Finacial barriers, to keep poor people off our public lands.
#1
The National Park Service announced a proposal in October to increase the admission prices for 17 national parks during their busiest five months of the year.
Quote:Entrance fees during peak season, which varies but is May 1 to September 30 for most parks, would rise to $70 per private, commercial vehicles, $50 per motorcycles and $30 per person on bike or foot. The increase would be nearly three times the current rate for some parks. Entry and fee adjustments for commercial tour operators have also been proposed.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environme...-increases
Reply
#2
That seems unreasonable.
Reply
#3
(11-24-2017, 02:17 PM)Juniper Wrote: That seems unreasonable.
NPS notes that a majority of national parks will remain free, since only 118 of 417 park sites charge an entrance fee. A public comment period on the proposal for the increase in entrance fees will be open through December 22, 2017. 

Still, the fees for the most popular parks are bound to keep a lot of folks on the margin from enjoying what should be a national privilege.
Reply
#4
(11-24-2017, 04:48 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-24-2017, 02:17 PM)Juniper Wrote: That seems unreasonable.
NPS notes that a majority of national parks will remain free, since only 118 of 417 park sites charge an entrance fee. A public comment period on the proposal for the increase in entrance fees will be open through December 22, 2017. 

Still, the fees for the most popular parks are bound to keep a lot of folks on the margin from enjoying what should be a national privilege.

Not if they take advantage of this......



One price that won’t change? The $80 annual America the Beautiful National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass, which allows access to all national parks and more than 1,000 other federal recreation areas for one year. (It’s a terrific deal, and you can purchase one here.)
Reply
#5
It seems to me that with the millions of people who visit all of these parks that the parks should be able to make money off of them.
All of those people flooding in to the parks and IMO most have plenty of disposable income.
Where does all of the profit go from selling these people goods?
Reply
#6
(11-25-2017, 01:04 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-24-2017, 04:48 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-24-2017, 02:17 PM)Juniper Wrote: That seems unreasonable.
NPS notes that a majority of national parks will remain free, since only 118 of 417 park sites charge an entrance fee. A public comment period on the proposal for the increase in entrance fees will be open through December 22, 2017. 

Still, the fees for the most popular parks are bound to keep a lot of folks on the margin from enjoying what should be a national privilege.

Not if they take advantage of this......



One price that won’t change? The $80 annual America the Beautiful National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass, which allows access to all national parks and more than 1,000 other federal recreation areas for one year. (It’s a terrific deal, and you can purchase one here.)

Well it sort'a does since the cost for the passes has gone up too. I used to by them for much less. Not saying it's not still a good deal if you use it. But for people with little money it can still be a stretch.
Reply
#7
(11-25-2017, 01:19 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(11-25-2017, 01:04 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-24-2017, 04:48 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-24-2017, 02:17 PM)Juniper Wrote: That seems unreasonable.
NPS notes that a majority of national parks will remain free, since only 118 of 417 park sites charge an entrance fee. A public comment period on the proposal for the increase in entrance fees will be open through December 22, 2017. 

Still, the fees for the most popular parks are bound to keep a lot of folks on the margin from enjoying what should be a national privilege.

Not if they take advantage of this......



One price that won’t change? The $80 annual America the Beautiful National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass, which allows access to all national parks and more than 1,000 other federal recreation areas for one year. (It’s a terrific deal, and you can purchase one here.)

Well it sort'a does since the cost for the passes has gone up too. I used to by them for much less. Not saying it's not still a good deal if you use it. But for people with little money it can still be a stretch.

Yes,The entrance fee to drive in to Yellowstone is 30 bucks. Trumps plan to raise it to $70 seems pretty outrageous to me.
That's just to get in. You still have to pay to camp.
Reply
#8
(11-25-2017, 02:30 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-25-2017, 01:19 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(11-25-2017, 01:04 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-24-2017, 04:48 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-24-2017, 02:17 PM)Juniper Wrote: That seems unreasonable.
NPS notes that a majority of national parks will remain free, since only 118 of 417 park sites charge an entrance fee. A public comment period on the proposal for the increase in entrance fees will be open through December 22, 2017. 

Still, the fees for the most popular parks are bound to keep a lot of folks on the margin from enjoying what should be a national privilege.

Not if they take advantage of this......



One price that won’t change? The $80 annual America the Beautiful National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass, which allows access to all national parks and more than 1,000 other federal recreation areas for one year. (It’s a terrific deal, and you can purchase one here.)

Well it sort'a does since the cost for the passes has gone up too. I used to by them for much less. Not saying it's not still a good deal if you use it. But for people with little money it can still be a stretch.

Yes,The entrance fee to drive in to Yellowstone is 30 bucks. Trumps plan to raise it to $70 seems pretty outrageous to me.
That's just to get in. You still have to pay to camp.

Ain't over yet: May come a day when you can only enter if you are driving a vehicle less than 2 years old, can prove you own stocks or bonds of a "certain amount", can pass a grammar test, have bright white teeth (all of them) and are related to the Koch brothers.  Sad
Reply
#9
I just realized the way the headline for this thread. It's as if someone purposely wants to keep poor people off
 "public lands" Laughing That's absurd. Not to mention we have a shit ton of "public land" that costs nothing to be on or camp on.
Reply
#10
(11-25-2017, 06:30 PM)tvguy Wrote: I just realized the way the headline for this thread. It's as if someone purposely wants to keep poor people off
 "public lands" Laughing That's absurd. Not to mention we have a shit ton of "public land" that costs nothing to be on or camp on.

Probably jus a "wording thing". National Parks are "public lands" too. In a more perfect world, folks of meager means would be able to visit our national parks. If they live close. It takes money for gas, food, and lodging just to get there. 
Life is hard.  Wink
But you make a good point. I have been a huge fan of BLM land. Now of "a certain age" I find sleeping on the ground a painful experience so those days are over. 

PS: Don't put it off folks! I always intended to visit Steens mountain, and camp a few days in the high desert nearby. Put it off too long. (Wanted to do it on a motorcycle and that's out for damn sure!)
Reply
#11
(11-25-2017, 06:30 PM)tvguy Wrote: I just realized the way the headline for this thread. It's as if someone purposely wants to keep poor people off
 "public lands" Laughing That's absurd. Not to mention we have a shit ton of "public land" that costs nothing to be on or camp on.

It might not be purposeful, I just think they don't care. It's just another money harvesting scheme by the new admin.

I don't think we need continually expanding development in the public lands. Enough has been "improved" already. And whether there is other public lands with free entry isn't really the point. No citizen should be prevented from seeing the national parks, monuments or natural wonders because of lack of the price of admission.

I'd hate to see parks, forests and/or BLM lands be converted to private or even state lands. It's what makes the west still "the west". If you know what I mean.
Reply
#12
(11-25-2017, 07:39 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-25-2017, 06:30 PM)tvguy Wrote: I just realized the way the headline for this thread. It's as if someone purposely wants to keep poor people off
 "public lands" Laughing That's absurd. Not to mention we have a shit ton of "public land" that costs nothing to be on or camp on.

Probably jus a "wording thing". National Parks are "public lands" too. In a more perfect world, folks of meager means would be able to visit our national parks. If they live close. It takes money for gas, food, and lodging just to get there. 
Life is hard.  Wink
But you make a good point. I have been a huge fan of BLM land. Now of "a certain age" I find sleeping on the ground a painful experience so those days are over. 

PS: Don't put it off folks! I always intended to visit Steens mountain, and camp a few days in the high desert nearby. Put it off too long. (Wanted to do it on a motorcycle and that's out for damn sure!)

Been there, done that. And I fully intend to do it again.
Reply
#13
(11-26-2017, 09:51 AM)Cuzz Wrote:
(11-25-2017, 07:39 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-25-2017, 06:30 PM)tvguy Wrote: I just realized the way the headline for this thread. It's as if someone purposely wants to keep poor people off
 "public lands" Laughing That's absurd. Not to mention we have a shit ton of "public land" that costs nothing to be on or camp on.

Probably jus a "wording thing". National Parks are "public lands" too. In a more perfect world, folks of meager means would be able to visit our national parks. If they live close. It takes money for gas, food, and lodging just to get there. 
Life is hard.  Wink
But you make a good point. I have been a huge fan of BLM land. Now of "a certain age" I find sleeping on the ground a painful experience so those days are over. 

PS: Don't put it off folks! I always intended to visit Steens mountain, and camp a few days in the high desert nearby. Put it off too long. (Wanted to do it on a motorcycle and that's out for damn sure!)

Been there, done that. And I fully intend to do it again.
How I envy you. When you go again, please take pictures and post them.
Reply
#14
I used to look on driving 140 to Denio Junction as an adventure, but I'm too old and sick now to bop off into the wilderness anymore.
Reply
#15
(11-26-2017, 09:59 AM)bbqboy Wrote: I used to look on driving 140 to Denio Junction as an adventure, but I'm too old and sick now to bop off into the wilderness anymore.

It is what it is, we are who we are, and folks like us have to find our blessings where we can find them.
Reply
#16
(11-26-2017, 10:01 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-26-2017, 09:59 AM)bbqboy Wrote: I used to look on driving 140 to Denio Junction as an adventure, but I'm too old and sick now to bop off into the wilderness anymore.

It is what it is, we are who we are, and folks like us have to find our blessings where we can find them.

I will consider myself fortunate until that time comes for me too.
Reply
#17
(11-26-2017, 09:50 AM)Cuzz Wrote:
(11-25-2017, 06:30 PM)tvguy Wrote: I just realized the way the headline for this thread. It's as if someone purposely wants to keep poor people off
 "public lands" Laughing That's absurd. Not to mention we have a shit ton of "public land" that costs nothing to be on or camp on.

It might not be purposeful, I just think they don't care. It's just another money harvesting scheme by the new admin.

I don't think we need continually expanding development in the public lands. Enough has been "improved" already. And whether there is other public lands with free entry isn't really the point. No citizen should be prevented from seeing the national parks, monuments or natural wonders because of lack of the price of admission.

I'd hate to see parks, forests and/or BLM lands be converted to private or even state lands. It's what makes the west still "the west". If you know what I mean.

I don't think we need continually expanding development in the public lands. Enough has been "improved" already

I'm unclear on what you mean?

 No citizen should be prevented from seeing the national parks, monuments or natural wonders because of lack of the price of admission.

I agree that tripling the entree fee is just too much I don't totally agree that we need to accommodate people just because they are poor.
IMO in THIS country most poor people are poor because they simply never put the effort needed to not be.
And those who are poor from no fault of their own who REALLY want to see Jellystone could figure out a way to pay if they REALLY wanted to.

 
I'd hate to see parks, forests and/or BLM lands be converted to private or even state lands.
"state lands"? Isn't BLM and the forest service state lands?
Reply
#18
(11-26-2017, 02:55 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-26-2017, 09:50 AM)Cuzz Wrote:
(11-25-2017, 06:30 PM)tvguy Wrote: I just realized the way the headline for this thread. It's as if someone purposely wants to keep poor people off
 "public lands" Laughing That's absurd. Not to mention we have a shit ton of "public land" that costs nothing to be on or camp on.

It might not be purposeful, I just think they don't care. It's just another money harvesting scheme by the new admin.

I don't think we need continually expanding development in the public lands. Enough has been "improved" already. And whether there is other public lands with free entry isn't really the point. No citizen should be prevented from seeing the national parks, monuments or natural wonders because of lack of the price of admission.

I'd hate to see parks, forests and/or BLM lands be converted to private or even state lands. It's what makes the west still "the west". If you know what I mean.

I don't think we need continually expanding development in the public lands. Enough has been "improved" already

I'm unclear on what you mean?

 No citizen should be prevented from seeing the national parks, monuments or natural wonders because of lack of the price of admission.

I agree that tripling the entree fee is just too much I don't totally agree that we need to accommodate people just because they are poor.
IMO in THIS country most poor people are poor because they simply never put the effort needed to not be.
And those who are poor from no fault of their own who REALLY want to see Jellystone could figure out a way to pay if they REALLY wanted to.

 
I'd hate to see parks, forests and/or BLM lands be converted to private or even state lands.
"state lands"? Isn't BLM and the forest service state lands?

You're right, there are state forest lands. I was thinking of the federally administered national forest and blm lands.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)