collapse

Author Topic: Secretary of Interior Calls Outrage over Lands Fee Increase "Baloney"  (Read 550 times)

Offline bigtex

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2009
  • Posts: 8120
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke doesn't mince words when asked about the outrage voiced over his proposal to institute surge pricing in 17 national parks across the country.

"Baloney" is how he labeled the pushback in an interview with Fox News.

What Secretary Zinke hasn't expressed is exactly how the fee increase at some of the country's most popular parks, which is estimated to raise nearly $70 million a year, will significantly impact the estimated $11-$12 billion maintenance backlog that shackles the National Park Service. Nor has he commented on how the pricing -- up to $70 a week for parks that currently charge $30-$35 a week -- will impact families whose summer vacations are dictated by the school calendar, or why he isn't asking Congress to direct some of the hundreds of millions of dollars Interior is reaping from oil and gas leases to addressing the maintenance backlog, or why, at a time when the Park Service is so strapped, he supports President Trump's desire to cut the National Park Service budget by about $400 million and its staff by about 1,200 employees.

But the Interior secretary does believe the parks should be better funded.

ďAs a former military, thereís two things we need to fund absolutely: our military and our parks. So come on, America,Ē Secretary Zinke told the Fox reporter earlier this month. ďIf you think that $80, all year, every park, all the time, by a carload, is too much to ask ó I mean, come on.Ē

Parks to be affected by these rates, if approved, are "Arches, Bryce Canyon, Canyonlands, Denali, Glacier, Grand Canyon, Grand Teton, Olympic, Sequoia and Kings Canyon, Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Zion national parks with peak season starting on May 1, 2018; in Acadia, Mount Rainier, Rocky Mountain, and Shenandoah national parks with peak season starting on June 1, 2018; and in Joshua Tree National Park as soon as practicable in 2018."

Public comment on the higher fees being proposed by Mr. Zinke is being taken through November 23.

https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2017/11/interior-secretary-calls-outrage-over-proposed-park-fee-increase-baloney

Offline olyguy79

  • Off-Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hunter
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2016
  • Posts: 169
  • Location: Thurston
Re: Secretary of Interior Calls Outrage over Lands Fee Increase "Baloney"
« Reply #1 on: November 19, 2017, 08:38:12 AM »
I thought only Democrats advocated for fee increases  :dunno:  :bash:

Offline Bushcraft

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 419
  • Groups: NRA, SCI, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, HHC, WWC, WDAC
Re: Secretary of Interior Calls Outrage over Lands Fee Increase "Baloney"
« Reply #2 on: November 23, 2017, 02:23:20 PM »
More anti-Zinke propaganda baloney.

People ought to pay a reasonable user fee. $80 is well within realm of reasonableness for year-round access to any national park for a carload of people.  In my opinion Iíd say thatís light.
Liberalism is the philosophy of Western suicide.

*Proud supporter of NRA, NRA-ILA SCI, SCIF, SCI-PAC, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, WWA, HHC, WWC

Offline Special T

  • Truth the new Hate Speech.
  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • Explorer
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2009
  • Posts: 17481
  • Location: Skagit Valley
  • Wake me when you need me.
    • Silver Arrow Bowmen
I have the biggest problem with fees and thier increases when the $ raised does not directly impact what they are raised for.

I will say this. The higher fees for anything get the harder it is to recruit new blood.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

The Truth is like Poetry, and most people hate Poetry

Offline Bushcraft

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 419
  • Groups: NRA, SCI, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, HHC, WWC, WDAC
I have the biggest problem with fees and thier increases when the $ raised does not directly impact what they are raised for.

I will say this. The higher fees for anything get the harder it is to recruit new blood.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Agreed. The expense account shell games need to stop at all levels of government.
Liberalism is the philosophy of Western suicide.

*Proud supporter of NRA, NRA-ILA SCI, SCIF, SCI-PAC, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, WWA, HHC, WWC

Offline bigtex

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2009
  • Posts: 8120
Re: Secretary of Interior Calls Outrage over Lands Fee Increase "Baloney"
« Reply #5 on: November 23, 2017, 03:55:51 PM »
More anti-Zinke propaganda baloney.

People ought to pay a reasonable user fee. $80 is well within realm of reasonableness for year-round access to any national park for a carload of people.  In my opinion Iíd say thatís light.
$80 is the current annual fee, his proposal would make it $70 a DAY at the busy parks.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Offline Bob33

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2009
  • Posts: 16770
  • Groups: SCI, RMEF, NRA
Re: Secretary of Interior Calls Outrage over Lands Fee Increase "Baloney"
« Reply #6 on: November 23, 2017, 04:09:59 PM »
More anti-Zinke propaganda baloney.

People ought to pay a reasonable user fee. $80 is well within realm of reasonableness for year-round access to any national park for a carload of people.  In my opinion Iíd say thatís light.
$80 is the current annual fee, his proposal would make it $70 a DAY at the busy parks.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
A day?

Nor has he commented on how the pricing -- up to $70 a week for parks that currently charge $30-$35 a week -- will impact families whose summer vacations are dictated by the school calendar, or why he isn't asking Congress to direct some of the hundreds of millions of dollars Interior is reaping from oil and gas leases to addressing the maintenance backlog, or why, at a time when the Park Service is so strapped, he supports President Trump's desire to cut the National Park Service budget by about $400 million and its staff by about 1,200 employees.
Nature. It's cheaper than therapy.

Offline Bushcraft

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 419
  • Groups: NRA, SCI, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, HHC, WWC, WDAC
Re: Secretary of Interior Calls Outrage over Lands Fee Increase "Baloney"
« Reply #7 on: November 23, 2017, 04:12:24 PM »
More anti-Zinke propaganda baloney.

People ought to pay a reasonable user fee. $80 is well within realm of reasonableness for year-round access to any national park for a carload of people.  In my opinion Iíd say thatís light.
$80 is the current annual fee, his proposal would make it $70 a DAY at the busy parks.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

The article quotes surge pricing of up to $70 per week at some of the countryís most popular parks.

Chump change.
Liberalism is the philosophy of Western suicide.

*Proud supporter of NRA, NRA-ILA SCI, SCIF, SCI-PAC, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, WWA, HHC, WWC

Offline bigtex

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2009
  • Posts: 8120
More anti-Zinke propaganda baloney.

People ought to pay a reasonable user fee. $80 is well within realm of reasonableness for year-round access to any national park for a carload of people.  In my opinion Iíd say thatís light.
$80 is the current annual fee, his proposal would make it $70 a DAY at the busy parks.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
A day?

Nor has he commented on how the pricing -- up to $70 a week for parks that currently charge $30-$35 a week -- will impact families whose summer vacations are dictated by the school calendar, or why he isn't asking Congress to direct some of the hundreds of millions of dollars Interior is reaping from oil and gas leases to addressing the maintenance backlog, or why, at a time when the Park Service is so strapped, he supports President Trump's desire to cut the National Park Service budget by about $400 million and its staff by about 1,200 employees.
Most parks only issue weekly passes not daily. So if you visit Olympic for one day you would pay $70 but you could technically stay for a week.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


Offline olyguy79

  • Off-Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hunter
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2016
  • Posts: 169
  • Location: Thurston
More anti-Zinke propaganda baloney.

People ought to pay a reasonable user fee. $80 is well within realm of reasonableness for year-round access to any national park for a carload of people.  In my opinion Iíd say thatís light.
$80 is the current annual fee, his proposal would make it $70 a DAY at the busy parks.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
A day?

Nor has he commented on how the pricing -- up to $70 a week for parks that currently charge $30-$35 a week -- will impact families whose summer vacations are dictated by the school calendar, or why he isn't asking Congress to direct some of the hundreds of millions of dollars Interior is reaping from oil and gas leases to addressing the maintenance backlog, or why, at a time when the Park Service is so strapped, he supports President Trump's desire to cut the National Park Service budget by about $400 million and its staff by about 1,200 employees.
Most parks only issue weekly passes not daily. So if you visit Olympic for one day you would pay $70 but you could technically stay for a week.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
:yeah:

National Parks typically just issue weekly passes as a minimum. So the guy who stays at Olympic for a day pays the same amount as the guy who's there for a week.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


Offline olyguy79

  • Off-Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hunter
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2016
  • Posts: 169
  • Location: Thurston
More anti-Zinke propaganda baloney.

People ought to pay a reasonable user fee. $80 is well within realm of reasonableness for year-round access to any national park for a carload of people.  In my opinion Iíd say thatís light.
$80 is the current annual fee, his proposal would make it $70 a DAY at the busy parks.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

The article quotes surge pricing of up to $70 per week at some of the countryís most popular parks.

Chump change.
Well I guess the Discover Pass should be $70 then. Chump change right?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


Offline Bushcraft

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 419
  • Groups: NRA, SCI, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, HHC, WWC, WDAC
Re: Secretary of Interior Calls Outrage over Lands Fee Increase "Baloney"
« Reply #11 on: November 23, 2017, 04:26:18 PM »
Yep.
Liberalism is the philosophy of Western suicide.

*Proud supporter of NRA, NRA-ILA SCI, SCIF, SCI-PAC, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, WWA, HHC, WWC

Offline Bushcraft

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 419
  • Groups: NRA, SCI, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, HHC, WWC, WDAC
Re: Secretary of Interior Calls Outrage over Lands Fee Increase "Baloney"
« Reply #12 on: November 23, 2017, 04:29:51 PM »
When it starts to sting people begin to question where the money goes, and why. At present, for the most part...donít question it or aimply donít pay at all.

Hunters always get stuck with a bill. Itís well past time the freeloading public ponies up.
Liberalism is the philosophy of Western suicide.

*Proud supporter of NRA, NRA-ILA SCI, SCIF, SCI-PAC, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, WWA, HHC, WWC

Offline Special T

  • Truth the new Hate Speech.
  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • Explorer
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2009
  • Posts: 17481
  • Location: Skagit Valley
  • Wake me when you need me.
    • Silver Arrow Bowmen
More anti-Zinke propaganda baloney.

People ought to pay a reasonable user fee. $80 is well within realm of reasonableness for year-round access to any national park for a carload of people.  In my opinion Iíd say thatís light.
$80 is the current annual fee, his proposal would make it $70 a DAY at the busy parks.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

The article quotes surge pricing of up to $70 per week at some of the countryís most popular parks.

Chump change.
Well I guess the Discover Pass should be $70 then. Chump change right?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Here is an ugly fact. Every agency need more $.  Things will continue to get more desperate for 2 reasons.
 #1 reason is agencies arnt doing a good job of explaining what they are doing with our $ so why should we give the more. Doesn't matter if it's the NPS, WDFW or state government. Thier easy answer is always more $ with less transparency and accountability.
#2 doesn't matter the agency but they seem to consider it a point of pride that they don't run thier agency like a business. "This isn't a for profit venture!" Well I hate to break it to them a huge majority of Non Profit BUSINESSES do a much better job than XYZ agency. Non Profits are aware of budget constrains, and market messaging. 2 constraints government are happy to ignore.

I have not bought a DP and refuse to donate to parks. It is out of principal because if they are going to juice sportsmen and especially hunters whom cannot use the land, the fee is wrong. Washington State has a long history of a User pays system, where those that benifit from a service help keep it up. I have no problem with boat launch fees, fees that maintain trail heads in the USFS program, or the fees associated with hunting and fishing. The problem is our dollars are co mingled to subvert the user pays system and the DP is the perfect example that sportsmen understand.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

The Truth is like Poetry, and most people hate Poetry

Offline Stein

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2013
  • Posts: 2828
Re: Secretary of Interior Calls Outrage over Lands Fee Increase "Baloney"
« Reply #14 on: November 24, 2017, 12:44:34 PM »
Just another transition from a general fund item to pay to play.  Way, way too much stuff out there to fund through use fees.  The model this country was founded on was that you could go out and hunt, fish, hike, camp or whatever your desire for a low cost.  The majority of the cost was picked up through taxes spread across everyone.  Public land, public funding.

If we continue down this path, it will be an upper middle class to wealthy activity to hunt, fish or camp on public land.

Offline Bushcraft

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 419
  • Groups: NRA, SCI, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, HHC, WWC, WDAC
Re: Secretary of Interior Calls Outrage over Lands Fee Increase "Baloney"
« Reply #15 on: November 24, 2017, 01:28:11 PM »
Just another transition from a general fund item to pay to play.  Way, way too much stuff out there to fund through use fees.  The model this country was founded on was that you could go out and hunt, fish, hike, camp or whatever your desire for a low cost.  The majority of the cost was picked up through taxes spread across everyone.  Public land, public funding.

If we continue down this path, it will be an upper middle class to wealthy activity to hunt, fish or camp on public land.

Therein lies the problem: The public cost is not being picked up through taxes being spread across everyone. Per your last paragraph, the upper middle class and especially the wealthy pay the vast majority of the bill.

And what path are you referring to specifically? The $70 per week for a whole carload of people during the popular surge times of the year?  I submit that if people canít afford that amount in the entertainment portion of their budget, then they have something seriously out of whack in their personal and/or financial priorities.
Liberalism is the philosophy of Western suicide.

*Proud supporter of NRA, NRA-ILA SCI, SCIF, SCI-PAC, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, WWA, HHC, WWC

Offline Special T

  • Truth the new Hate Speech.
  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • Explorer
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2009
  • Posts: 17481
  • Location: Skagit Valley
  • Wake me when you need me.
    • Silver Arrow Bowmen
One of the general trends in leasure time activies is more focused attention to just a few activities. To the dedicated you can raise the price to a fairly high level and not loose very many sales. It does become a disincentive to try something new, when the cost rises.

The days of huge quantities of people dabbling in all manner of pursuits in thier free time has greatly diminished. I don't think $70 for a weeks trip though a NP is a big deal. But for the occasional user or person whom may just visit for one day it may deter enough people to actually make it a net loss for the agency. 
Knowing the customer isn't a strength of  government. Make no mistake that this solution stems from a problem, not an intimate understanding of those whom must voluntarily give up thier cash.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

The Truth is like Poetry, and most people hate Poetry

Offline Stein

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2013
  • Posts: 2828
Re: Secretary of Interior Calls Outrage over Lands Fee Increase "Baloney"
« Reply #17 on: November 24, 2017, 04:42:16 PM »
Just another transition from a general fund item to pay to play.  Way, way too much stuff out there to fund through use fees.  The model this country was founded on was that you could go out and hunt, fish, hike, camp or whatever your desire for a low cost.  The majority of the cost was picked up through taxes spread across everyone.  Public land, public funding.

If we continue down this path, it will be an upper middle class to wealthy activity to hunt, fish or camp on public land.

Therein lies the problem: The public cost is not being picked up through taxes being spread across everyone. Per your last paragraph, the upper middle class and especially the wealthy pay the vast majority of the bill.

And what path are you referring to specifically? The $70 per week for a whole carload of people during the popular surge times of the year?  I submit that if people canít afford that amount in the entertainment portion of their budget, then they have something seriously out of whack in their personal and/or financial priorities.

It's pretty straight forward, the budget is getting pinched both at the state and federal level.  The big price increases they are talking about will still take over 100 years to clear the backlog of maintenance projects that need funding.  Budgets get reduced and they are forced to move to user fees.  It happens with land, WDFW, parks and pretty much everywhere.

If they collected all the money they needed to maintain the roads and trails strictly through user fees it would be more than most could afford.

Offline Bushcraft

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 419
  • Groups: NRA, SCI, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, HHC, WWC, WDAC
Re: Secretary of Interior Calls Outrage over Lands Fee Increase "Baloney"
« Reply #18 on: November 24, 2017, 07:58:47 PM »

And yet, the last time I checked, the public land boundaries (and the contents therein including fish and wildlife and other renewable resources like timber) havenít grown in any substantive way, shape or form that would legitimize the ridiculous growth in the overhead cost (waste?) attributable to their management.

Contrast that with private lands.
Liberalism is the philosophy of Western suicide.

*Proud supporter of NRA, NRA-ILA SCI, SCIF, SCI-PAC, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, WWA, HHC, WWC

 

* Recent Topics

.223 by b23
[Today at 01:00:21 AM]


Bullet choice question by Magnum_Willys
[Today at 12:16:41 AM]


Bear Kinda blonde by bowhunterforever
[Yesterday at 11:24:07 PM]


325 WSM?..... by Biggerhammer
[Yesterday at 11:22:43 PM]


My .45 Raptor AR10 barrel was delivered today. by Biggerhammer
[Yesterday at 11:19:41 PM]


Glass bedding question by Biggerhammer
[Yesterday at 11:15:16 PM]


Otter by Kit Carson
[Yesterday at 11:14:17 PM]


OnX Map Hunt chip update by biggfish
[Yesterday at 11:02:11 PM]


300 WSM vs 300 Win mag by Biggerhammer
[Yesterday at 10:53:29 PM]


Looking for advice on a scope for a 22lr by DJ_Mack
[Yesterday at 10:40:10 PM]


.300 BLK load thread by hunter399
[Yesterday at 10:27:54 PM]


Jim Findlay Memorial Match by mountainman
[Yesterday at 10:26:01 PM]


BC Spring Black Bear Hunts. Ambush Outfitters by Kent Hunter
[Yesterday at 10:25:06 PM]


Colorado elk units by mtmn35rem5
[Yesterday at 10:19:37 PM]


New Dodge 2017 3500 BigHorn Opinion? by Boss .300 winmag
[Yesterday at 10:17:19 PM]


New binos advice by Mtnwalker
[Yesterday at 09:48:33 PM]


First Lite vs Sitka vs Kuiu by thinkingman
[Yesterday at 09:33:45 PM]


Heads up, Incoming BAD legislation, rattle the cages POLITELY in Olympia by Special T
[Yesterday at 09:21:37 PM]


ISO: Toyota 4Runner by Mtnwalker
[Yesterday at 09:15:07 PM]


FS Outdoorsman's Optics Hunter Pack by Wilderness Pack Specialties by aorams
[Yesterday at 09:07:33 PM]