https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2017-10-25/national-park-service-proposes-70-entrance-fee-into-some-parks (https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2017-10-25/national-park-service-proposes-70-entrance-fee-into-some-parks)
FYI, looks like National Park Fees will increase. SNP is one of the proposed increases.
Gotta pay for Zinke's flights.
Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
It's a shame we cannot afford to properly fund something as universally-beloved as our National Parks.
Meanwhile, let's push through the biggest tax cut ever!!!!
but muh taxes pay for them parks
Thank Trump.
"President Trump proposed cutting the National Park Service's budget by 12.9 percent this year, despite concerns from officials within the department and in Congress about the state of the Park Service's infrastructure.
Democrats came out swinging against the proposal on Tuesday.
"Secretary Zinke would rather take money directly out of the pockets of hardworking Americans instead of coming up with a serious budget proposal for the National Park System," said Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee.
"We should be encouraging more people to get outdoors and enjoy our great natural wonders instead of discouraging them by raising park entrance fees." "
From http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/356962-interior-proposes-raising-fees-at-popular-national-parks (http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/356962-interior-proposes-raising-fees-at-popular-national-parks)
Never been a fee for GSMNP, and not supposed to be, ever. That was part of the deal govco made with NC and TN.
I have nothing against user fees for our National parks. $75 is a wee bit steep especially considering one can get into Biltmore for less.
Can't trust this administration being the Donald seems to be hell bent on destroying everything any civil society would value.
Quote from: Yallerhammer on October 25, 2017, 14:49:22 PM
Never been a fee for GSMNP, and not supposed to be, ever. That was part of the deal govco made with NC and TN.
& because of that, the TN side is getting completely ruined.
Quote from: Grannyknot on October 25, 2017, 15:14:54 PM
Quote from: Yallerhammer on October 25, 2017, 14:49:22 PM
Never been a fee for GSMNP, and not supposed to be, ever. That was part of the deal govco made with NC and TN.
& because of that, the TN side is getting completely ruined.
If it makes you feel any better, I've only been to the GSMNP twice in my life, and have never been to the Tennessee side.
I don't necessarily love the idea of fees or increasing fees for park usage. I've been in that park only a handful of times (both sides). However, I have zero problems supporting and/or contributing and/or ponying up for the enjoyment of such.
does it go back into NPS or at least DOI?
Too much of their budget is going toward enforcement personnel and vehicles. They need to scale that back. They do training meetings at a location next to my work for the SNP and there must be 40-50 vehicles there each time with usually only the driver in each. These people are not interpretive or cultural park rangers.
I bet they're tactical as fudge.
Why shouldn't park visitors pay more? They're the ones using and abusing the parks.
These are destinations and there's zero price elasticity here. People aren't going to cancel their trip over $30. Big deal
Buy a yearly national pass for $80. Pays for itself in 2 uses.
You're welcome.
And fuck you Zinkster!
Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Dougfish on October 26, 2017, 15:39:57 PM
Buy a yearly national pass for $80. Pays for itself in 2 uses.
You're welcome.
And fuck you Zinkster!
Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
Sorry Doug- that's rational and makes complete sense. No one will ever go for that. ;D
Quote from: Onslow on October 25, 2017, 15:28:24 PM
Quote from: Grannyknot on October 25, 2017, 15:14:54 PM
Quote from: Yallerhammer on October 25, 2017, 14:49:22 PM
Never been a fee for GSMNP, and not supposed to be, ever. That was part of the deal govco made with NC and TN.
& because of that, the TN side is getting completely ruined.
If it makes you feel any better, I've only been to the GSMNP twice in my life, and have never been to the Tennessee side.
You didn't miss much. The TN side is covered up with clueless touristers.
Quote from: Yallerhammer on October 26, 2017, 17:58:08 PM
Quote from: Onslow on October 25, 2017, 15:28:24 PM
Quote from: Grannyknot on October 25, 2017, 15:14:54 PM
Quote from: Yallerhammer on October 25, 2017, 14:49:22 PM
Never been a fee for GSMNP, and not supposed to be, ever. That was part of the deal govco made with NC and TN.
& because of that, the TN side is getting completely ruined.
If it makes you feel any better, I've only been to the GSMNP twice in my life, and have never been to the Tennessee side.
You didn't miss much. The TN side is covered up with clueless touristers.
its awful.
my wife runs up there early in the mornings on weekends.
when she is heading home, usually around 10, she said its unbearable already.
i don't even bother to try fishing up there anymore. pretty much straight to the national forest.
Happy Birthday to me!
:banana026:
Quote from: Beetle on October 26, 2017, 15:35:41 PM
Why shouldn't park visitors pay more? They're the ones using and abusing the parks.
These are destinations and there's zero price elasticity here. People aren't going to cancel their trip over $30. Big deal
I quietly agree so long as less usage isn't used as justification for undercutting the NPS system later (which will probably happen because we are at the mercy of money and a bunch of shitheads). That said I think the NPS is sacred enough to be safe. Same cannot be said for just about every other public land classification.
Make 'em free and make more of 'em.
Turn ANWAR into a national park, turn every national monument into a national park, designate parts of some national forests as national parks (start with Tongass, Chugach, Wenatchee, Bitterroot, Coeur D'Alene, Pisgah, Nantahala, and increase Yellowstone to include the Gallatin and Teton NF's) and for fucks sake create a new national park from the southern boundary of Lake Clark NP and the western boundary of Katmai NP south to Chignik and west to the coast of Bristol Bay.
Increase costs for RV campers and make back country camping free after passing a test that proves you're not a dipshit that shouldn't be in the back country.
Quote from: Woolly Bugger on October 27, 2017, 08:29:19 AM
Happy Birthday to me!
:banana026:
Us too! Did you get yours before the price increase?
TB
I think it is a sad artifact of our consumerist society that we would even refer to park visitors as "users," which basically implies that existence of the parks only benefits those who are able to "use" them in some way, while everyday, sedentary and uninterested taxpayers shouldn't be burdened with the cost of preserving what remains of America as it once was. Sad!
Fact is, "users" and everyone else already own this land. Everybody needs to pay their fair share for upkeep, and we and our kids, and theirs who aren't born yet benefit from their existence in a multitude of ways we could go into. You cannot tell me a family of 4 who enters a park, stops and takes pics at some overlooks, maybe hikes a trail or two causes $70 worth of damage to existing infrastructure. Ridiculous.
Totally agree that people staying in lodges (that we shouldn't have anyway IMO), RV campgrounds, etc. need to pay a reasonable rate commensurate with the upkeep for that specific infrastructure.
But IMO, infrastructure in the parks should be extremely limited and basic. Like Ed Abbey suggested. Gate 'em off. Maybe bus in the elderly and handicapped. Make everyone else walk or ride bikes.
This ^^^
Quote from: Native Fisher on October 26, 2017, 12:27:23 PM
Too much of their budget is going toward enforcement personnel and vehicles. They need to scale that back. They do training meetings at a location next to my work for the SNP and there must be 40-50 vehicles there each time with usually only the driver in each. These people are not interpretive or cultural park rangers.
Great point. [emoji106]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
People have the misconception that crime is not a common problem in these places. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I am an LE ranger for a state agency and have contacts with the same job in NPS, BLM and others.
NPS agents are by far the most likely of any federal agents to be assaulted on the job. They're responsible for larger areas and work alone/further from backup than anyone, and will far and away have less officers on duty than would a given municipality or county at any given time. To suggest they're overstaffed is IMO completely wrong.
Quote from: JMiller on October 27, 2017, 11:08:49 AM
I think it is a sad artifact of our consumerist society that we would even refer to park visitors as "users," which basically implies that existence of the parks only benefits those who are able to "use" them in some way, while everyday, sedentary and uninterested taxpayers shouldn't be burdened with the cost of preserving what remains of America as it once was. Sad!
Fact is, "users" and everyone else already own this land. Everybody needs to pay their fair share for upkeep, and we and our kids, and theirs who aren't born yet benefit from their existence in a multitude of ways we could go into. You cannot tell me a family of 4 who enters a park, stops and takes pics at some overlooks, maybe hikes a trail or two causes $70 worth of damage to existing infrastructure. Ridiculous.
Totally agree that people staying in lodges (that we shouldn't have anyway IMO), RV campgrounds, etc. need to pay a reasonable rate commensurate with the upkeep for that specific infrastructure.
But IMO, infrastructure in the parks should be extremely limited and basic. Like Ed Abbey suggested. Gate 'em off. Maybe bus in the elderly and handicapped. Make everyone else walk or ride bikes.
Taxpayers should fund the fixed operations for the parks. But I do think "users" (I don't know what else to call them....maybe "visitors" is more PC?) should bear the burden of variable costs. Call it mean, cruel or whatever you want. The current gig isn't working and needs to be fixed.
Personally, I'd like to see our parks overstaffed- especially with wardens/rangers.
Serengeti National Park fee= US$ 50 per person per day
Banff National Park fee = $9.80 for adult (Canadian money I think)
Torres del Paine National Park fee = 4000-6000 pesos (less than $10, correct?)
What does this tell us?
Here:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/10/raise_the_entry_fee_for_some_national_parks.html
Hiner, you left out Six Flags and Carowinds.
Quote from: Mudwall Gatewood 3.0 on October 27, 2017, 16:32:55 PM
Serengeti National Park fee= US$ 50 per person per day
Banff National Park fee = $9.80 for adult (Canadian money I think)
Torres del Paine National Park fee = 4000-6000 pesos (less than $10, correct?)
What does this tell us?
It's a great idea to allocate large remote tracts of land at high latitudes for nationals parks? p;-
There is an 11 billion dollar backlog of projects in our parks. How does 70 million a year help solve this problem? I do not believe the parks are funded anywhere near pre sequestration levels and additional cuts are proposed. So, what is the plan to address the real issue? Besides proposed drilling and mining in parks and raising fees? I eagerly await a response from mr. Zinke.