Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 44 of total 44 in this topic |
Bad Climber
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Feb 24, 2014 - 09:07pm PT
|
Kali Klimbers:
I seem to remember hearing about the demise some time ago of the "Fee demo" project for parking in National Forest lands in So. Cal. A few weeks ago we got a ticket for parking without a permit at Texas Canyon. We routinely ignore these tickets, but I thought the program was dead. Any info./updates? I'm too lazy to Google it right now...
BAd
|
|
apinguat
Trad climber
kingfield, me
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2014 - 09:19pm PT
|
Here in near the White Mountain National Forest it was dead. Then it was started that up again.
Now... it's a 25 dollar ticket with a 50 dollar administration fee (or the other way around). I was so bent when I got one I just remember it being 75 bucks.
|
|
rincon
Trad climber
SoCal
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2014 - 10:36pm PT
|
Supposedly, now the only places that they want you to have an "Adventure Pass" for, is areas that have some sort of facilities, like bathrooms and picnic tables. Texas Canyon has nothing man made. Toss that fake ticket in the trash.
|
|
Jon Beck
Trad climber
Oceanside
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2014 - 11:01pm PT
|
Required at Humber park if you park in the lot. You can hang your Annual NP pass from the rear view mirror, they have a special hang tag they will give you
|
|
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2014 - 11:53pm PT
|
No...and yes. Catch the updated way the .gov wants to screw you here: http://www.westernslopenofee.org/ They've been working to eliminate this kind of regressive BS, very hard, and can use help via letters or a few bucks. They certainly deserve our thanks.
|
|
Spider Savage
Mountain climber
The shaggy fringe of Los Angeles
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2014 - 12:03am PT
|
Path of least resistance: Pay the $5.
B. Get an annual pass and write the pass number on the ticke and send it in.
C. Look at someone elses pass hanging in the window and write thier number on the ticket and send it in. Yes, this would be "bad."
D. If you get the $80 pass to get in and out of Josh & Yose & SeKi all year it would technically count.
America the Beautiful--National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Annual Pass: $80
This is an annual admission pass covering admission and standard amenity fees. This replaces the National Parks Pass and Golden Eagle Pass.
Edit: Parked at TexCyn all afternoon Sunday and didn't get one.
|
|
Bad Climber
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 26, 2014 - 09:00am PT
|
Hey, Spider: We must have seen each other as I was there most of the day Sunday, too. I was the really tall skinny guy with the tan pants and blue t-shirt. Yeah, no ticket this time. We've been ticketed a couple of times in the past, and based on a friend's experience from Mt. Pinos, we just tossed them. My buddy had a thick stack of such tickets, and nothing ever came of it. Never paid a one. I will continue to ignore....
Thanks.
BAd
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2014 - 07:00pm PT
|
The USFS is slippery...they are gonna privatize our public lands right out from under us if you don't watch these guys, and ACT NOW...
FEDERAL JUDGE APPROVES PRIVATIZATION OF ALL FOREST SERVICE RECREATION
On March 28, 2014, Judge Rudolph Contreras of the DC District Court issued a ruling that will allow the Forest Service to wash their hands of providing recreation and turn it all over to private concessionaires.
http://www.westernslopenofee.org/
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2014 - 01:20am PT
|
Apogee, did you turn Republican?
That is NOT what is happening. All that happened was that a judge ruled that the use of vendors is legal, not that all recreation lands must be administered by vendors.
Is the use of vendors news to you? Have you ever been to Yosemite?
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2014 - 01:43am PT
|
Ken, I'm really surprised at you. I would've expected so much more from you.
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2014 - 01:55am PT
|
I always thought a "National Park" and a "National Forest" were two different things?
|
|
Risk
Mountain climber
Olympia, WA
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2014 - 02:06am PT
|
Privatization of national forest recreation is a success of this movement. Right now, no national forest campgrounds are open on the Olympic Peninsula because all are run by private companies. They don't even open until Memorial Day weekend. They need to turn on the electricity to charge the campground host's (volunteer) golf cart to "patrol" the place. Apparently, unless they are full or nearly so, it is not profitable for these companies to have them open. Got to make money, you know.
The USFS has been a miserable failure to the people (or a total success, if you think the opposite). Why can't one go camping in late March in our national forests? Perhaps it's time to just sell them off and settle the national debt; they're "closed" anyway.
|
|
Larry
Trad climber
Bisbee
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2014 - 11:34am PT
|
The use of vendors is nothing new. The expansion of vendors to charge fees that didn't exist in the past is new.
"Under Judge Contreras's ruling:
The Forest Service can not charge a fee solely for parking.
But a concessionaire can!
The Forest Service can not charge a fee for passing through federal land without using facilities and services.
But a concessionaire can!
The Forest Service can not charge a fee for a scenic overlook.
But a concessionaire can!
The Forest Service can not charge a fee for general access.
But a concessionaire can!
The Forest Service can not charge a fee for camping at undeveloped sites with no amenities.
But a concessionaire can!
The Forest Service can not charge a fee for picnicking along a road or trailside.
But a concessionaire can!"
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2014 - 11:44am PT
|
TMJesse, you know full well the Forest Circus has been of great benefit to
the people, well, the people at Weyerhauser and Simpson, right? Boy, once
those guys paid their nominal fees the ol' Forest Circus didn't dare tell
them when they could go logging, did they?
|
|
Risk
Mountain climber
Olympia, WA
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2014 - 01:13pm PT
|
What is so obviously a slap in the face to visitors to national forests versus commercial users is the cost for a wilderness permit to go backpacking overnight leaving no trace and the cost to graze cattle all summer in the same location.
|
|
hossjulia
Trad climber
Carson City, NV
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2014 - 01:37pm PT
|
OK, I still have a hard time with this.
How can you be a climber, recreating on public land, without knowing the difference between the USFS and the NPS?
I see this confusion constantly in otherwise seemingly well educated folks.
Google it, educate yourselves, you might just be shocked, like I was when I learned of the differences. 30 years ago. Before Google.
|
|
Batrock
Trad climber
Burbank
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2014 - 01:40pm PT
|
I use the tickets as tinder. That's all they are good for.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2014 - 02:55pm PT
|
The other sick reality of the USFS moving towards privatizing all land access & facility use to concessionaires is that they will undoubtedly mis-manage it at a terrific loss to the taxpayer citizens...while those fecking concessionaires make bank off of our legacy as citizens of this great country.
This sh#t gets me so pissed off I can't sit still.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
for those who are caught up in the Park Service vs USFS, the legal decision was about public lands. Which both are. BLM, too.
What is so obviously a slap in the face to visitors to national forests versus commercial users is the cost for a wilderness permit to go backpacking overnight leaving no trace and the cost to graze cattle all summer in the same location.
What are you advocating the cost of a backpacking overnight permit is on USFS?
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
Wait till the concessionaires are put in charge of managing wildlife, suppressing fire, evaluating EISs, and ultimately... managing the development of National Recreation Areas and the selling of development lands bordering lakes and mountains.
Welcome to President Rand Paul's Libertarian 'Murca.
On a related note, you already have private companies writing the NEPA docs and running the coordination/public review/etc processes for many govt agencies. Contracting out anything above CATEX (i.e. EA or EIS) is commonplace in some agencies.
|
|
Risk
Mountain climber
Olympia, WA
|
|
What are you advocating the cost of a backpacking overnight permit is on USFS?
I'm not advocating anything. I'm pointing out the absurdity of charging a backpacker $5 for one night in some USFS wilderness areas (Desolation Wilderness) and a head of cattle $1.35 a month on federal land. And then, cows can poop in the creek, and a backpacker gets a fine if camped within 100 feet of water.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Soooo....how many of you have actually made your voices heard (where it might matter) on this?
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
Apogee, do you think that all of us believe that we really live in a participatory democracy?
Find me a congressperson who gives a sh!t about this and I'll write 'em.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Reilly & all, look at the WSNFC website...there're several ways to make your voice heard.
http://www.westernslopenofee.org/
I empathize fully, Fort, but the alternative of silent acceptance is not an option either.
|
|
Madbolter
Big Wall climber
I used to be hard
|
|
Yes it's dead (as long as you don't use spot with certain amenities) according to the ruling of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Adams v. USFS. Judgement issued 2/9/12
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/02/09/10-16711.pdf
CONCLUSION
[9]
For the foregoing reasons, 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. We therefore reverse the district
court’s grant of defendants’ motion to dismiss Count I and
remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
madbolter, that's an older ruling (February 2012). There is a more recent, much more daunting ruling that will certainly result in moving public land (USFS) access into the hands of private concessionaires.
|
|
Madbolter
Big Wall climber
I used to be hard
|
|
Ahh...I didn't see the westernslope link. That's indeed some BS, but wouldn't they still need to provide some facilities to qualify as a concession?
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Basically, the recent ruling says that while the USFS cannot charge those fees (under the FLREA), they can outsource the management of our lands to private interests...and will have no control over what those fees will be.
That's a scenario that's even beyond the pathetic concept of the Adventure Pass.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
Apogee, I share yer anger and I WILL make my voice heard, as unlikely as it
may be to effect anything.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Facebook it, tweet it, circulate an email, tell a friend...whatever.
Time is of the essence.
|
|
Madbolter
Big Wall climber
I used to be hard
|
|
Back to the Adventure Pass. It's dead, based on Adams v. USFS. However, mischief is afoot. Still, within the ruling, it mentions that concessioners must provide services. Such is not true for most "Adventure Pass" areas.
http://www.westernslopenofee.org/pdfuploads/44-Opinion.pdf
3. Application of the REA
Having determined that, under section 14(e), fees charged by concessioners for providing a good or service under the Granger–Thye Act are exempt from the REA, the Court applies the statute to the case at bar. Plaintiffs concede that the five permits at issue in this case were authorized under the Granger–Thye Act and its implementing regulations.
See Pls.’ Reply 21.
Thus, the remaining issue is whether the concessioners’ fees were for a “good or service” they provided to Plaintiffs.
See 16 U.S.C. § 6813(e). The Court concludes that the fees satisfy this requirement.
The operating plans for the recreation sites at issue in this case all set forth a plethora of services the concessioners must provide. These services include, among many other things, maintaining parking lots and restrooms, providing access to safe drinking water, inspecting the areas for safety hazards, testing for diseases, enforcing rules and capacity limits, providing emergency and first-aid services, cleaning up litter, and clearing trails.
Still, at first glance, it looks like the lawsuit was bungled from the start.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"...the FS CANNOT charge a fee."
The operative & relevant words here being...the 'Forest Service' cannot charge that fee.
But under the recent court ruling, the FS can outsource this management to a concessionaire, and they can charge whatever they want...with no FS influence.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2014 - 12:37pm PT
|
Bump for access-free public lands!
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2014 - 07:18pm PT
|
An update from the Western Slope No Fee Coalition:
PLEASE take a minute and read this...then contact your congressperson NOW!
DEAR PUBLIC LANDS SUPPORTER
Kitty Benzar ,
Action is urgently needed to stop a bill introduced in the House, and already rammed through Committee and ready for a floor vote.
HR 5204 would authorize the Forest Service and BLM to charge fees for all public lands, for any activity, by any person, any time.
Details follow. Please TAKE ACTION NOW!
Kitty Benzar
STOP THIS BILL
HOUSE BILL WOULD ALLOW FEES FOR ALL PUBLIC LAND ACCESS
Just before the House adjourned for their August recess, HR 5204 The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Modernization Act of 2014, was introduced by U.S. Representative Rob Bishop (R-UT) and rammed through the House Resources Committee, without a hearing, by its Chairman, U.S. Representative Doc Hastings (R-WA).
It's likely that Bishop and Hastings are planning to get HR 5204 attached as a rider to the FY2015 appropriations bill. Although HR 5204 has attracted no sponsor in the Senate so far, it's likely that if attached as an appropriations rider it will pass both chambers without scrutiny or public debate, and become the law of the land, because appropriations bills are considered "must pass" in order to avoid a government shutdown.
HR 5204, if enacted, could destroy the concept of public lands as places where everyone has access and is welcome. Every place, every activity, every person, could be required to pay a fee - an additional tax on top of the taxes that already support public lands - for access, regardless whether they are highly developed like National Parks and Forest Service or BLM campgrounds, or completely undeveloped like Wilderness Areas.
HR 5204 would allow the kind of fees that have not been controversial to continue, such as fees for developed campgrounds and National Park entrance fees. But in addition to those fees, it would allow general access fees for any federal recreational lands and waters. It would accomplish this by two types of fee: Day Use Fees and Permit Fees.
The only meaningful requirement for a Day Use Fee would be that where you park there is a toilet of some kind (could be a porta-potty or a stinky outhouse) within 1/2 mile.
The only meaningful requirement for a Permit Fee would be that where you park gives access to a "special area." Neither "special" nor "area" is defined. The land agencies would have complete discretion to claim that any place at all is a "special area."
So where there is a toilet it could be called a Day Use Fee. Where there is not a toilet, it could be called a Permit Fee. The result is the same: there would not be anyplace where a fee is not allowed. And since the agencies would get to keep all the fee money directly, there would be not be anywhere that they wouldn't have a strong incentive to charge a fee.
Public lands? Forget that. Not any more. Not if this passes.
There is other stuff in HR 5204 (like no more fee-free days, citizenship checks on annual pass holders, and overhead costs rising from 15% to 25%), but they only rearrange the deck chairs on the sinking ship of our public lands.
A detailed analysis of the major provisions is on our website at this link : http://westernslopenofee.org/index2.php?display=yes&pageid=34
Congress is on vacation until the week after Labor Day. When they return, the 2015 appropriations bills will be among the top items of business. If Bishop and Hastings succeed in getting HR 5204 attached to one of them, it's almost guaranteed to pass.
**What can stop it?
ONLY ONE THING: PUBLIC OUTRAGE-PUBLIC ACTION.**
If you care about our public lands being turned into commodities available only to those who can afford to pay fees for everything, then you must let YOUR Representative and YOUR Senators hear from you. Tell them that this major change in public policy cannot be allowed, particularly without any public hearing or debate.
HR 5204 lacks any over-arching vision or framework of our public lands being spaces where we all are welcome and have access. Yet it's being supported by groups like the National Parks Conservation Association, The Wilderness Society, and America Outdoors, because it throws a bone here and there to their special interests. But for the general public, there is nothing redeeming in this bill, nor any way it could be amended into something acceptable. It represents a complete change in public lands policy, which would be accomplished without public hearings or debate.
Tell your congressional delegation to OPPOSE HR 5204 and TO NOT ALLOW IT TO BE ATTACHED TO AN APPROPRIATIONS BILL!
All the contact information you need can be found at www.house.gov and www.senate.gov.
Use their webform.
Call their office in Washington.
Call their local office.
Write, phone, fax, drop in in person.
Do all of the above. And then do it again!
Your personal action is urgently needed or this bill WILL PASS!
IF THAT HAPPENS, KISS YOUR ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS GOODBYE.
|
|
rurprider
Trad climber
Mt. Rubidoux
|
|
|
Aug 25, 2014 - 03:54am PT
|
Savage.....paying the $5 may be the path of least resistance, but rolling over and accepting the fee program isn't going to make the problem go away. Writing a letter or email to Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein asking them to oppose HR 5204 and to NOT allow HR 5204 to be attached to any Appropriations Bills is a better strategy. Glad the Western Slope Alliance is fighting this.
Rincon.....true, Texas Canyon doesn't have any facilities to justify the fee, but the USFS keeps writing the Notices of Non-Compliance and Ranger L. Hernandez has indicated that the USFS is planning to level that slope just south of the gate to install a picnic table and a toilet. Looks like the USFS will spend your tax $$$ to find a way to justify the fee program to get more of your $$.
ps.....just fired off emails to Boxer and Feinstein asking them to oppose HR 5204.
|
|
skitch
climber
East of Heaven
|
|
|
Aug 25, 2014 - 07:15am PT
|
Mammoth mountain charges $16 to xc bike on FS land, is that legal???
|
|
James Wilcox
Trad climber
Goleta/Virginia Lakes
|
|
|
Aug 25, 2014 - 09:03am PT
|
The Adventure Pass "Fee" was marketed to the public as a way to generate funds to make visible improvements that would benefit the visitor. Trailhead maintenance, restroom facilities, trailhead parking lots, etc.
While I can't speak for the Cleveland or San Bernardino use of revenue, it's been obvious in the Los Padres that very little of the money has been funneled back into the areas that see the greatest visitation. I would assume that monies from Adventure Pass sales going into general fund.
If the money is going to general fund, and not offsetting specific costs, then the charge to the public is no longer a fee, but a tax.
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Aug 25, 2014 - 09:15am PT
|
I contacted two senators for California and two local reps in my area.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2014 - 12:22pm PT
|
STOP THIS BILL
HOUSE BILL WOULD ALLOW FEES FOR ALL PUBLIC LAND ACCESS
Just before the House adjourned for their August recess, HR 5204 The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Modernization Act of 2014, was introduced by U.S. Representative Rob Bishop (R-UT) and rammed through the House Resources Committee, without a hearing, by its Chairman, U.S. Representative Doc Hastings (R-WA). Not a single member of the Committee of either party lodged any objection.
It's likely that Bishop and Hastings are planning to get HR 5204 attached as a rider to the FY2015 appropriations bill. Although HR 5204 has attracted no sponsor in the Senate so far, it's likely that if attached as an appropriations rider it will pass both chambers without scrutiny or public debate, and become the law of the land, because appropriations bills are considered "must pass" in order to avoid a government shutdown.
HR 5204, if enacted, could destroy the concept of public lands as places where everyone has access and is welcome. Every place, every activity, every person, could be required to pay a fee - an additional tax on top of the taxes that already support public lands - for access, regardless whether they are highly developed like National Parks and Forest Service or BLM campgrounds, or completely undeveloped like Wilderness Areas.
HR 5204 would allow the kind of fees that have not been controversial to continue, such as fees for developed campgrounds and National Park entrance fees. But in addition to those fees, it would allow general access fees for any federal recreational lands and waters. It would accomplish this by two types of fee: Day Use Fees and Permit Fees.
The only meaningful requirement for a Day Use Fee would be that where you park there is a toilet of some kind (could be a porta-potty or a stinky outhouse) within 1/2 mile.
The only meaningful requirement for a Permit Fee would be that where you park gives access to a "special area." Neither "special" nor "area" is defined. The land agencies would have complete discretion to claim that any place at all is a "special area."
So where there is a toilet it could be called a Day Use Fee. Where there is not a toilet, it could be called a Permit Fee. The result is the same: there would not be anyplace where a fee is not allowed. And since the agencies would get to keep all the fee money directly, there would be not be anywhere that they wouldn't have a strong incentive to charge a fee.
Public lands? Forget that. Not any more. Not if this passes.
There is other stuff in HR 5204 (like no more fee-free days, citizenship checks on annual pass holders, and overhead costs rising from 15% to 25%), but they only rearrange the deck chairs on the sinking ship of our public lands.
A detailed analysis of the major provisions is on our website at this link:
http://www.westernslopenofee.org/pdfuploads/HR5204_WhatsInIt.pdf
Congress returned from summer vacation last week but will only be in session a few more days before adjourning until after the election. One of the few measures they are expected to pass is the Continuing Resolution (CR) that must be enacted to fund the government and avoid another shutdown. If HR 5204 is attached to the CR, it's almost guaranteed to pass.
What can stop it?
ONLY ONE THING: PUBLIC OUTRAGE-PUBLIC ACTION.
If you care about our public lands being turned into commodities available only to those who can afford to pay fees for everything, then you must let YOUR Representative and YOUR Senators hear from you. Tell them that this major change in public policy cannot be allowed, particularly without any public hearing or debate.
HR 5204 lacks any over-arching vision or framework of our public lands being spaces where we all are welcome and have access. Yet it's being supported by groups like the American Recreation Coalition, National Parks Conservation Association, The Wilderness Society, and America Outdoors, because it throws a bone here and there to their special interests. For the general public, there is nothing redeeming in this bill, nor any way it could be amended into something acceptable. It represents a complete change in public lands policy, which would be accomplished without public hearings or debate.
Tell your congressional delegation to OPPOSE HR 5204 and TO NOT ALLOW IT TO BE ATTACHED TO AN APPROPRIATIONS BILL!
All the contact information you need can be found at www.house.gov and www.senate.gov.
Use their webform.
Call their office in Washington.
Call their local office.
Write, phone, fax, drop in in person.
Do all of the above. And then do it again!
Your personal action is urgently needed or this bill WILL PASS!
IF THAT HAPPENS, KISS YOUR ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS GOODBYE.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2014 - 04:22pm PT
|
HOUSE BILL THAT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED FEES FOR ALL PUBLIC LANDS ACCESS HAS BEEN STOPPED
IMMEDIATE RISK HAS BEEN AVERTED
Recreation Fee Policy Changes Must Start Over
Sometimes the best you can do in politics is to dance with the devil you know.
That's the takeaway from the US House's (for now) failed attempt to pass legislation that could have conferred nearly unlimited authority on federal land management agencies to require that visitors pay a fee to be anywhere, or do anything, on our National Forests, BLM, and other federal public lands.
Instead, the funding bill that passed just as this session of Congress came to an end extends the current law - the devil we know - through September 30, 2016.
That law is The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, or FLREA. It is a deeply flawed statute. But it does contain some important provisions, which have been upheld in several federal court cases, that protect citizens from over-reach by fee-hungry agency bureaucrats.
http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs194/1103044050286/archive/1119492497082.html
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2014 - 04:31pm PT
|
So has anyone tried to leave a copy of FLREA on the dashboard of their car parked along Angeles Crest Highway, instead of an Adventure Pass?
Or at least this part of it:
"The Secretary shall not charge any standard amenity recreation fee or expanded amenity recreation fee for Federal recreational lands and waters administered by the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, or the Bureau of Reclamation under this Act for any of the following:
(A) Solely for parking, undesignated parking, or picnicking along roads or trailsides.
(B) For general access unless specifically authorized under this section.
(C) For dispersed areas with low or no investment unless specifically authorized under this section.
(D) For persons who are driving through, walking through, boating through, horseback riding through, or hiking through Federal recreational lands and waters without using the facilities and services.
(E) For camping at undeveloped sites that do not provide a minimum number of facilities and services as described in subsection (g)(2)(A).
(F) For use of overlooks or scenic pullouts."
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2014 - 05:04pm PT
|
So we can tell 'em to shove it at Red Rocks too?
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2014 - 05:11pm PT
|
Nope...it ain't over till it's over. FLREA, as flawed as it might be, stays in place until March 2016, when Congress will have to decide what to do with it again. This latest action only bought some time, by removing a desperately flawed policy from the recent omnibus spending bill. RR policies are likely to be status quo (whatever they currently are).
No doubt that some other Congressperson(s) will try this again, &/or land managers will change their approach.
Never, ever, ever, ever, ever give up (your vigilance).
|
|
| Messages 1 - 44 of total 44 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!