|
ryanxsevn
Aug 27, 2002, 3:08 AM
Post #1 of 44
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2002
Posts: 72
|
I know that any many places in socal the forestservice charges for so called adventure passes. I myself have been ticketed 2x's for not buying my daily adventure pass. I was reading my guide to takitz today and i noticed that it said as of 2001 there was no law in the books souporting the passes and any fine would be droped if you fought it. Does anyone know if this is still true?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 27, 2002, 3:29 AM
Post #2 of 44
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
I doubt that it ever was true. The fees are mandatory and at least one fee protester has been found guilty in court of a misdemeanor for failure to pay the fee. That said, many climbers feel the fees are unfair and refuse to buy the pass. If you do not have an Adventure Pass in sight, you are issued a "notice of non-compliance." This is not a ticket, but rather a notice to pay the $5 fee. However, many climbers don't pay the fees even after getting multiple "nons," and I've never heard of any enforcement action taken by the Forest Service against climbers in California. The forest service has been more aggressive in other states.
The wording of the law establishing the Adventure Pass is here. Note that the law establishes a maximum $100 fine for failure to buy the Pass. Sounds pretty mandatory to me.
-Jay
[ This Message was edited by: jt512 on 2002-08-26 20:39 ]
|
|
|
|
|
cmbclimb
Aug 27, 2002, 3:57 AM
Post #3 of 44
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 22, 2002
Posts: 42
|
ck this site out and inform yourself,
http://www.freeourforests.org/
fee demo has been a voluntary program to see if the users of the forest will pay, wich means you volunteer to pay the fee, and the ticket if you get one, oh and the ranger has to volunteer to give the ticket as well its not law and hes not required by law to give a ticket
the problem originated from some of our congressman decided to take away forest service funding and try to replace it with adventure pass fees, so if you volunteer to pay the fee you are telling them its ok and they take the money put it into a general service fund and 2% get back to your local forest you frequent and you still have funding problems
get informed and help the fight against land stewardship versus our constitutional rights
its still not law so don't be frightened by the rangers tickets, in the section on court cases i could only find 4 cases where the offenders were found guilty?? all the rest were exonerated
hope some of this helps
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Aug 27, 2002, 4:25 AM
Post #4 of 44
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
I contacted Sam Davidson, Access Fund Policey Analyst, 2 years ago about this, and he said, "I cannot tell you not to pay it, but I can tell you that no one has been succesfully prosocuted for not paying, as it is voluntary." The Access Fund is opposed to the Fee Demo Act of '96.
I have had 7 tickets, and have had no problems. I will not pay it.
|
|
|
|
|
boretribe
Aug 27, 2002, 5:04 AM
Post #5 of 44
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2002
Posts: 208
|
[div align="center"]
[div align="left"]
You can also get more info at Wild Wilderness
Can't see the forrest for the fees...
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 27, 2002, 5:08 AM
Post #6 of 44
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Those fees make meI say just on them. Our tax money doesn't get us anything anymore!
|
|
|
|
|
climbingcowboy
Aug 27, 2002, 5:22 AM
Post #7 of 44
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2002
Posts: 1201
|
JMlangford says it best right on man!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 27, 2002, 6:16 PM
Post #8 of 44
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
I've posted a link to the text of the law, above. Yes, it is a "demonstration" program. That just means that it is not a permanent program. No, it is not "voluntary." It's a law carrying a maximum penalty of $100. Yes, people have been successfully prosecuted under it, though the Forest Service has lost, or had dismissed, more cases than it has won.
Can we try and keep the misinformation down to a minimum?
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
Aug 28, 2002, 5:23 AM
Post #9 of 44
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
Here's a letter I wrote about the fee demo:
As a resident of Yosemite National Park for 20 years and a frequent
user of public lands, I would like to go on the public record as
opposing the Fee Demo Program. I do so for the following reasons:
1. It is inefficient. In 1997, 53% of the fees went to cover the cost
of collecting the fees. The Forest Service should be sustained by tax
revenue which is collected centrally from citizens and businesses based
on their means. Mining and grazing interests should pay more realistic
fees for their extraction of public resources as well.
2. It leads to waste, conflicts of interest, and snowballing spending.
People who administrate natural areas get more money and then hire more
people. They think of new projects and studies to conduct, and then
they want to raise prices and increase fees to fund new services, new
construction, and more hiring. Every public servant advances faster
with a series of notches in their resume: this bridge built, this
permit system instituted, those backcountry campsites built and
numbered. Instead of being budgeted by impartial overseeing
authorities, parks and forests can raise money for themselves by
raising fees and creating new ones.
3. It has a discriminatory effect. Upper class citizens have applauded
the fee demo programs since they look forward to encountering fewer
crowds, particularly fewer undesirable lower income folks.
Unfortunately, this winds up hurting the poor Hispanic family who want
to have a picnic at the park. I noticed the demographics at Yosemite
picnic areas change as soon as the entrance fee jumped from $5 to $20.
Fewer and fewer blue collar families came. Lower income folks are
discouraged by what middle income citizens believe to be reasonable
fees. They will raise children nurtured not by camping and playing in
nature, but playing in the streets.
Mostly, I feel the fee demo program turns citizens into authorized
consumers. Public lands belong to the PEOPLE. If a person can¹t enjoy
our natural landscape without being nickeled and dimed by authorities ,
what do we have left that makes this country free? A man doesn¹t have
to pay the government $1 each time he kisses his wife! People should
have the freedom to get the blessings of the earth and nature without
seeking out an expensive pass each time.
The logical extensions of the fee demo programs are fees for local
parks, fees to park in front of our own houses, fees for every mile
added to our odometers. Politicians like to give the appearance of
lowering taxes while continuing to extract money from citizens. The fee
demo allows government to raise money without raising taxes.
It is OK for our National Forests to remain primitive. We don¹t need
vast improvements in our parks. We need agencies with modest budgets of
tax money to simply maintain what we have.
Nothing written above is meant to disparage the great people of the
Forest Service, BLM and NPS. They mean well but, within the culture of
government agencies, naturally tend to get caught up in the system.
Sincerely
Karl
|
|
|
|
|
darkside
Aug 28, 2002, 6:23 AM
Post #10 of 44
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2001
Posts: 1687
|
If you oppose the fee's then you have options. This link will outline some of them.
http://www.wildwilderness.org/docs/stone.htm
or you can just pay for what your taxes have already paid for.
|
|
|
|
|
climbingcowboy
Aug 28, 2002, 9:07 AM
Post #11 of 44
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2002
Posts: 1201
|
I think this is really bad, how far is this goverment go to go with this type of sh*t?
Whats next charging us to climb on the rock at our local crag, maybe a pass that you have to have to be on a Bigwall for more then one night? Can you imagine if we dont revolt at this by not buying the pass what they will restrict on next! It reminds of saying that Chuck Pratt said.
"I feel that my enemy is anyone who would, given the power to do so, restrict individual liberty, and this includes law officers, army sergeants, communists, Catholics, and the House of Un-American Activites committee. Of course I'm prejudiced, but I cannot imagaine a sport other than climbing which offers such a complete and fullfing expression of individuality. And I will not give it up nor even slow down, not for man, nor woman, nor wife, nor God."
|
|
|
|
|
fitz
Aug 28, 2002, 5:24 PM
Post #12 of 44
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 363
|
I'm going to risk everyone's wrath - I don't mind the fees, and I gladly pay them. In fact, I usually buy an annual pass for areas I'm just visiting for a few days (ex. I bought an annual "Red Rocks" pass in Sedona last January, instead of just a week pass).
Now, for the record, I pay just about every tax possible, income, payroll, corporate, capitol gains... My wife and I get squarely socked by the 'Marriage Tax', you name it.
I also have no great love of the NFS or NPS. Despite having some well meaning and dedicated folks on their payrolls, both agencies have a long history of amazing ineptitude.
That said, I support the fees for several reasons. First, these agencies are seriously underfunded. I can complain and moan about how recreational public land use should be subsidized, but public priorities and spending aren't going to change anytime soon. Particularly with a hawk administration pushing missile defense, growing deficits, and baby boomers creeping into the Medicare and Social Security systems.
The NFS budget is even smaller than it looks. The agency is required by contracts and statute to build and maintain an amazingly huge system of roads, primarily for logging and mining purposes. I think it might be the largest road system under one agency on the planet, and it consumes virtually all of the agency's budget.
Which brings me to the second reason I like the fees, I see tangible results. Trash is getting serviced better, new, cleaner bathrooms are appearing in Cleveland, Angeles, and San Bernadino. Picnic areas, like Switzer Falls, are reopened. The money is clearly being primarily used for supporting recreational use.
Frankly, I don't see the fees as being any different than a parking meter. A lot of parking garages/lots are publically subsidized, or even wholly funded, but most people don't blink at spending $2-$10 dollars on parking for a ballgame or a movie.
Which brings me to my last point, if you can afford to climb, you can afford the $30 to buy an annual pass. I mean, really, $1.25 per month each from you and your climbing partner is a lot less than most of us spend on power bars and coffee.
-jjf
|
|
|
|
|
woodse
Aug 28, 2002, 6:19 PM
Post #13 of 44
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2001
Posts: 625
|
Screw the fee demo crap. I'm not paying more money on top of my taxes to go into my national forests. The program is pure bullsh*~! No problem with tix so far. Most of the places we access have self-service pay stations so we just grab the sticky pass thing and put it in our windshield so it looks as if we paid......
Thats woodsE's take......
|
|
|
|
|
cloudbreak
Aug 28, 2002, 6:32 PM
Post #14 of 44
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 917
|
On several occasions, I have been forced into buying the day pass. The forest service essentially had blocks set up in the road and you could not travel any further without purchasing the pass. How would you explain that. Sounds pretty set in stone to me. All these incidents took place in the Los Padres National Forest. But hey, like Fitz said, what's $2.50 a month. That's less the a ball of chalk.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 28, 2002, 7:06 PM
Post #15 of 44
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Quote:jt512....lyou are wrong whereas one is breaking a law...it is a not a law....
In your dreams. It is Public Law 104-134. I posted a link to it above, which, apparently you were too lazy to click on.
Quote:also on prusicution, please tell me an instance where one person has been fined or jailed in this...
http://www.i-world.net/HyperNews/get/oma/forum/3/13.html?nogifs
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
thrillseeker05
Aug 28, 2002, 7:17 PM
Post #16 of 44
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2002
Posts: 612
|
the way I see it is this.
if you support the fees then pay it. if you don't then that is your right. I seriously do not think anyone is right or wrong on this issue. it is all a matter of how you look at it.
|
|
|
|
|
itsallvbtillyoufall
Aug 28, 2002, 7:22 PM
Post #17 of 44
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2002
Posts: 25
|
Just buy the year pass. I agree, we should not have to pay for what is ours. I do think our tax dollars are spent wrong. But I would rather buy the year 30 dollar pass than have them raise my taxes again.
|
|
|
|
|
cmbclimb
Aug 28, 2002, 8:09 PM
Post #18 of 44
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 22, 2002
Posts: 42
|
what are you guys runnin for public office or something, wake up and smell the forest it may just be off limits to you some day.
yes jay the pass is law but it is not permanent law yet you shouldn't blow all your cookies on making one point
for those interested in making a difference
here is the link again,http://www.freeourforests.org/ there is an action alert their you can inform yourself on how to support action against this so called pass to play law
if you ck out the info you will find that not much of the money you spend on these passes gets back to your forest ??
why is that, political bull lining their pockets?? maybe i don't know all the details but i don't like the idea of someone telling i have to pay double or triple taxes to use our given right to our national forests
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 29, 2002, 1:38 AM
Post #19 of 44
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
One of many things that are irritating me about President Bush right now. He has the same ideological principles as I do, but he is not standing true to them. If he was, he would have canned this fee a long time ago. he ripped on Clinton/Gore during the campaign for their domestic policies(rightly so) but has done nothing to reverse these totalitarian policies. Proving once again, that once they get to Washington D.C., they all become Republicrats.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 29, 2002, 2:09 AM
Post #20 of 44
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
First Cmbclimb wrote:
Quote:its still not law
Then he wrote:Quote:yes jay the pass is law but it is not permanent law yet you shouldn't blow all your cookies on making one point
And you should not lie about the legal status of the Pass in order to convince people not to buy it. If you think that people should boycott the Pass, you should be able to convince them with truthful arguments.
-Jay
[ This Message was edited by: jt512 on 2002-08-28 19:10 ]
|
|
|
|
|
cmbclimb
Aug 29, 2002, 4:42 AM
Post #21 of 44
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 22, 2002
Posts: 42
|
Quote:
jt512 you said
_______________________________________
I doubt that it ever was true. The fees are mandatory and at least one fee protester has been found guilty in court of a misdemeanor for failure to pay the fee.
_______________________________________
sounds like speculation on your part, i thought you knew everthing, doesn't seem like you read any of the other articles on the free our forest web site
Quote:
you also said
_________________________________________
The wording of the law establishing the Adventure Pass is here. Note that the law establishes a maximum $100 fine for failure to buy the Pass. Sounds pretty mandatory to me.
_________________________________________
you mean you don't really know that it doesn't mention anywhere about mandatory law and that its still under demonstration.
meaning it still has to pass legislation for permanent law which it hasn't yet.
sounds like your the one trying to mislead the public into buying the pass
are you a politition or what?
bend over jay the senaters are coming for you
|
|
|
|
|
darkside
Aug 29, 2002, 5:29 AM
Post #22 of 44
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2001
Posts: 1687
|
I'll state up front here that I am opposed to the fee demo program and have not bought a pass yet. Here are some points for you to consider when deciding your opinions.
Under US law, a wilderness area is supposed to be "untrammelled by man". That means that while trails etc may exist, they should not be developed for commercial purposes. This is the whole argument for stopping the use of power drills in certain areas. How then can you justify charging fees to upgrade or develop new trails for the purpose of tourism. Basically if we can't drill or place fixed pro, why can the park authorities build dirty great trails or even roads.
The fee is a recreational fee. If you are there for any other reason, you are NOT subject to the fee. If it a spiritual journey, or you are there for educational purposes, say to learn how to place gear, etc you are not liable to pay the fee. If you do end up in court, it is the ranger who has the burden of proof.
fitz: you have some valid points and if you agree with the fees then you have the right to pay them. I imagine you are in a financially stable position from your post but bear in mind that for some poverty stricken families who go camping as the only way to afford a vacation for their kids, will no longer be able to do so. What once for them was free camping on public land will soon come with a price tag they can no longer pay.
BTW my next point is not directed to you personally, you merely put it in words to quote.
fitz said:
The NFS budget is even smaller than it looks. The agency is required by contracts and statute to build and maintain an amazingly huge system of roads, primarily for logging and mining purposes. I think it might be the largest road system under one agency on the planet, and it consumes virtually all of the agency's budget.
I wonder:
If these agencies budgets are used for roads serving logging and mining then why is more revenue not generated directly from these beneficiaries. Recreational fees to subsidize logging doesn't sound right to me.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Aug 29, 2002, 3:50 PM
Post #23 of 44
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
This 'fee demonstration program' is legally signed into action but supposedly 'voluntary'. Naturally, as Inigo Montoya would say, 'Voluntary -- I do not think this word means what you think it means'.
I refuse to pay the damn thing unless there are legal penalties that I face for failure to do so (I'll take a $5 pass over a $100 fine, thanks) because this whole damn 'demonstration' is a project of the 'Wise Use' movement, who want to get permitted access for ATVs, RVs, etc. for wilderness -- basically turn everything into a KoA, but on public lands.
I say f--- that.
|
|
|
|
|
fitz
Aug 29, 2002, 6:06 PM
Post #24 of 44
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 363
|
Darkside,
First, I didn't take anything personally, I'm pretty thick skinned. In response, just a couple of points to ponder...
First, the National Forest Service was not created to preserve forests in their native state. The NFS was created to manage what was already recognized as an important, but rapidly vanishing, public resource. The NFS was/is supposed to manage forestry and mining on public lands in a sensible, sustainable way.
Now, there is no denying that the NFS has been historically very inept at this. The last time I checked, the NFS was the only major forestry player that is still harvesting trees faster than it plants them. Vast numbers of the timbering and mining arrangments made by the NFS lose massive amounts of money (essentially becoming corporate welfare). And the NFS has done a very poor job of balancing between timbering, mining, etc., and other viable uses of the nation's forests.
Second, even is designated wilderness areas, development and preservation aren't necessarily contradictory. Despite the doughnut eating, sedentary lifestyle of many Americans, visitation to many wilderness areas has been growing. If you don't establish trails, develop campsites, establish waste management, etc. Then visitation will have to be greatly restricted to preserve the areas at all.
I'm not saying that letting lots of visitors camp, hike, climb, whatever, at will permanently destroys all environments. But, even modest, uncontrolled visitation can turn a beautiful area into a dusty crud hole in amazingly short order. Placing certain limits, like restricting fires, using established trails and campsites, etc., tries to strike a balance. Accomodate more visitors, with some restriction to their activities, while preserving much of what makes an area appealing in the first place.
As far as bathrooms, look at the helicopters lifting giant drums of yuck in the current Outside Magazine. Or, visit a big ledge in Yosemite (they still make even my old dorm room look clean). Human waste can get to be a big problem in short order in many areas.
Last, yes, I'm pretty financially stable. But we camped, hiked, etc. when I was a kid partly out of financial need. So, I do hear you when you point out class discrimination. And, I think that there is some legitimacy to that argument.
However, all in all, I think that the fees are still very affordable for many Americans. An earlier post mentioned a change in demographics at Yosemite in response to camping fees. I'm not disputing this, but I think it is dangerous to make too many assumptions based on annecdotal observation. Changes in spending choices aren't always simple (ex. family camping, or smokes...) And, unless an area is developed to the point of train stations or bus stops, it is, for all intents and purposes, inaccessible to certain segments of the population.
Again, just food for thought. Is someone wants to battle the fees, lobby, protest, etc. away.
-jjf
|
|
|
|
|
ctrlaltdel
Aug 29, 2002, 6:36 PM
Post #25 of 44
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 37
|
I see both sides of the argument, since more people are against it I'll throw this out.
Tax is a monetary compensation we pay for the services from the government. The money you pay goes to preserve and protect the national parks and wilderness, not for you to access it. Part of your taxes goes to the postal service, but you can't actually send a letter because you paid your taxes. The tax you pay doesn't actually cover the cost using the system. So you pay another tax, the ever rising cost of a stamp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
