The following editorial appeared in the Ventura County Star on February 9, 2001.
ADVENTURE PASS: First court test of forest fee delivers a no decision.
In the first local court test of the legality of the Adventure Pass -- requiring a $5 daily fee for use of national forests -- the judge's ruling was as indecisive and unrewarding as a scoreless tie.
Terry Dahl of Santa Barbara is among the frequent users of the Los Padres National Forest who believe the Adventure Pass is unconstitutional on the basis that it amounts to an admission fee for the public to use the same federal forest areas owned by the public.
Like members of Keep the Sespe Wild, and other organizations opposing the Adventure Pass, Mr. Dahl has made a habit of not paying the fee as a form of protest.
Congress approved the Adventure Pass program -- officially, the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program -- in 1996, requiring people to pay $5 per day or $30 annually to use national forest land. Since the program's inception, Mr. Dahl has been repeatedly warned to comply -- and was finally cited and hauled into a Los Angeles federal court.
If Mr. Dahl hoped that going to court would give him a chance to prove his point, he was disappointed enough in the outcome that he plans an appeal. U.S. District Court Judge Christina Snyder found Mr. Dahl guilty of a misdemeanor for using the forest lands without a permit -- a crime punishable by a $5,000 fine and/or six months in jail. However, after having pronounced him guilty, Judge Snyder imposed neither a fine nor a jail sentence.
More importantly, Judge Snyder ducked the entire question over the constitutionality of the Adventure Pass. Surely, that question will have to be addressed by some federal court, someday, and the sooner, the better.
We are somewhat baffled by the legal semantics contained in the Adventure Pass protests, and by those who see a constitutional contrast between paying a fee to use a national park and paying a fee to use a national forest. That to us seems like the proverbial distinction without a difference.
Regardless, the views of the Adventure Pass opponents deserve their day in court, and Judge Snyder didn't give them that.
Her ruling is cited as a warning to others not to stiff Uncle Sam while using the national forests, and it's possible the ruling might have that effect. Few hikers in the Sespe would risk having to hire an attorney and attend a court trial in Los Angeles just to save $5.
But the inconclusiveness of the court's ruling is unfair to everyone involved -- to the law-abiding citizens who dutifully pay for the Adventure Pass, to the U.S. Forest Service officials who are required to enforce the Adventure Pass program and to the protesters who believe the fee is illegal.
Whether it's on Mr. Dahl's appeal or on some other case, some federal court must resolve that issue with a ruling that's not another cop-out.