Peralta Trailhead Fee?

Vashti · Post by **Vashti** » Feb 27 2007 10:25 pm

Is there a fee to park at the Peralta Trailhead? I thought there was, but in the HAZ directions section it says it is "now free"? I know it was free when I first moved here 10 years ago, and I know it turned into a fee area ... is it back to a free parking area? Or is it a fee area?

Thanks!!!
-Vashti!

hikeaz · Post by **hikeaz** » Feb 27 2007 10:32 pm

In response to Vashti's reply:

At this point there is no extra fee. (changes to that are in the works, though)
Remember it's not "free" - our 38% tax rate makes sure of that.

djui5 · Post by **djui5** » Feb 28 2007 12:44 pm

Someone kept blowing up the pay boxes, so they finally did away with them. That's what I heard anyway...

mttgilbert · Post by **mttgilbert** » Mar 02 2007 7:19 am

In response to djui5's reply:

If that's what it was then good for somebody...

I'm pretty sure it's because they have moved to this new pass system (the one where you have to buy the permit ahead of time). The new system is more specific about what makes a pay site than the last one. According to this one (so I've heard) the parking area, and the road leading to it) have to be paved, there has to be amenities at the site usually including bathrooms, ramadas, and picnic tables. My guess is it's a matter of time before they pave peralta (and firstwater) so they can charge a fee. Kind of lends a whole new meaning to throwing good money after bad...

te_wa · Post by **te_wa** » Mar 02 2007 9:47 am

djui5 wrote:Someone kept blowing up the pay boxes

that damned monkey wrench gang

hikeaz · Post by **hikeaz** » Mar 02 2007 11:55 am

In response to mikeinFHAZ's reply:

Mike, you are accurate. Peralta & First Water's amenities did not meet the new minimum requirements (although they kept charging for a few months after they were supposedly to have ceased their fee collection. (oops) I'm not certain of the paved part, though.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The law reads:
" Section 803(d)(1) PROHIBITION ON FEES FOR CERTAIN ACTIVITIES OR SERVICES. --The Secretary shall not charge any standard amenity recreation fee or expanded amenity recreation fee for Federal recreational lands and waters administered by the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, or the Bureau of Reclamation under this Act for any of the following:

(A) Solely for parking, undesignated parking, or picnicking along roads or trailsides.

(B) For general access unless specifically authorized under this section.

(C) For dispersed areas with low or no investment unless specifically authorized under this section.

(D) For persons who are driving through, walking through, boating through, horseback riding through, or hiking through Federal recreational lands and waters without using the facilities and services.

(E) For camping at undeveloped sites that do not provide a minimum number of facilities and services as described in subsection (g)(2)(A).

(F) For use of overlooks or scenic pullouts.

Section 803(e)(2) PROHIBITED SITES.--The Secretary shall not charge an entrance fee for Federal recreational lands and waters managed by the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, or the Forest Service."
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

It's my supposition that there are a few powers at work.
As they always do, the FEDS design and issue an "all-inclusive" Pass, only to come up with (or allow their component divisions to come up with) all sorts of restrictions and add-ons.(anyone else smell a car dealer here?)
The National Parks Pass ($50.00) which was supposedly good for USFS access, needed a special (additional $15.00)Golden Eagle udgrade pass to be "good" at Peralta and First Water - and is STLL needed the Red Rock Fee Area if you have last year's card. On top of THAT, there's a "special" parking fee at WFOC that accepts NEITHER, and charges, at last count, SEVEN DOLLARS to park there. All within the National Forest that you have already bought (presumably) TWO passes to access in addition to Federal Taxes paid to support same. They used the same stunt @ Groom Creek within Prescott NF - calling it a parking fee, so as to be able to double, and triple dip.

The USFS has issued memos to their own, encouraging them to continue to charge even in light of their obvious non-compliance. http://antifee.bizhosting.com/cgi-bin/f ... ruling.htm
Catalinas is a perfect example - they KNEW they were not at all in compliance, but kept charging regardless - that is, until they got busted for it. http://www.aznofee.org/aznofee/news.php
They will do the same in Sedona until someone, or someones, force their hand. These USFS bozos see fee-payers as votes in favor of fees and report it that way. Like Stossel says, 'Give me a BREAK"!

Remember to fasten your seat belts and open your wallets - The $80.00 "America the Feeutiful Pass" is now on sale.
Oh, and guess what, the Feds say that it'll be all-inclusive and good everywhere. Anyone else seen & heard this song and dance before?

Oh, but wait; did I mention the newly-created "high impact recreation area, or HIRA"?
(I'd guess that the USFS is hard at work getting Peralta & First Water on this list)

The Forest Service has decided that the prohibitions on entrance fees and charging for dispersed areas with low or no investment is too restrictive for them, so they have decided to circumvent the new law and have made up a new fee category called a "High Impact Recreation Area." HIRAs are not authorized anywhere in the new law.

The Forest Service definition reads:

"A high impact recreation area is a clearly delineated, contiguous area with specific, tightly defined boundaries and clearly defined access points (such that visitors can easily identify the fee area boundaries on the ground or on a map/sign); that supports or sustains concentrated recreation use; and that provides opportunities for outdoor recreation that are directly associated with a natural or cultural feature, place, or activity (i.e., waterway, canyon, travel corridor, geographic attraction – the recreation attraction).

The definition continues:
"They are not an entire administrative unit such as a National Forest, but may include a collection of recreation sites; and they typically display one or more of the following characteristics:

They are within 2 hours driving time of populations of 1 million or more;
They contain rivers, streams, lakes or interpreted scenic corridors;
natural and cultural resources- management activities are conducted in the area to maintain or enhance recreation opportunities; and
They have regionally or nationally recognized recreation resources that are marketed for their tourism values,"
By establishing these HIRAs the Forest Service is creating access points where they will charge de facto entrance fees. They are inventing their own authority to charge for trails, gravel roads or paved travel corridors such as National Scenic Byways, National Recreation Areas, for multiple non-compliant sites, and for large parts of National Forests. They are punishing local efforts to promote tourism by imposing fees for geographic attractions created by nature. These fees, of course, will be additional double/triple-taxation, over-and-above the $80.00 America the Feeutiful Pass and our Federal Tax contributions to our Federal Lands.

(off-rant)

joebartels · Post by **joebartels** » Mar 02 2007 5:23 pm

hikeaz wrote:(off-rant)

I doubt it.

Wouldn't want you to be either, keeps me thinking

hikeaz · Post by **hikeaz** » Mar 02 2007 5:39 pm

joe bartels wrote:
hikeaz wrote:(off-rant)
I doubt it.

Wouldn't want you to be either, keeps me thinking

OK... TEMPORARILY climbing down from the box.

mttgilbert · Post by **mttgilbert** » Mar 02 2007 8:59 pm

In response to hikeaz's reply:

Nice rant!

For the rest of this post I'm going to go ahead and assume that you were replying to my post:

The paved part was something gleaned from a campground manager in one of the fee'ed areas. I'm not sure he was necessarily right but he did tell us that as long as we were parked on the dirt that they wouldn't ticket us for not displaying their permit. (Coincidentally they didn't ticket us, but I wouldn't go saying that's hard science or anything.)

Kurt (or anyone else for that matter), do you know anything about the state trust land (or whatever it is) south of Superstition Mountain and west of peralta trail. That all used to access the wilderness area and now it's fenced off and says you have to have written permission from commissioner so-and-so (or a valid fishing(?!) or hunting permit) to enter the area.

terricita10 · Post by **terricita10** » Mar 02 2007 10:53 pm

Matt

We went to the Arizona state land department at 1616 w adams, Phoenix for a recreational use permit, just in case. Individual was $15 and family was $20, its good for 1 year. Made copies for the vehicles and packs.

Terri

Vashti · Post by **Vashti** » Mar 02 2007 11:14 pm

In response to djui5's reply:

djui5 wrote:Someone kept blowing up the pay boxes, so they finally did away with them. That's what I heard anyway...

That is hilarious. Thanks all for the information. Including the "rant"... >:D

I normally stay away from such heavily populated trails, but now with Kiddo in tow, along with other Mamas and Kiddos, we are back to easy-access nonremote trails for a while. Say hello if you see a bunch of Mamas with Papooses on their backs.

Cheers!
-Vashti!

mttgilbert · Post by **mttgilbert** » Mar 03 2007 8:44 am

In response to terricita10's reply:

Right, see... I equate that with them charging me to access the wilderness area. I'd rather trespass... Or maybe I should just carry my fishing permit with me. The sign says that a valid fishing/hunting permit grants access to the land. Besides, it's kind of ironic to use a fishing permit to access the supertitions.

Peralta Trailhead Fee?

Peralta Trailhead Fee?

Re: Peralta Trailhead Fee?

state trust permit

Re: state trust permit