CALIFORNIA COMMENTARY : Next: Buck-a-Duck, Pay-per-View : Why should only hikers pay a park fee? Why not hit up the folks who feed the wildlife or just stop to admire the scenery?

Nobody walks in L.A.

In this metropolis, walk is a four-letter word. The city’s anti-pedestrian bias is well-known to residents and the subject of many a comedian’s L.A.-bashing.

You would think that to counter this reputation, a responsible--and responsive--county government would at every opportunity promote foot-powered recreation. Instead, the county is reinforcing the notion that L.A. is a terrible place to take a walk by enforcing an absurd new law requiring anyone using Los Angeles County trails to pay a $23 annual fee. We hikers--as well as mountain bikers and horseback riders--face $100 fines if caught on park trails without the required permit.

The intent seems to be to raise revenue. So why single out hikers and other trail users? How about a “Buck-a-Duck” program for seniors who enjoy feeding waterfowl at county lakes? How about instituting “Pay-per-View Scenic Viewpoints” along Mulholland Drive and PCH? Creeks are an untapped source of revenue: say, $2 to cool your heels, $10 to skinny-dip.

In terms of “user groups,” as park bureaucrats categorize us, hikers come somewhere between model airplane fliers and dog obedience schools in terms of getting attention. To the county, hikers, along with their silly trails and nature preserves, have traditionally been viewed as impediments to the development of real parks. Real parks have golf courses, snack bars or aquatic amusement centers and tend to be renamed by county supervisors for themselves.

The trail system in county parks owes its very existence not to the supervisors, but to dedicated volunteers. Scout troops and conservation organizations have designed, built, maintained and publicized a wide variety of foot trails and bike paths with little or no support from the county parks department.

Many people hike because it’s free recreation. It’s no coincidence that hiking is booming these days, while the region’s economy is busted. Many trail users simply can’t afford the $23 fee. Those who can are faced with other dilemmas: What happens, for instance, when Aunt Millie comes to visit--do you have to pay another $23 to walk her through the park?

Should the county stick to its policy of sticking it to hikers, how will the permit process be enforced? Along the 12-mile Puente Hills Skyline Trail, for example, there are dozens of places to join the trail. Will the county erect a forest of signs to explain at each junction that hiking without a permit is verboten? A hiker traveling the Backbone Trail through the Santa Monica Mountains could pass through city, county, state and federal land during a day’s journey. What if other park agencies, following the county’s example, required the purchase of trail permits?

Who will patrol the pathways? During the more than 20 years I’ve hiked county parks, I’ve never spotted a county employee on the trail. Will long-time desk jockeys be asked to mount horses or mountain bikes to ensure compliance? Will out-of-shape employees more familiar with paper trails than park trails get lost in the woods and have to be rescued?

In my worst nightmares, I imagine the county forming some kind of footpath Gestapo that will stop hikers at park borders. (“Your papers, please. And be quick about it.”)

There is a spiritual/philosophic dimension to consider as well (this being Southern California). How can we enjoy the freedom of the hills--or sneak up on wildlife--if we’re required to wear green neon wristbands bearing our trail permits? If we choose civil disobedience but worry about a $100 fine, are we really sauntering free? As the Transcendentalist naturalist Henry David Thoreau asked in his essay, “Walking”: “What business have I in the woods, if I am thinking of something out of the woods?”

Hikers, cyclists and horseback riders have long supported pathways with their tax dollars and volunteer efforts; in fact, trail users have proved much more supportive of the county trail system than the county itself.

True, county politicians promised not to hike taxes--they didn’t promise not to tax hikers. Still, hikers are likely to find this new tax--excuse me, annual fee--as hard to swallow as stale trail mix. The bureaucrats who thought it up should either rescind it or be told to take a hike.