Interesting Ruling on USFS Fees

Case is specifically about Mt. Lemmon HIRA in Arizona, but will probably impact USFS lands nationwide.

"...we conclude that the REA unambiguously prohibits the Forest Service from charging fees in the Mount Lemmon HIRA for recreational visitors who park a car, then camp at undeveloped sites, picnic along roads or trailsides, or hike through the area without using the facilities and services."

Link to Ruling

They will probably just ban all those activities or make you get a permit for them then.

This has been the issue at Mt. Evans as well. If you refused to pay the fee, the ranger would say "you better not stop or park, just drive up and turn around." It's interesting to read the actual language of the statute, which certainly appears to permit the use of the parking lots without paying a fee. If I'm up there again to climb, I'll have to remember to bring a copy of the statute and the case to give to the ranger. I'll have to look and see if there is a similar case in the 10th Circuit.

Wow! Finally! This could be a far-reaching decision!

Not so much. Here is what the United States District Court for the District of Colorado had to say in Sherer v. USFS:

Regarding the remaining prohibitions highlighted by Plaintiffs, the Court finds that Defendants’ stated policy to not require “occupied parked vehicles at undeveloped sites or unoccupied parked vehicles where the occupants are in close proximity to the vehicle” to pay the standard amenity fee is consistent with the prohibitions delineated by the REA. In any event, without the setting of a distinct geographic area within which the fee may be collected, Defendant Forest Service would be tasked with monitoring each visitor’s activities within the HIRA to determine, on a case by case basis, whether the visitor is participating in an activity that implicates a fee. As the purpose of the REA “is to improve recreational facilities and visitor opportunities on federal recreational lands by reinvesting receipts from fair and consistent recreational fees and passes,” the agency’s interpretation of the prohibitions as stand-alone limitations is reasonable and consistent with the REA’s principles.

Meaning the USFS can charge you a fee unless you are only traveling through, which includes stopping/parking but the occupants have to remain in close proximity to the vehicle.

So, the question is - what is considered "close proximity to the vehicle?" 10', 50', 500 yards?

Here is a link to the case, which was affirmed by the 10th Circuit:
co.findacase.com/research/w…

I'm not sure what the far-reaching implications of this particular ruling are, since I haven't done my homework. Still, I enjoyed reading the ruling.

The author of the ruling didn't just rule against the USFS, he lambasted them and their "interpretation" of the code. It's a pretty funny read, if you have some time to kill.

Would be nice if it eventually changed the way the fees are applied. There are plenty of places here in southern California where you must display an "adventure pass" alongside roads that are nowhere near any improvements, let alone all the improvements that are supposed to be in place before assessing fees.

Took a quick look at the 10th Circuit case mentioned by JoeP
ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/…
After a quick skim, seems to me that the case was decided narrowly regarding the plaintiff's specific, technical contentions and the broader issues are still unsettled.

John Marsella wrote:This may sound flippant, but I am asking in earnest: What's the problem with paying USFS use fees, especially if one will be climbing, or hiking, or bouldering, or biking, etc (ie, using the recreation area)?

Short answer: because public resources should not be commodities.

Long answer: If fees are charged, non-users can argue more effectively that their tax dollars should not go to national land management agencies. Paying users can also argue more effectively that their fees should go toward "improvements" that would often take away from backcountry/wilderness qualities that a minority of users value (and yes, climbers, hikers, and backpackers are almost always in the minority, and check recent threads on Penitente Canyon for more specific details of this pattern). Finally, increases in user fees over the past decade have largely gone toward privatized concessionaires, who I would argue care even less about equitable use by all recreational user groups than the USFS does.

camhead wrote: Short answer: because public resources should not be commodities. Long answer: If fees are charged, non-users can argue more effectively that their tax dollars should not go to national land management agencies. Paying users can also argue more effectively that their fees should go toward "improvements" that would often take away from backcountry/wilderness qualities that a minority of users value (and yes, climbers, hikers, and backpackers are almost always in the minority, and check recent threads on Penitente Canyon for more specific details of this pattern). Finally, increases in user fees over the past decade have largely gone toward privatized concessionaires, who I would argue care even less about equitable use by all recreational user groups than the USFS does.

Plus one Camhead! The mega rich and corporations have done one of the best jobs of brain washing in the United States as could be done anywhere. They've caught us all napping as they lease out our land.. and again, I must enunciate this once more..."Our Land", as they drill for oil and gas, cut timber, graze cattle, look for gold and silver, and do about a hundred other things to create a product. They then package that product and sell it to us.. (can you say "Our Lands") at completely crazy prices which along with the write offs for developing .. "Our Lands", nets them a nice profit! AND THEN! Whenever a recreational use is expected by the public on "Our Lands", the corporations get together with your politicians and make sure that the cost to recreate comes out of your or our pockets since in fact it's not their land, but it's "Our Land". You take away that asset producing capability or at least nationalize it in such a way that the profits get put back into the resource from which they are derived and the term "Our Land" might mean something. Our public lands have become such a commodity that by taxing their corporate use we could alleviate all personal income tax in this country. Now try that one out on your Congressman....