OH NO!!!! Not the "infamous Koch Brothers", those defamers of the natural world bent purely on the destruction of all we love and cherish. And that devil McClintock is working with them too!!!
Brought to you by B. Moritsch and her impeccably unbiased sources DailyKos and Huffpo.
DRIVEL
Wow! You have very productive Sundays. Thank you for putting all the work into this. I definitely prefer knowing who is pulling strings and trying to control our public lands.
Thank you very much for this, Barbara. We need a lot more people like you out there who are willing to try to stand up to the powerful monied interests of the Koch family and other plutocrats who would rob the rest of us.
Smokies, your imagination is working overtime again. I am NOT a "retired NPS official."
I will also stand firmly behind the statement I made in an earlier Traveler article.
One thing that hasn't changed, though, is the quality of the people who wear the uniforms of the National Park Service -- whether they be maintenance workers, rangers, or volunteers. There is no finer bunch of folks anywhere on this dizzy old planet! Lee Dalton, retired NPS official.
"Entrance and park fees decrease park usage. That is well documented in studies."
/2013/06/memorial-day-weekend-brought-record-crowds-wind-cave-bryce-canyon-national-parks23402
Hmmm. I would like to see those studies. From everything I read, park visitation is up year over year.
We park users and park volunteers have a right to protest increasing fees in the NPS despite what you park employees think. The National Parks belong to the people and they are fed up with a bureaucracy that cannot live within their means like everyone else in the United States. Entrance and park fees decrease park usage. That is well documented in studies.
Yep, Smokiesbackpacker, those park entrance fees go directly to fund retired NPS employees' pensions. What a crock! 80% of entrance fees are retained in the park that collects the fees. The other 20% is divided among parks that cannot, for one reason or another, collect fees. I understand that you are not in favor of the new backcountry camping fee in the Smokies.
We pay $80 a year for our annual parks pass. My husband laughs every time he gets to use it - he thinks its the greatest thing since sliced bread. It expired today so we have to go to Shenandoah NP to get it renewed next weekend. I'm not going to complain...
As we pointed out in March, there are many avenues that should be explored to improve the Park Service's fiscal health, and tinkering with the senior pass is just on
ypw, as a senior now going on 74, I have been used my 10.00 pass so many times I sometimes feel guilty about it. I agree with you, I would support a yearly pass for seniors, provided it is a reasonable fee. Being on a fixed income , and I am not complaining, I have a great pension and have been blessed with good health, but we must be careful about fees.
Of course they do. It's not as if they actually want people to visit or enjoy our national parks unless they have money. Keep poor people out because they're, well, poor, and might trash these places. Yup.
The issue of finding more ways to raise fees for parks and other public lands is open to debate. For example, pricing entrance fees to match peak visitor days, ie if its a nice summer weekend, double the fee (like to many hotels do), well that's just great.
WOW. Your headline just does not accurately reflect our proposal. Glad you at least included the full submission so that your readers can see that for themselves. Where is a reference to pricing designed to move visitation away from peak periods? Where is a reference to reducing fee collection costs -- now 20+% of revenues?
Does anyone else see the Great American Entitlement Mentality at work in some posts here?
Nope
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
“Currently, NPS collects entrance fees, recreation use fees, transportation fees and other special fees under a variety of legal authorities, including the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004.”
Instead of arguing over potential impacts, we could have the race done once, and then measure whether it was a good or a bad thing for the park. It's not like having the race once will destroy the park.
Rick,
who paid for Obama's transportation? Who paid for his food and hotels? Who paid his admission fee? Those are the expenses I am referring to. I dare guess more people were inconvenienced by his visit than would be by a bike race in CNMT.
No one who is mandated Secret Service protection has the option to do anything totally "on their own dime". Even if they pay their own airfare to a photo-op clearing their own brush in Crawford, Texas, the security infrastructure is immense and continues. If Laura was to go back to a park today she would still have that in force.
I stand corrected re Laura. Nevertheless, I still think Presidents should go on their own time and dime and that shutting a Park for dignitaries is less appropriate than opening them for commercial activities.
You are correct Kurt, Laura Bush did the trip while her husband was in office. The usual precautions were taken. I think Rick Smiths point is well taken, most of the employees and visitors support seeing their top leaders and or spouses in our parks and other lands. It is usually quite positive and results in increased support for these public treasures.
You're not exactly right, EC, as Mrs. Bush visited national parks about once a year during her husband's terms, and brought the Secret Service and motorcades along with her. That said, she was/is a very vocal supporter of the national parks. Too bad she stepped down from the National Park Foundation when her husband left office, though that was probably the norm.
Rick, I agree. My first encounter with a President visiting a Park was President Kennedy coming to Yosemite in the early 1960's. I was on the trail crew and we were assigned clearing all the trails near the Ahwahnee Hotel. Everyone was very excited.
So Rick, did your grandma take yoy there when you where 40? As I have said, no matter the party, Presidents should stay out of NP unless they have done something Park worthy to be there.
I was assigned to two presidential visits: President Nixon to Grand Teton and President Carter, to Yellowstone and the Tetons. My sense of it was that people were thrilled to see their Presidents in a national park and did not mind the inconvenience of slower traffic and swarms of Secret Service personnel and lots of rangers.
Oh, for pete's sake, partisan. On ALL issues.
When he visited Yellowstone he was then chastised by partisans of your ilk for how few parks he had visited as President. That's the definition of partisan - blame him for a sunny day, blame him for a rainy day.
EC, your partisanship is showing. My guess is the president -- any president -- has more on his plate to deal with these days than traveling to and fawning over the parks.
"As the first family strolled the boardwalk around Old Faithful, Duffy and Superintendent Lewis chatted with the President about other topics such as Obama’s visit to Yellowstone with his mother and grandmother when he was eleven years old..."
But at least the rule would be clear and there would not be room for someone's subjective judgement about what is "appropriate" or "deserving."
But that rule itself reflects subjective judgement. But that's OK if its YOUR selective judgement right?
"BTW,where you here crying when parts of Yellowstone was shut down so the Obama family could visit? Or are political purposes OK - (as long as they are left leaning)?"
I just walked a section of the Appalachian Trail which passes Andrew Johnson Mountain, close to Greeneville, TN. It's not much of a mountain and the sign was down. Sad...
Danny
It will be interesting to see how the cabins impact the economy of the town. There is one error in the Press Release though - These are not the newest lodging since Yellowstone Park Hotel opened in 2007 as the new Three Bear Lodge (www.ThreeBearLodge.com) opened it's doors in July 2009.
I think a nominal fee is appropriate. There is no fee to enter the park and they do charge fees for campgrounds. A small backcountry fee is a good idea, since it will help fund any SAR efforts and help maintain trails and campsites.
Debbie, great article. Enjoyed it a lot. I'm heading to Yellowstone in early June. Might have to take a little detour . Would love to see the "family". Won't scare them off -- I have a long lens.
S. 486, to authorize pedestrian and motorized vehicular access in Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area, and for other purposes.
The description of this bill is misleading. This bill is about establishing ORVs as the primary means of access to CHNS. The bill was written by the local congressman with the help of local pro ORV politicians.
Help support us– the one source for journalism dedicated to our National Parks.
All Recent Comments
Oil And Water Don't Mix: How The Energy Industry Is Using Yosemite's Merced River And Point Reyes' Drakes Bay To Facilitate Public Land Exploitation
NPCA, NPHA Want National Park Service To Raise Entrance Fees To Parks
Organizations Want Veto Power Over National Park Service At Colorado National Monument
Bryce Canyon National Park's Annual Astronomy Festival Set For June 5-8
Exploring The Parks: Andrew Johnson National Historic Site
New Lodging Possibilities Coming To West Yellowstone For Yellowstone National Park Treks
Tennessee's House Of Representatives Opposes Backcountry Fee At Great Smoky Mountains National Park
Photography In The Parks: Grand Teton National Park's Queen, Grizzly No. 399
Congressman From North Carolina Wants To Overturn Cape Hatteras National Seashore Access Regs