Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 21, 2024 20:24:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2017 4:10:32 GMT
Increase fees to international tourists.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 21, 2024 20:24:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2017 14:18:11 GMT
My first post on a political thread! We should do whatever it takes to save our parks. National Parks are truly America's best idea.
|
|
|
Post by kristi on Oct 27, 2017 16:57:29 GMT
We love National Parks & go several times a year.
I support any increases to help maintain the parks.
They have several free days a year & other programs to help those that cannot afford the increase.
I do believe that the increase will not impact the majority of tourists that were going anyways - the difference is the cost of a meal at a restaurant.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Oct 27, 2017 17:12:42 GMT
I can see why prices need to be raised slightly, but the price increase seems quite high. And with the cuts to the budget, I doubt there will be additional staff being hired or infrastructure improvements being made. The increase in price to get in might now even pay for the staff that they currently have now.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Oct 27, 2017 18:52:21 GMT
with this administration, I'm imagining that if they pass, those increased fees will NOT make it all the way to making the infrastructure improvements they say are needed. (my cynicism is showing again, I guess.) "The administration just proposed a major cut to the National Park Service budget even as parks struggle with billions of dollars in needed repairs," Pierno said. "If the administration wants to support national parks, it needs to walk the walk and work with Congress to address the maintenance backlog." ^^^ I agree with THIS. Don't take away their budget and then try to pass increases on to the visitors. Why not? The visitors are the ones using the facilities. People think nothing of going to Disney and spending $150 per day per person but are going to squawk about $70 for an entire carload of people? It's ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Oct 27, 2017 21:15:10 GMT
yup, I'm going to 'squawk' about $70 for a carload of people, when it's a CONSIDERABLE increase over what it was before. Especially since they're cutting the budget for that area. Especially if my carload of people is only TWO people. Especially if, going on past performance with this administration, what they're promising will most likely NOT come to pass. Especially since National Parks are a NATIONAL PARK and not a for-profit enterprise, like Disney. Their mission is as follows: "The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations." Kinda hard to enjoy and educate the people when the people are priced out of going there because the administration is funding their precious quote-unquote "tax cut" by cutting the Parks' department's budget.
And for the record, I am NOT a person who would spend $150 per day per person at Disney, either-- not that that matters. Because the two things are not the same, in my opinion-- it's comparing apples and oranges. One = for profit business (Disney), one = NOT (National Parks).
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Oct 27, 2017 21:18:42 GMT
yup, I'm going to 'squawk' about $70 for a carload of people, when it's a CONSIDERABLE increase over what it was before. Especially since they're cutting the budget for that. Especially if my carload of people is only TWO people. Especially if, going on past performance with this administration, what they're promising will most likely NOT come to pass. Especially since National Parks are a NATIONAL PARK and not a for-profit enterprise, like Disney. Their mission is as follows: "The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations." Kinda hard to enjoy and educate the people when the people can't afford to go there. And for the record, I am NOT a person who would spend $150 per day per person at Disney, either-- not that that matters. Because the two things are not the same, in my opinion-- it's comparing apples and oranges. One = for profit business, one = NOT. But the "budget" is paid for by taxes. Even though they are national parks does not mean that the 49% of us who pay taxes should foot the bill so that people can have cheap vacations. The forests and parks can be preserved for future generations without the government expending large amounts of money for the benefit of a few campers. In the scheme of what should be cut in order to reduce taxes, this is at the top of the list. Non-profit or not.
|
|
maryannscraps
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,737
Aug 28, 2017 12:51:28 GMT
|
Post by maryannscraps on Oct 27, 2017 21:33:24 GMT
The National Park system is one of the things I love seeing taxes go toward. I think they should be fully funded by taxes for the preservation of the resource and for any and every citizen to enjoy. Their mission statement isn't about cheap vacations, it's about preserving the land and education. I wish they'd be funded much better by taxes. This is one of the top items I think should be tax funded. There are plenty of other government items that I don't think should be funded and have to pay for with my taxes, plenty of waste, and plenty of pork. Not this. Sorry #notLauren, but I completely and absolutely disagree with you on this one. From my childhood, National Parks have fueled my love of nature, hiking, and science education.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Oct 27, 2017 21:45:23 GMT
Thank you for disagreeing with me in a respectful manner.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Oct 27, 2017 22:29:37 GMT
Trump to shrink Utah national monumentBY DEVIN HENRY - 10/27/17 03:16 PM EDT President Trump told Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch (R) on Friday that he will reduce the size of the state's 1.3 million-acre Bears Ears National Monument. “I was incredibly grateful when the president called this morning to let us know that he is approving Secretary Zinke’s recommendation on Bears Ears,” Hatch said in a statement. Hatch's office said Trump confirmed the news during a phone call Friday. The White House also announced that the president will visit Utah in December to officially announce the news. Protecting sacred antiquities is a matter of critical importance, and Secretary Zinke and the Trump administration found a better way to do it by rolling up their sleeves, digging in, and talking with Native American tribes," Hatch said. "We’ll continue working closely with locals moving forward to ensure that Utahns have a voice in this process." Trump met with Zinke on Friday to talk about the status of his monuments review, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in the daily briefing. She said the White House would “release more details" during Trump's December visit, "if not before.” The monument, declared by former President Obama late last year, was one of the most controversial Antiquities Act declarations under review by the Interior Department this summer. Bears Ears protects Native American artifacts in southern Utah. It was one of the last, and largest, monument designations made by Obama during his tenure, and one that incensed conservatives in the West who have long argued the government has too much power over land spanning several states. The Interior Department’s monuments review is controversial. Twnety-six other large monuments designated since 1996 were also subject to an extensive Interior Department review this summer, including Utah's 1.8-million acre Grand Staircase-Escalante monument. Trump also told Hatch he plans to shrink that monument. Conservation groups have aggressively opposed the monuments review, and have threatened to sue over any attempt to undo past monument designations. “President Trump and his administration will stop at nothing to sell out America’s parks and public lands,” said Greg Zimmerman, the deputy director of the Center for Western Priorities. “This foolish attempt to erase protections for Bears Ears — or any other national monument — will meet immediate legal challenges, and it is destined to fail in court," he continued. MORE at link: thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/357546-trump-to-shrink-utah-national-monument
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 21, 2024 20:24:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2017 23:04:48 GMT
This isn’t going to price anyone out of the National Parks. Many (most I think) NPs don’t charge an entrance fee to begin with, and this doesn’t change that for those parks. So most NPs are free for the enjoyment and education of everyone. There are also many ways in which people can enjoy even the parks with fees for free: Trails that access the parks from outside the boundaries (legal), free days that are offered each year, volunteer. Seniors, the disabled, military members, students, all get greatly discounted passes, some are free. If people think the NPs should be accessible to everyone all the time, why have any entrance fees for any of them in the first place?
|
|
|
Post by ntsf on Oct 27, 2017 23:05:43 GMT
so you can't just preserve and protect the parks and not spend money. if you closed the gates to all visitors, you would still have a significant cost. you have to do fire protection, historic building protection, preserve artifacts, (and that isn't cheap). you have to repair things. you have to spend some money to study the animals and ecosystem.. because if you don't, you don't know what you have and if it is being protected or not. you have to watch and study for threats, like global warming, or the nearby coal mining that may destroy the park. or study the threat of mt rainier and yellowstone (to the local communities).
and this has nothing with letting humans enjoy it.. which is part of the mission.
I hope people sue the heck about the monuments. these issues were studied for years.. and everyone consulted before the monument was designation.. assholes who want their oil buddies to make money!!!
|
|
|
Post by sunraynnc on Oct 28, 2017 20:34:53 GMT
I don't really have an issue with 'pay for play', as it were. Let the people who are using the parks contribute more to their maintenance. Another thought... There's a sizeable international contingent that is visiting places like the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone. And they're not supporting the parks via taxation the way that Americans are. Also, maybe a special discounted rate for those that actually pay federal taxes?
|
|
|
Post by sunraynnc on Oct 28, 2017 20:38:07 GMT
Increase fees to international tourists. Slippery slope...next thing they are going to ask for is ID.
|
|
georgiapea
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Posts: 6,846
Jun 27, 2014 18:02:10 GMT
|
Post by georgiapea on Oct 28, 2017 20:48:36 GMT
This is why they pushed the $10.00 Lifetime Passes so strongly for the last year or so. The price increase was scheduled way in advance of taking effect.
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on Oct 28, 2017 22:55:43 GMT
I don't travel, so no big loss for me. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/images/MNrJDkDuSwqIMVw33MdD.jpg) The parks are badly in need of help, I'm not sure the right way to make it work.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 21, 2024 20:24:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 2:21:12 GMT
Increase fees to international tourists. Slippery slope...next thing they are going to ask for is ID. So the last time we were in Yellowstone, it was a mad house. It would not have been too bad, but the international tourists would jump off the bus take a selfie shot and run as fast as they could back to their tour bus. I mean run like the bears were after them. The loaded bus didn't leave for at least 15 minutes. It is sad that the greatest national treasure we have was nothing but a photo prop.
|
|
|
Post by ntsf on Oct 29, 2017 2:35:16 GMT
as a former interpretive ranger.. it is not really for us to judge "how" people enjoy the park. for some, a picture is what they want. some want a 2 hour stroll in solitude. for some, (supported by research).. they are more likely to camp where they see signs that others were there.. like litter. we can't put visitors into boxes.
at one historic fort, we had visitors who walked in, looked 5 seconds and left. we had people visit who dressed as elves. we had fashion shoots. we had overnight groups. we had families who hadn't a clue where they were standing. we value all of the visitors. we need to make space for almost all experiences.
this is why I would support reservations, limits on trails, shuttle buses instead of private cars.. I heard lectures about this in college in 1974.. so not a new idea. it is called recreation management. scarce resource? you have to limit visitors.
|
|
Anita
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Posts: 5,672
Location: Kansas City -ish
Jun 27, 2014 2:38:58 GMT
|
Post by Anita on Oct 29, 2017 3:29:14 GMT
It's a large jump, but I can see where it might be necessary.
|
|
scrapaddie
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Posts: 5,090
Jul 8, 2014 20:17:31 GMT
|
Post by scrapaddie on Oct 29, 2017 14:09:19 GMT
I think we should take notes from Edward Abbey. Modest increase to entrance fee that stays with the parks to help maintain and protect, but ban tour buses and cars. Bike or hike in only. That would cut down on visitors. (I am only half joking). So the parks are not for the disabled and elderly who can't bike or hike in? Yea... that sounds like a real good plan (sarcasm)
|
|
scrapaddie
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Posts: 5,090
Jul 8, 2014 20:17:31 GMT
|
Post by scrapaddie on Oct 29, 2017 14:14:30 GMT
I don't really have an issue with 'pay for play', as it were. Let the people who are using the parks contribute more to their maintenance. Another thought... There's a sizeable international contingent that is visiting places like the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone. And they're not supporting the parks via taxation the way that Americans are. Also, maybe a special discounted rate for those that actually pay federal taxes? That is only about half the population (paying federal taxes). Many countries do have higher fees for international visitors. The Serengeti was $50.00 per day..
|
|
styxgirl
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,882
Jun 27, 2014 4:51:44 GMT
|
Post by styxgirl on Oct 29, 2017 15:58:49 GMT
I support it - as long as it's actually going to the parks. I really don't see this increase pricing out very many people. The people who aren't able to afford the jump from $30 to $70 were probably those who financially can't afford the trip at all. The truly poor aren't able to enjoy the national parks as the transportation alone is a barrier. I totally agree with this. We went to Yellowstone back in 2015. We paid $65 for a WEEK pass to Yellowstone/Teton combo. (Even though we just drove through Teton to get to Yellowstone). We spent a bucket-load of $$ on that trip just to GET to Yellowstone and back. Bumping it up (or even doubling) the pass for a week still seems reasonable to me for what you get! Seven whole days to explore one of the most amazing places on earth? If the money truly will go back to the park, I am ALL FOR IT! Tourist are horrible to clean up after. Upkeep on the boardwalks and signage to keep people safe (hopefully they will abide by!)
|
|
likescarrots
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,879
Aug 16, 2014 17:52:53 GMT
|
Post by likescarrots on Oct 29, 2017 17:13:30 GMT
Agreed but the reality is, people are just going to buy the pass. Maybe they'll take advantage of it, maybe they won't but some of things I've been reading like this increase will keep families from being able to take the vacation they've saved for? That's hyperbole. If you're paying for the gas and food to drive and visit someplace like Yosemite or Zion or the Grand Canyon or Great Smoky or Shenandoah, you may complain about the extra $40 to get in but it's not going to keep you from going altogether. The vast majority of people for whom that $40 is make or break already aren't taking this type of trip, at least in a private car. And I suspect that as extreme as this seems, it won't end up being that much AND it won't even begin to cover the actual cost of the impacts increased visitors have caused over the last few years. I disagree. I have money and travel frequently but I'm still concerned with how my money is spent, so that I can continue traveling. And spending 70$ to go to one park is not happening. It's sad to say that but I will visit other countries and their parks instead.
|
|
rncaduceus
Junior Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 57
Oct 25, 2017 17:59:05 GMT
|
Post by rncaduceus on Oct 30, 2017 19:35:14 GMT
Hmmm... As a National Parks geek I have mixed feelings on this one. Not sure how much of it I discuss here as I haven't been thoroughly been educated on this subject. I do have a few thoughts I will share.
I will say this: I became physically disabled 9 years ago thus qualifying for the Access Pass. I became aware of this pass 9 months ago when researching a visit to Florida. Prior to disability, every trip (some call them vacations I refer to them as trips) evolved around visiting National Parks and birding them. My other hobby besides scrapbooking is bird watching. My first national park visit as an adult was Big Bend in Tx chasing the Colima Warbler, about 20 years ago. This is when I fell in love with National Parks and vowed to visit as many National Parks, Wildlife Refuges, forests, lands etc. in my bird watching career. These parks are truly amazing, each offering something unique to its land. It would be a shame for anybody wanting to visit not to be able to visit d/t increase in park fees.
However, the cost to run these parks is astronomical. Those who have not utilized the system or spent much time at the parks may not understand this. When I first became disabled I noted that some of the parks I visited have limited handicapped accesses. Some of this is just plain unavoidable or too costly to address. As I am not able to spend as much time in the back country as I once did, I noticed something else in the main stream. The one consistent at the larger parks (busier) is the huge numbers of foreign tourists. What I am suggesting is discriminatory in nature, but it might help the national parks. Start of by charging a premium to Foreigners. Apply the entrance increase to non-natives wishing to visit, leave the us citizens entrance as is. I would also suggest looking into increasing fees of tourist companies bringing in busloads of folks. A lot of those people are foreigners wanting to take pictures of the highlights. International travelers in general, I am guessing can afford and willing to pay 40 more dollars a carload/family or 20 more dollars a head.
What about the other companies who contract with the government? The helicopter, rafting, wildlife guides etc? What are these companies being charged to enter the park system? How much money are they making by bringing busloads of people in? I know nothing about these companies but maybe the government can squeeze a couple of bucks out them. What about the companies who run the gift shops, food and hotels? It might be worth some research to figure out if these companies could take 5% less and the parks 5% more?
I had better quite ranting now.... lol. I truly do feel blessed to have visited each National Park that I have. Equally as blessed to have discovered the Access pass that allowed the last trips I have taken to happen!
I have to tell you last year or the year before, whenever the government went on strike and closed the National Parks. I was greatly disturbed and put a lot of thought into how it effected those who planned visits during that time. As well as what would happen if the parks didn't reopen or reopened with restrictions. Or if my son, or his children were not allowed to visit and now, able to afford the entrance fees. Or even limited the amount of time he could spend at the parks. Truly un-American if you ask me. Park admittance fees need to be afford for all especially those who live here.
|
|
rncaduceus
Junior Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 57
Oct 25, 2017 17:59:05 GMT
|
Post by rncaduceus on Oct 30, 2017 19:44:21 GMT
Increase fees to international tourists. Slippery slope...next thing they are going to ask for is ID. Sun, What's wrong with asking for an Id? just curious.. Pass holders have to provide an ID currently. At the gate, the driver has to provide an ID with US resident or pay the foreign admittance fee. The tour companies (buses) would have to have this information for safety records anyways? Not trying to be nasty, just would like to hear why that would be a problem?
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Oct 30, 2017 21:11:40 GMT
I would also suggest looking into increasing fees of tourist companies bringing in busloads of folks Curious, what do they pay per person? Although it seems some of them just drive in, unload, take picture and leave, is that the case?
|
|