Subscriber Comments for
Four hikers, including two Ojai men, sued the U.S. Forest Se...

Most recent Comments first | (reverse order)

COMMENT 336617	2012-10-29 08:42 AM
Never paid, never will. But, they do force you to if you want to go to Red Rock. There's a gate/cones across the road and the concessionaire people won't let you through. So we park on the other side of it, get the ticket, and throw the ticket out. It does limit our ability to get back there though. Can't park at Red Rock for a bike ride to the lake/mine. It started as a supposed way to fund improvements. I have to guess since it was taken over by the outside entity that there's less $ going to the FS than there was initially. I don't see any improvements. Like someone said above, pretty much a license to print money for the concessionaire. Some rangers ticket, some grudgingly enforce, and I've actually had some tell me we're supposed to have a pass, but they weren't going to drive up where we were going to ticket us.
COMMENT 336491	2012-10-28 06:06 PM
Let's do something!!! We didnt let them charge us to park at the beach, why the heck are we letting them charge us for the mountains!!!
COMMENT 336488	2012-10-28 05:43 PM
Rather than blame... write your congressperson and demand it be changed. I wish then the best of luck with that suit so we can have our own and back.
COMMENT 336479P	2012-10-28 04:26 PM
@EMUWREN1, the word you're looking for is "Concessionaire". This is the mechanism by which US federal land management agencies offload 'non-core mission' recreational "pain in the ass" activities like running campgrounds and on-land lodging to the highest bidder using long-term (20 year + ) contracts. This is how hotels, stores, and campgrounds operate in everywhere from Red Rock to Yosemite. Oftentimes, a concessions contract is a license to print money, along the lines of KEYT's broadcast license to "serve the public" by giving them public airwaves at low/no cost. In this case, the Forest Service gets guaranteed percentage income from the Concessionaire who does all the hiring, low wage paying, bathroom cleaning, facilities upkeep, etc, while the FS meets recreational demand at low cost and even makes a bit of money off it. It's a Romney solution - let private industry do what they do best, earn a profit, and keep those workers off the government payroll. If it sort-of serves the public interest, well...that's good enough!
COMMENT 336478	2012-10-28 04:21 PM
Double taxation plain and simple. I hope all the very best for those bringing the suit. Just one small example of out of control government.
COMMENT 336472	2012-10-28 03:47 PM
I love hearing the support on Edhat for this lawsuit. I hate that damn fee for using our own public forests--so wrong on many levels. If USFS needs more money to operate, then I say we tax that 1% who has made such a killing on our bountiful country, and let the rest of us enjoy a little free time in the wilderness for free!
D8VANILLA	2012-10-28 03:32 PM
I would like to help with that lawsuit. Where do I send some cash???
COMMENT 336491	2012-10-28 03:13 PM
You don't have to pay this fee.. It is a double tax. Park your car, enjoy your hikes, swims,exploration, and clean up after your self. We park up there all the time with out paying and have not had anyone tell us that we HAVE TO or else and on the rare occasion that they waist their time and paper to write a ticket we just crumble it and toss it, drive home and never hear about it again because they cannot legally force you to pay. They are well aware of this but don't want you to be.
COMMENT 336425P	2012-10-28 12:59 PM
Sending these guys a big kiss. Thank you for protecting us from such a travesty.
COMMENT 336417	2012-10-28 12:04 PM
@411 Luckily, Clinton and the Democrats were able to keep the "experiment" limited to the few locations were it existed, and to this day, the US Forest Service in Southern California is the exception in charging admission to use the forests we all own. Tell that when you get a ticket. lol
COMMENT 336411	2012-10-28 11:02 AM
Good for them! I remember when the Republicans took Congress in 1994. They established the "Adventure Pass" as a "trial program" that was supposed to be the precursor to a massive privatization of the National Forests. The idea was that people would get used to paying to use their own forests, and eventually, these forests could be licensed out to for-profit private operators. Luckily, Clinton and the Democrats were able to keep the "experiment" limited to the few locations were it existed, and to this day, the US Forest Service in Southern California is the exception in charging admission to use the forests we all own. Remember who started this "Adventure Pass" program on Nov. 6. As Harry Truman once said: "I wonder how many times you have to be hit on the head before you find out who's hitting you?"
COMMENT 336410	2012-10-28 11:00 AM
Never paid it, never will. I thought this was settled (at least in the 9th circuit) back in February when the ruling very clearly stated that fees cannot be collected from people who do not use "improvements" such as picnic tables, restrooms, campsites, etc. Of course, if you drive up into the mountains around here, you'll find plenty of signs telling you that parked vehicles will be ticketed if they don't have a pass. Talk about contempt. People at the top should be spending their weekends in jail until they stop violating the ruling. If the US Forest service can't afford to provide amenities with their legitimate federal funding, then they shouldn't provide amenities. We're talking about forests, not resorts.
COMMENT 336405	2012-10-28 10:49 AM
Huge pain when you need to pay to go to your local wilderness. Interestingly enough, you can go in the Sierra for free (under quota). I've always purchased the pass simply to avoid issue, but it would be nice if it didn't exist.
EMUWREN1	2012-10-28 10:33 AM
This lawsuit must be more of a statement than just a rebellion against paying a few tickets. Good for these men. I hope they win! I think the entire Forest Fees Program is a double tax and should never have been allowed, much less allowed to continue. There have been exceptions made to being ticketed, apparently, for part of Los Padres, such as Gibraltar Rd and other places. It used to piss me off no end to have to worry about being ticketed if I wanted to go birdwatching or if we wanted to stop to have a sip of juice while showing friends the sights. Lois Capps stood with us at the entry to Red Rock years ago, as a group of us protested the entry fee at the kiosk there. People were so uninformed, they thought the fee was mandatory, when actually it was only "suggested." We saw people pay to go in, even after we told them they didn't have to pay. (This was when the fees were still being studied and not yet sanctioned.) It's the recreational franchises (I forget the proper title) that make the money off these fees. Very little goes to help the wilderness.
COMMENT 336398P	2012-10-28 10:11 AM
Sued for how much? Did they get a ticket for parking in the forest without a permit? Probably costs more to file the suit than it does to pay the ticket I imagine... we all want things to cost less or be free but don't think about that it takes money for there to be fire departments and crews to clean up after bad hikers who leave trash. I hated the cost of these passes when they first came out and rebelled against them, until I got a ticket and then I started to purchase them if I wanted to go to the areas that require them. In populated areas, like CA, it is hard to find things that are free :(

33% of comments on this page were made by Edhat Community Members.

EDHAT COMMENTS POLICY