If you are climbing at Munchkin Land or one of the surrounding crags this summer, and do not park at Rose Canyon Lake and pay the entrance fee ($10.00), then you might want to know about the concessionaire�s new policy. Anyone who walks through its area will be charged one dollar ($1.00).
In other words, if you park at the Fisherman�s Trail and walk down through the concessionaire area, then you will be subject to this fee even if you do not use any facilities�bathrooms, water, trash bins and etc.
Apparently, the concessionaire negotiated this arrangement with the Forest Service. If you do not like it (or if you do), then please write a letter.

Mr. Stan Helin
District Ranger
5700 N. Sabino Canyon Rd
Tucson, Arizona 85750

Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Re: Climbers being charged $1.00 for walking through Rose Canyon

Dear Mr. Helin:

This letter is to follow-up my telephone conversation with Larry Pratt on Friday, May 2, 2008.

I am an avid rock climber. I have climbed on Mt. Lemmon for over thirty (30) years. I am also a lawyer. Occasionally, I volunteer my help to climbers that have legal issues related to climbing.

I would like to bring to your attention a problem that is quickly going to get worse. Recently there were no parking spots in Rose Canyon. The attendant at the kiosk told the climber to turn his vehicle around and park in a lot beside the Mount Lemmon Highway---at the front of the Canyon. The climber parked where directed and walked back through Rose Canyon on the way to a popular climbing area. He used no facilities.

The climber was chased down by who he thought was a Forest Service ranger in a golf cart. She insisted that he had not paid the fee for passing through the canyon. She ordered him to turn around, walk back to the kiosk and pay one ($1.00) dollar. She escorted him to make sure he did as directed.

As I am sure you are aware, the parking area at Rose Canyon lake is usually full of fishermen, picnic people and hikers. Frequently, there are long lines of cars, motors running waiting to find a parking space. It is not uncommon to find every lot full--- as did this climber. Your website points out that 80% of the road remains unpaved because of the August 2007 flooding. Indeed, the road condition adds to this congestion.

For many years, knowledgeable local climbers aware of this situation have usually parked above the Canyon and walked down the Fisherman�s trail. They enter the rear of the canyon and mostly pass through the parking lot nearest the lake to get to the numerous rock formations that surround the area.
I presume that the Forest Service has a contract with this concessionaire. I cannot think that it allows for this kind of foolish fee gouging. If the concessionaire�s argument is that they cannot distinguish between climbers and others---so everybody gets charged, then why are climbers being charged one dollar ($1.00) and not ten dollars ($10.00)? Your concessionaire is obviously distinguishing between people who park there and climbers who merely pass through as evidenced by this fee difference.

Climbers are easily distinguishable. They will almost always have backpacks. They will almost always have ropes hanging from their backpacks. If your concessionaire does not want them to use its facilities then the remedy is to post signs��These facilities are only for customers who have paid the entrance fee at the kiosk at the front of Rose Canyon.� The remedy is not to allocate this risk to climbers.

The climbing areas that surround Rose Canyon are some of the most popular on Mount Lemmon. As we move into summer, this situation is destined to become much more common, for climbers who do enter the rear of the canyon from the Fisherman�s trail. Unsuspecting local climbers are going to enter this area, be ordered to walk to the mile or so to the front of the canyon and pay one dollar ($1.00). Most climbers I know do not bring money climbing. Moreover, walking the mile to the front of the canyon with a heavy pack, to pay one dollar ($1.00) and then walking back, seems like an enormous waste of time and effort.

While a one dollar ($1.00) fee is not much, it is offensive in this situation where nothing is used. It is offensive because it allocates the concessionaire�s problems to climbers. It is offense because climbers parking elsewhere help reduce the congestion thereby permitting fishermen and picnic people to park near their destination.

I would like to know more about this fee arrangement--- if you intend for it to persist. Would you be so kind as to send me that portion of the concessionaire�s contract that allows it to establish this charge?

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Sincerely,


SCOTT M. McNAMARA
ATTORNEY AT LAW

SMM/sm

Scott...you are awesome. I take back all the bad things I said about you !

So by Fisherman's trail you mean the one that comes down from the cabin area above the lake right ? Near the Amph Boulder ? They want you to walk back to the entrance and pay a buck ? Wow, that defines the term STUPID.

Absolutely unbelievable! This is an incredible turn of events but somehow I am not surprised. Thank you for keeping us informed and taking the time to address this issue on your letterhead. I'm very much interested in what the response will be.

Incidentally, last year over Memorial Day we parked/camped at the Fisherman's parking lot. When we returned from climbing, there was yellow tape surrounding the trees blocking off the area for parking. Someone (who shall remain nameless) removed the tape. Shortly after a couple came walking up the road with more tape demanding to know where their tape went. The short of the story is that the discussion escalated and they were pretty perturbed as they were blocking off the area for a "home owners" meeting the next day. Big claims on how they do this every year blah blah blah.

Basically we told them tough luck, first come first serve. If people show up later that day, or evening and the space is in use, too bad. They are just as entitled as they were. NO RESERVATIONS! ....public land everyone is entitled to use it. They cannot block it off for their future use the next day even if it was a "sanctioned" event with the FS to discuss issues of their leased land. (things like roof colors, where to keep firewood, etc)

The story is much longer and involved from that. But, it was brought to mind after reading this post. Not only should you expect to be gouged for walking through the camp area. But expect nasty neighbors to try and block off parking to your public lands.

Problems at Rose Canyon....

I'm writing my letter next.

~Susan

So was it a ranger or an employee of the concessionaire that was collecting the fee?

If I was approached and told to pay the fee and refused, I would not be refusing to someone with law enforcement abilities?

Could the concessionaire then contact the rangers or sheriff's office and have me arrested for trespassing? (does the US forest service even have law enforcement officers like the national park service does?)

At what point does the concessionaire's "area" end? Is the ring of man-made paths around the lake itself also their "area"?

Yes, she was a National Forest ranger. She was also very unhappy . . . must be too much fresh air.

Yes, she made it sound like the calvery would come track us downn if we refused to pay. She definatly escorted us to the pay station as well. As for actually being charged with tresspassing, I have no idea. You're guess is as good as mine.

She also made it seem like if you passed through any of rose canyon campground or recreation area you'd be required to pay the dollar. I bet if you pack light enough, it would be pretty easy to out run a golf cart.

Thanks Scott. Give me a ring if you need any more info.

I guess I don't understand the whole thing; when I hear "concessionaire" I think of a private party operating something for a profit. Why is a government employee collecting fees for a private organization?

All this trouble for "One Freaken Dollar Is Sad." I'd rather give a donation to "Scott McNamara" for his time! It's sad they have to waste everyone's valuable time for such a stupid thing.

This really takes the cake. The money is for what -- to allow you to pass through the concessionaire's area? That doesn't sound legal. But I'm not the lawyer. I'm glad we have one who's looking into it though. Thanks, Scott.

May have to take a longer, more strenuous route next time. And I DON'T mean up to the kiosk and back.

i saw this a while ago and didn't know how to respond. i'm still speechless.

And so if you don't have a dollar what happens, they write you a ticket and order you to go to court? Do they make you clean a toilet to earn your keep? I understand they want to be paid for the use of their facilities, but regardless of what facilities are there, we'd be climbing, they just happen to be in our way.

How about this: We construct a highline walk way from the upper parking area across the canyon to the top of the slab, then we don't touch they're pavement, only federal soil, what then?!! Or better yet, parachute in and rocket pack out!

Let's see... $1 per climber in a popular area... maybe 10-50 climbers a week for 20-30 weeks a year... is that accurate maybe? what is that $200 to $1500 in revenue enhancement...? compared to what they make from other recreational use... 100 people a week for 20 weeks x$10 a pop, is it really $10 now??!?!? What's that, $20,000 dollar range.... so maybe they get a 1-10% enhancement with this new fee or so? The numbers are off, but reasonable?

Maybe this is an issue that the presidential candidates should be asked about...

This isn't exactly what i was looking for but it's in the ballpark...
Excerpt from "Real Estate Law: Easement Basics"

As a general rule, an easement holder has a right to do "whatever is reasonably convenient or necessary in order to enjoy fully the purposes for which the easement was granted" as long as he or she does not unduly burden the servient land. Conversely, the owner of the servient land may make any use of that land that does not unduly interfere with the easement holder's use of the easement. What constitutes an undue burden depends upon the facts of each individual situation. For instance, an increase in traffic over an easement giving access to a beach resort may not necessarily constitute an undue burden. But, the traffic resulting from changing a dominant estate from private use to a commercial business might constitute an additional burden on the servient estate. Reasonable use of an easement is not fixed at a particular point in time. The concept of reasonableness includes a consideration of changes in the surrounding area and technological developments. For instance, courts have allowed an easement holder to convert a railroad right of way to a recreational trail, cut trees within an access easement, and replace a low-pressure gas pipeline with high-pressure equipment.

If a court determines that the servient estate is unduly burdened by an unreasonable use of the easement, the servient estate holder has several remedies. These include injunctions to restrict the dominant owner to an appropriate enjoyment of the easement, monetary damages when the easement holder exceeds the scope of his or her rights and improperly injures the servient estate, and in some instances extinguishment of the easement. Likewise, remedies exist for interference by the servient owner. Interference with an easement is a form of trespass and courts frequently enjoin the obstruction of an easement and may order the removal of encroaching structures at the servient owner's expense. If interference with an easement causes diminution in the value of the dominant estate, courts may also award compensatory damages to the easement holder.

(Jon W. Bruce and James W Ely, Jr The Law of Easements and Licenses in Land 1988)

Now I remember why I'm not a lawyer.

"U.S. Forest Service sued over $5 Mt. Lemmon fee"

Check out this latest article from the 'Tucson Citizen'.

If you do not use "improvements" (i.e. bathrooms, trashcans, or developed parking) it is illegal for them to charge you for them.

I know $1 doesn't sound like alot. But what about when they raise it to $5, to cover all of the 'new' improvements? Will it be too much then? The usage fee is illegal, that's what we pay taxes for.

Here's the link to the sue article...

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/nationworld/84451.php

Sort of disturbing that the filers say it's okay to charge the fee where there are improvements. How likely is that to cause the FS to either close the areas where there are no improvements, or to start bulldozing to they can charge there.

Looks like the $1 fee issue has been resolved. Hike on people!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Ms. Peplow,
Thank you for contacting Larry Pratt and I am concerned about your group being inconvenienced in this way.. We were notified about this event and on May 8, 2008, the District Ranger signed and mailed a letter to Recreation Resource Management about this incident. The letter to the concessionaire said that they cannot charge a fee to the general public that is walking through the campground. This is an issue that will be discussed with them.

Please feel free to call me back for any other information.

Thank you,

James Sutton
Santa Catalina Ranger District
5700 North Sabino Canyon Road
Tucson, AZ 86750
(520) 749-7725
(520) 749-7723 fax

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: this was the reply to my thank you response.....

"Wellllll, it hasn't fully been resolved and we plan to speak with the concessionaire about this. I'm sure that the manager of RRM is up to speed - but sometimes they get new camp 'hosts' who aren't aware of subtlenuances - or discrepancies in their Operating Plan.

There are lots of climbing areas and some people have favorite spots. If you walk through there again -- or any other camp ground and they try to get you to pay - tell them 'NO' and give them my name and number. And contact the Ranger District afterward. (...and the Pima County Sheriff can't give you a citation for merely walking through the forest).

Yet, if you park there ($5.00) or are walking and stop to use their
restroom or water - then they can technically charge you $1.00."

Cool, thanks Susan.

I figured there was something funny about that fee...

Just don't use the facilities, no need for a toilet, there's a forest!

Thanks to all who did legwork with this issue!

Susan,

Your my hero!!

Thanks for coming down and letting us show you around.

THE FEE NO LONGER EXISTS

Last Saturday (May 10, 2008) I went to the kiosk at Rose Canyon Lake. I told them I wanted to park above the lake and use the Fisherman's Trail but wished to pay the one dollar ($1.00) fee to walk across their concession area. They told me the fee no longer exists.

Today, (Friday, May 16, 2008) a representative from the Coronado National Forest Service called me. She apologized for the fee incident. She said that the concessionaire will refund the fee to anyone it charged. She said that the Forest Service will no longer allow their concessionaire to charge this fee. If it tries to do so, then the Forest Service wants to know and it will take disciplinary action

Scott McNamara rules!

Thanks, Scott!

A climber notified me today [Tuesday, May 27, 2008] that he was charged the one dollar ($1.00) fee when he walked through Rose Canyon Lake to go to Munchkin Land this past weekend. I thought this had ceased. I am sorry to report it has not.

I have again spoken with the Forest Service. The Forest Service representative assured me that this time, instead of having her staff take care of the matter, she will personally see that their concessionaire ceases this practice once and for all.

I am very interested in what happens next. Climbers please e-mail me immediately if you become a victim of this concessionaire's unauthorized fee.

Unreal Scott!

I'm thankful the FS is on board with this. The guy I worked with was just as adamant that this is bs!

It's unfortunate that the concessionaire is still trying to pull this off. Reminds me of an old Climbing Mag article/quote "the only fee you'll get from me is a fine".

Sure, would be fun to say in this situation, especially since we know there is no legal fee or fine to be assessed.

Bastards!

This is a fine example of what happens when our forest land is turned over to the private sector.

Can't the concessionaire lose their concession over this?