forest Service said they will continue to charge recreation fees that were recently ruled illegal by a unanimous decision in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) allows the Forest Service to charge a fee for use of developed recreation sites, but it prohibits charging those who don't actually use the developed facilities. The Forest Service has been evading the prohibitions in the FLREA by charging a fee for all uses within areas they designated as High Impact Recreation Areas, or HIRAs. There are 96 HIRAs nationwide. The agency claims that within a HIRA they can charge a fee for any use because developed facilities are provided, regardless whether they are used or not.

In a ruling that is binding in nine western states and sets a nationwide legal precedent, the 9th Circuit emphatically disagreed. Writing for the panel, Judge Robert Gettleman likened the Forest Service's HIRA argument to a restaurant patron confronted with an unexpected entry on his bill:

"If told that the fee was for ten bottles of wine that the patron's group neither ordered nor drank, the patron would rightly be outraged. He would not find much solace in a waiter's explanation that the wine cellar contained ten bottles, which the patron could have ordered if he wished."

In their press release, the Forest Service says the ruling will have no effect on their recreation fees. They cite an internal review of HIRAs that has been underway since spring 2011, implying that the review was somehow the result of the court decision despite the contradictory timeframes. The internal review resulted in a recommendation in January to jettison the HIRA terminology, although what changes, if any, would result on the ground was uncertain. The review's findings were to go to regional citizen advisory committees, a process that could take over a year.

"That's absurd," says Western Slope No-Fee Coalition President Kitty Benzar, who contends that the 9th Circuit decision trumps any internal review process. "A federal agency does not need an advisory committee to tell them how to comply with a federal court decision. The Forest Service does have a window of time in which to appeal, but once the decision takes effect compliance must follow immediately."

Benzar speculated that the Forest Service will try to avoid landing back in court by ceasing to issue Violation Notices for failure to pay fees. Instead, they may turn to Notices of Required Fee (NRF). Citing a 2009 internal Forest Service memo, Benzar said that NRFs "are nothing more than a request for a voluntary donation to the Forest Service" and can be ignored. They may resemble a Violation Notice, she said, but they carry no fine or other penalty.

"The agency knows it cannot convict people who have not violated any law, but they threaten prosecution anyway. It's important for visitors to the National Forests to be aware of the 9th Circuit decision, so they won't be intimidated into paying fees they do not owe," said Benzar.

According to Judge Gettleman, "Everyone is entitled to enter national forests without paying a cent."

[Kwai Chang]

@azbackpackr
Liz - since I have been gone you are telling me you moved to Costa Rica? I am confused.....

[azbackpackr]

@azbackpackr
Liz - since I have been gone you are telling me you moved to Costa Rica? I am confused.....

See? That's what you get for dropping off the map! Lose track of everyone! Abandon your friends! I am living here, yes, but only for one semester. I'm doing a Spanish study-abroad program, living with a host family, the whole meal deal. I shall return, with much fanfare and a band playing, (hopefully), to Phoenix on Friday May 11.

But while I'm here: ¡¡¡PURA VIDA!!!