stinkysox77 wrote:

lcarreau wrote:Chad is correct. The American taxpayer gets screwed again, but it's even a BIGGER shame the singer who sang "Ain't It a Shame" Chubby Checker died today at 89.

The average taxpayer was the once getting screwed before the price increase. Why not make the people use the park pay for the park? Personally I'm tired of a disproportionately small percentage of americans benefiting from the national parks when every american is having to pay for them. It doesn't seem that unreasonable to have the people who visit the parks pay for the upkeep and maintenance of the parks.

By God, I never thought of it that way! Hey Stinky Sox, have you ever tried taking your sox to a laundry mat ? I guess the average taxpayer is up the creek without a paddle. Just like Teddy Roosevelt was when he said, "Bully, what the hell did I just create ???"

lcarreau wrote:Hey Stinky Sox, have you ever tried taking your sox to a laundry mat ?

It doesn't work, the stink just seems to come back every time.

stinkysox77 wrote:

lcarreau wrote:Chad is correct. The American taxpayer gets screwed again, but it's even a BIGGER shame the singer who sang "Ain't It a Shame" Chubby Checker died today at 89.

The average taxpayer was the once getting screwed before the price increase. Why not make the people use the park pay for the park? Personally I'm tired of a disproportionately small percentage of americans benefiting from the national parks when every american is having to pay for them. It doesn't seem that unreasonable to have the people who visit the parks pay for the upkeep and maintenance of the parks.

When people go outdoors and enjoy the parks all of society benefits. Better to encourage people to get off their butts, log off Facebook, go outdoors, and move around a bit. Encourage them to appreciate natural wonders and value the environment. If people don't learn to value these things then at some point the majority doesn't even want to have these parks...

That is why it is unreasonable.

mrchad9 wrote:
That is why it is unreasonable.

Right, like what a dude with a PH.D. in " Psychology Today" said, " There's NOT a reason for everything. Stuff happens, and you gotta cope with the consequences."

I'm just glad the Parks are there to possibly enjoy and reap their benefits. Sometimes "benefits" are not monetary.

mrchad9 wrote:

stinkysox77 wrote:

lcarreau wrote:Chad is correct. The American taxpayer gets screwed again, but it's even a BIGGER shame the singer who sang "Ain't It a Shame" Chubby Checker died today at 89.

The average taxpayer was the once getting screwed before the price increase. Why not make the people use the park pay for the park? Personally I'm tired of a disproportionately small percentage of americans benefiting from the national parks when every american is having to pay for them. It doesn't seem that unreasonable to have the people who visit the parks pay for the upkeep and maintenance of the parks.

When people go outdoors and enjoy the parks all of society benefits. Better to encourage people to get off their butts, log off Facebook, go outdoors, and move around a bit. Encourage them to appreciate natural wonders and value the environment. If people don't learn to value these things then at some point the majority doesn't even want to have these parks...

That is why it is unreasonable.

I'm not advocating for abolishing the parks, I just think that the people who use the parks should be paying for their upkeep and maintenance. Even with these price increases the parks will remain a bargain to those that live near them and to those that travel long distance to visit them, while in the meantime it removes the cost of upkeep and maintenance from those who aren't able to or choose not to enjoy them.

After all you need to remember that for a large portion of the country these parks are not accessible in any means other than for an extended trip (and I'm talking about the real parks, not the bs sites that are "managed" by the nps). For most visitors these parks are a destination, and this slight increase in cost is inconsequential to the overall cost of visitation.

We just disagree on that then. I don't think those that go should have to pay a dime... nothing. Make it free.

Let every American as needed chip in via existing taxes just like we do for defense and Medicare and schools and everything else. That encourages people to go and I think that should be a higher priority then charging more and more to everyone who enters. $70 may be inconsequential to you, and maybe even to me, but it certainly isn't for everyone!

If we are going to shift to a pay-for-use model I would much rather do that for education than for parks. Why should I pay I single cent for all these K-12 schools when I don't have any kids in them... that is a lot more of my money wasted than this... rip off!!!

Should make it an even $100

"I was going to go to yellowstone this summer. I was fine with the $400 flight to jackson, the $250 dollar rental car, and the $200 a night hotel, but then when I found out it was $70 dollars to get into the park for a week instead of just $30 I canceled the whole thing because it just wasn't affordable" - said no one ever

mrchad9 wrote:If we are going to shift to a pay-for-use model I would much rather do that for education than for parks. Why should I pay I single cent for all these K-12 schools when I don't have any kids in them... that is a lot more of my money wasted than this... rip off!!!

I would too since the education system would probably greatly improve, but that's not going to happen anytime soon...

stinkysox77 wrote:"I was going to go to yellowstone this summer. I was fine with the $400 flight to jackson, the $250 dollar rental car, and the $200 a night hotel, but then when I found out it was $70 dollars to get into the park for a week instead of just $30 I canceled the whole thing because it just wasn't affordable" - said no one ever

Everyone is not flying across the country to go to these places. Median household income in Fresno County is $45,500/year... so half the county is making less than that. For all those families $70 for a visit is going to be an obstacle and they are going to just end up taking the kids to McDonalds for vacation. They were not going to make the trip to Yellowstone anyway... but now we are pricing them out of Yosemite and Sequoia too.

Best way to keep these places protected is to get as many people as possible willing to go see them.

mrchad9 wrote:Everyone is not flying across the country to go to these places. Median household income in Fresno County is $45,500/year... so half the county is making less than that. For all those families $70 for a visit is going to be an obstacle and they are going to just end up taking the kids to McDonalds for vacation. They were not going to make the trip to Yellowstone anyway... but now we are pricing them out of Yosemite and Sequoia too.

Best way to keep these places protected is to get as many people as possible willing to go see them.

...or they could just buy the annual pass for like $80, or recreate on other free public land, both affordable options. The pretense that this price increase is going to keep people from going outdoors is a farse. It may keep people out of the national parks, and maybe then the national parks will realize they don't need all the extras they provide to get people to go outside.

stinkysox77 wrote: or recreate on other free public land ...

A lot of people think BLM means Black Lives Matter, when it actually means Bureau of Land Management. Just saying ...

I really feel sorry for city folks, I really do. There's a nice McDonald's for city folks in West Yellowstone, where they can load up on salty fries and hopefully
observe a broken pipe in the restroom which might resemble Old Faithful.

Anyway, there's always public land where you don't have to pay a cent. But some folks will ALWAYS find something to complain about. More restrooms !!!

Why is it that women use so much toilet paper in the restroom? I always wondered about that ...

Families all over America are more than happy to piss away their two weeks' vacation and thousands of dollars on a starry-eyed road trip to Disneyland - biggest polished turd of a con trick in history - they can afford a NPS fee increase. But are they the ones packing out the National Parks? Seems to me the crowds in Zion are mostly foreign. Ditto Death Valley NP. In fact, I recall summitting Wildrose Peak a few years back, and no kidding but most of the names in the summit log were German! Germany, Austria, Switzerland - and then French names. Hardly any Americans. We even borrowed a gas stove from a delightful young German couple at the campsite to heat up our hot dogs.
I think the fee increases are aimed more at foreign tourists. If they can't reduce the crowds, at least the NPS can make an extra buck. Meanwhile, our compatriots won't go outside anywhere ya can't ride an ATV...

It seems to me that the fee increase is aimed at solving the number one problem at todays popular National Parks-Overcrowding. I live close to one of these parks and it's gotten so bad that I rarely go there anymore.
The least offensive tool the Park Service has to limit visitation, is to dramatically raise the entrance fee.

Higher fees are a terrible way to control the number of visitors. I would much rather see a quota system like they have for Mount Whitney, with a reservation fee and a limited number of walk-in permits each day. If you're concerned about a secondary market and scalpers, you can always tie reserved permits to IDs.