[matt@expaz]

Thanks to Brdywgn71 for sending me an article on this subject.

In February of 2012, a federal judge ruled that charging general access to forests violates the USFS’ own fee policy. This ruling has made the FS discontinue charging a fee for access to Mt. Lemmon (parking in undeveloped areas). The judge ruled that the FS could not charge for access to national forests (hiking, biking, camping, and picnicking). They could only charge for developed sites: having developed parking, permanent bathrooms, picnic tables, etc. This allows people who drive up to an undeveloped trailhead to hike for free. In the appeals court’s unanimous ruling, Judge Robert W. Gettleman wrote, “Everyone is entitled to enter national forests without paying a cent.” He also wrote the secretary of agriculture, whose department oversees the U.S. Forest Service, “shall not charge an entrance fee for federal recreational lands.”

Also, the court stated that collecting fees needs to be done in an efficient manner. My interpretation: if they want to charge for parking at a particular area, they must have a way to pay there. They can’t expect users to drive into a town miles away for a pass, then back to the forest to enjoy it.

From the articles I’ve read, it appears the FS resisted changing their policy for a long time (not updating their website and stating that people should be prepared to be charged regardless of the ruling). One of the articles states that a similar ruling was made against the Red Rock Fee area around Sedona in 2010, but they were still charging people the fee (including myself) until June 2012 when they made changes to their fee structure. It’s estimated that Sedona brings in over $800k a year from the Red Rock passes.

I have looked at websites that address fees for Mt. Lemmon and Sedona. Both are extremely ambiguous. In my opinion, this is done on purpose. They want the public to still believe they need passes for all the areas. I called up both administrative offices. Both admitted that you don’t need passes for most areas (though some are still required). Neither office could tell me explicitly what areas needed passes and suggested that probably it was best just to buy one to be safe. Both offices were very friendly and took the time to answer my questions (though I did not press any point beyond just asking what the policy was).

The best rule of thumb that I came away with is that if the area has a ton of picnic tables, permanent bathrooms, kiosks, grills, etc. (most of us know which ones these are), then you still have to have a pass (though the Mt. Lemmon person told me that if you don’t use the facilities, they can’t charge you).

Madera Canyon and Sabino Canyon still charge a general access fee. I can see how Sabino can do this under the policy (access is via the big parking area, tram, etc. so by default you are using the improved facilities). I do not know how Madera Canyon is keeping the fees in place. My guess is that it hasn’t been challenged like Sedona or Mt. Lemmon.

Both of these ruling could have significant impact of they way the FS collects fees and obviously, the amount of money generated. If Sedona loses, $800k a year, that’s a big hit to the area.

Here are the websites / articles I looked at:

http://www.examiner.com/article/two-...mon-and-sedona

http://m.redrocknews.com/News/court-...tion-fees.html

http://www.examiner.com/article/two-...mon-and-sedona

http://www.redrockcountry.org/passes...ts/index.shtml

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/corona...fswdev7_018710


All of this brings up a controversial question: should outdoor activities be on a pay-to-play basis? Should there be a charge to enter or use each piece of the National Forest? What about State lands? BLM? State Trust?

Here’s a short version of my 0.02 cents (I don’t want to bore all of you with what could be pages of ranting). I don’t mind the idea of paying a little more to do some of my activities (if the money goes into making that activity better – building new trails, maintaining old ones, etc. and not into some general slush fund that I have no idea where the money goes). I don’t like the specific pay-to-play policy as the only option. You can leave that for visitors or people who don’t do these types of things often, but let there be an option for the rest of us to buy ONE pass that covers EVERYTHING in the state. I currently have at least the following in my glove box: Sedona Red Rock Pass, Mt. Lemmon Pass, State Trust Permit and Catalina State Park Pass. Give me ONE pass for $50 or $100 that lets me do everything.

I think Arizona needs to look at other states: Utah and Colorado, who in my opinion, seem to be doing much better at managing their outdoor areas than we do. Moab and the very popular area around Silverton and Telluride are well-maintained, enforced and NO CHARGE.

Okay, I said I wouldn’t go on forever, so I’ll stop it here.

[UnderlyVerbose]

This is really good information. Thanks!

I'll second the state pass idea. Current policies already deter a lot of people from getting passes when they find out they have to buy separate ones for different parks. I know that the reason I don't visit any permit areas is because I don't want to deal with buying so many of them. If there was a single state pass, I'd happily pay $100+ a year for it. And I bet I'm not the only one...

[Rebarr]

Last year I purchased a National Parks pass. The pass is advertized as allowing access to most "National" recreation areas, including National Forest.

http://www.nps.gov/findapark/passes.htm

I was told by the Tonto NF that this was not an acceptable substitue for the Tonto Pass. How can Tonto make up their own rules?

I agree with Matt and Jeff. I don't have a problem with pruchasing a reasonably priced pass for the National Forest as long as the money goes to help keep the place up.