Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Trip Location Advice & Meet-ups | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
  

National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike
  
 
rw11
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


speaking of money, the National Parks and the value of our Parks....

the greatest monetary value to come out of the National Park System is not from user fees or anything else that most would think of

it is from a bacterium that was discovered in one of the hot springs in Yellowstone NP - it is able to function at very high temperatures and was used to enable Polymerase Chain Reactions by laboratory scientists - PCR is the basis for all the genetic decoding and engineering you read about in the press - many Trillions of dollars in our economy and countless new therapies have their origin in that hot springs

Good thing it was protected from over-development



Oct 28, 2017 at 06:27 PM
chez
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


stanparker wrote:
Compare the costs of a week at Yellowstone, Yosemite or Zion with the costs of a week visiting Disneyland, Disney World or similar places. Somehow cash-strapped families find a way to do those parks, so can do the same for National Parks, which offer much better entertainment (IMO). I think most nations charge more than the U.S., but I'd like to know for certain. Any info on this?

Not only would I like to see better funding from taxes, but I think we need to add parks and better develop them to attract people away from a few...spread the crowds, in
...Show more

Canadian National Parks have an annual pass for about $68 for an adult. A single day pass is about $10.



Oct 28, 2017 at 07:22 PM
chez
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


EGrav wrote:
Vehicles carrying more than 9 people should be banned. Keeping those large buses out would be a great start.


Why should we force people to bring individual cars into the parks. I was in Yellowstone a few years ago and never seen traffic in most major cities as bad as the gridlock in Yellowstone. I say we should encourage bus loads of people rather than dozens of cars.



Oct 28, 2017 at 07:24 PM
stanparker
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


chez wrote:
Canadian National Parks have an annual pass for about $68 for an adult. A single day pass is about $10.


Interesting. Last time in Jasper, a few years ago, I recall paying around $20 per day, plus camping fee. Of course, it was for two people. The US fee is per car.

I didn't propose a 350% increase all at once. I thought we were discussing the current proposal of increasing to $70. Over time, I could accept larger increases, and it would still be a bargain. More lodges, appropriately located, might also be a good source of increased revenue. However, when maintenance costs aren't fully funded, it's hard to come up with funds to add facilities.



Oct 28, 2017 at 10:02 PM
EGrav
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


chez wrote:
Why should we force people to bring individual cars into the parks. I was in Yellowstone a few years ago and never seen traffic in most major cities as bad as the gridlock in Yellowstone. I say we should encourage bus loads of people rather than dozens of cars.


Because the most disruptive, noisy, rude people are on those buses. Mostly from China, Taiwan and Korea. Also, noisy, smoky diesels. I have been to YS 3-4 times a year for the last 10 years but am cutting way back because of these rude people. Urinating and defecating in the pullouts.... just disgusting. Also, walking in closed areas (fumaroles, vents, et.)
Then 3 or 4 or 5 of these buses caravan - get to pullouts and take all of the parking. When they can’f fit, they just stop in the road, blocking traffic. And on and on.
Increase the price to $70 or more a car and ban anything that carries more than 9 people to start.
Harry, I know it may sound counter intuitive to ban buses, but in this situation, the US National Parks will be better off.



Oct 28, 2017 at 11:03 PM
chez
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


EGrav wrote:
Because the most disruptive, noisy, rude people are on those buses. Mostly from China, Taiwan and Korea. Also, noisy, smoky diesels. I have been to YS 3-4 times a year for the last 10 years but am cutting way back because of these rude people. Urinating and defecating in the pullouts.... just disgusting. Also, walking in closed areas (fumaroles, vents, et.)
Then 3 or 4 or 5 of these buses caravan - get to pullouts and take all of the parking. When they can’f fit, they just stop in the road, blocking traffic. And on and on.
Increase the price
...Show more

I'm sorry...I can't relate or reply to this.



Oct 28, 2017 at 11:51 PM
jdc562
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


stanparker wrote:
Compare the costs of a week at Yellowstone, Yosemite or Zion with the costs of a week visiting Disneyland, Disney World or similar places. Somehow cash-strapped families find a way to do those parks, so can do the same for National Parks, which offer much better entertainment (IMO). .... .


The big difference between the National Parks and the Disney places is that we Americans own the Parks and have been paying taxes for most of our lives to keep them visitable.



Oct 29, 2017 at 01:05 AM
Tim Knutson
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


Keith B. wrote:
Raising the fees to $70 would be unfair, IMO. I'll be in the $80-for-life category in a few months, BTW.
The NPS claims a "maintenance backlog" of about $12 billion. How much of that would be used for parking lots, paving currently unpaved roads and other questionable purposes, I don't know. They are human and therefore may occasionally make unwise decisions.
It is a public and international embarrassment that some modest improvement in that budget cannot be found in DC.
Some are already hinting at corporate sponsorships for park 'attractions'. Additionally, there are people in and out of the DC government
...Show more

I like it. Citi Bank Canyon, formerly known as Yosemite. Free entrance with their visa card.




Oct 29, 2017 at 01:11 AM
stanparker
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


jdc562 wrote:
The big difference between the National Parks and the Disney places is that we Americans own the Parks and have been paying taxes for most of our lives to keep them visitable.


What is your solution? Should we pay more taxes and suffer even larger crowds? Something needs to change if we want any sort of improvement. The trouble with higher taxes is the inherent tendency to fund other things and let the parks go without. I think the only long term solution is for the users to pay more. It doesn't have to be as much as Disney World, which includes profit, but significantly more than currently.



Oct 29, 2017 at 02:49 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


(deleted after realizing the topic is better discussed elsewhere)

Edited on Nov 17, 2017 at 04:41 PM · View previous versions



Oct 29, 2017 at 03:49 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


(deleted after realizing the topic is better discussed elsewhere)

Edited on Nov 17, 2017 at 04:41 PM · View previous versions



Oct 29, 2017 at 03:49 AM
Greg Campbell
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


Given that the price of an annual pass will remain at $80, the one-visit price increase will preferentially extract a bit more money from foreign tourists. This I don't mind at all.

I would prefer that the pedestrian / bicyclist and motorcycle fees remain untouched. If anything, I might reduce them to discourage the horrendous traffic that clogs nearly all of the popular parks during the peak of the season.

It seems likely that the NPS, BLM, etc. are all going to need any and all the help they can find for the next few years. While I'd prefer that the Feds properly fund the NPS in the first place, a rate increase is 'acceptable' if it's the only real option.



Oct 29, 2017 at 08:46 AM
rw11
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermus_aquaticus


Oct 29, 2017 at 07:37 PM
ckcarr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


The Might Five campaign in Utah has totally destroyed a once well kept "secret." They wanted people, and now they've got them. Add on top of that the out of state money pouring into towns like Moab to develop hotel after hotel after convention center with total disregard for the locals or local economy. This money doesn't stay here, other than minimum wage jobs and more government employees as city and county government grows. As far as I'm concerned they should raise the fee to $500


Oct 29, 2017 at 07:57 PM
bflood
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


There is one thing that we can truly rely on - if the parks raise fees and thereby generate more revenue for the parks, both parties will see it as a justification for reducing the appropriated money that the park service currently gets. Increasing fees will not result in increased funding for the parks.

And to be honest, I don't see higher fees having any meaningful impact of the number of visitors unless the fees become truly punitive in scale. That won't happen - the politicians won't allow it.



Oct 30, 2017 at 02:44 AM
jdc562
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


bflood wrote:
There is one thing that we can truly rely on - if the parks raise fees and thereby generate more revenue for the parks, both parties will see it as a justification for reducing the appropriated money that the park service currently gets. Increasing fees will not result in increased funding for the parks....


Probably so. Although legislation can be written to make sure admission fees stay with the parks, I doubt if there will ever be legislation to guarantee continued appropriations to parks from Congress. So, as you said, there is no assurance that increased fees means increased funds for parks.

However, switching primarily to user fees for funding parks will assure that park budgets will be unstable, vulnerable to economic fluctuations like consumer confidence, spendable income, gasoline prices, employment, etc.--not a good, rational, way to manage our park resources.



Oct 30, 2017 at 05:27 AM
Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


I love the US parks and always buy the annual pass, even if I am just visiting once and might never come back because its such great value and such a great cause. I do the same in Canada. Sometimes I buy several - one for each car. For those of us who spend $5000 on body x several and $10000 on a lens times several and spend so much time taking landscape and wildlife shots - it is something we should be willing to pay.

But something needs to be done about the busy parks. My experience in the summer at Yellowstone (or Banff) is that the crowds are becoming so heavy that the animals and trails are being harmed and the traffic is terrible. In Banff we managed to kill off all our wolves (by habituallizng them to humans and then destroying them and last summer we did the same with a grizzly bear) and we are starting on our grizzlies now.

There are only three solutions to the problem -
fence off the wild and build bigger roads and pull outs and rigorously control the parks - which costs money or
Raise the prices to limit the entrances - which restricts the parks to the wealthy or
Rationing the access to the parks through a lottery - which will frustrate all photographers

Raising the rates is a good start and I support it - there are lots of parks outside of the national parks and $100 is not unreasonable for most families that spend $50 to go to a movie.



Nov 05, 2017 at 04:04 PM
cohenfive
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


I also think there are two separate issues here...one is overcrowding, the other budget. I think jacking up day rates for us citizens visiting the parks is unfair and goes against the reason the parks were formed in the first place. Do I think there should be differential pricing for us citizens vs foreign tourists and possibly higher rates for buses vs individual vehicles...sure that might be ok and some other countries do the same which is ok by me when I'm in a foreign country seeing their sites. Do that for budget reasons, not crowd control reasons. But jacking up prices as a means to hold crowds down doesn't seem right.


Nov 07, 2017 at 04:15 PM
rw11
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


I goes against half the reasons the parks were formed in the first place - one is public enjoyment (presumably, on site tho an argument could be made for pics, videos, or just knowledge that something is protected).

The other reason is that the park system was also created for preservation - co-equal to enjoyment in the law. Arguably, you can better preserve park resources by keeping the public away from them (!)

An example, is the fact that many endangered species thrive on military bases where the public can be excluded.


BUT, there are 3 not 2 issues here to my way of thinking. The third is TAXES. My taxes go to support the NPS, and a higher user fee means my taxes are diverted somewhere else (such as a subsidy for coal companies or miscellaneous billionaires)...




Nov 07, 2017 at 08:13 PM
jdc562
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


I agree that many of our National Parks are over crowded, but I can't agree with using higher entrance fees to reduce the crowds. Higher fees unjustly discriminate against people with more meager budgets--like students, poorer families, and retirees--people for whom the Disneyland comparison isn't an affordable option to begin with. These lower income people deserve to enjoy our outdoors just as much as people with more wealth. Places like The Wave have quota limits to control the detrimental effects of too many visitors per day; this is much more fair than restricting visits to persons with more money to spend.


Nov 14, 2017 at 06:27 AM
1      
2
       3       end






FM Forums | Trip Location Advice & Meet-ups | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password