Post by: bigtex on November 19, 2017, 08:31:52 AM
"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.
“As a former military, there’s two things we need to fund absolutely: our military and our parks. So come on, America,” Secretary Zinke told the Fox reporter earlier this month. “If you think that $80, all year, every park, all the time, by a carload, is too much to ask — I mean, come on.”
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
Post by: olyguy79 on November 19, 2017, 08:38:12 AM
Post by: Bushcraft on November 23, 2017, 02:23:20 PM
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 I’d say that’s light.
Post by: Special T on November 23, 2017, 03:43:21 PM
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
Post by: Bushcraft on November 23, 2017, 03:52:57 PM
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.
Post by: bigtex on November 23, 2017, 03:55:51 PM
More anti-Zinke propaganda baloney.$80 is the current annual fee, his proposal would make it $70 a DAY at the busy parks.
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 I’d say that’s light.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Bob33 on November 23, 2017, 04:09:59 PM
A day?More anti-Zinke propaganda baloney.$80 is the current annual fee, his proposal would make it $70 a DAY at the busy parks.
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 I’d say that’s light.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
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.
Post by: Bushcraft on November 23, 2017, 04:12:24 PM
More anti-Zinke propaganda baloney.$80 is the current annual fee, his proposal would make it $70 a DAY at the busy parks.
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 I’d say that’s light.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
The article quotes surge pricing of up to $70 per week at some of the country’s most popular parks.
Chump change.
Post by: bigtex on November 23, 2017, 04:20:22 PM
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.A day?More anti-Zinke propaganda baloney.$80 is the current annual fee, his proposal would make it $70 a DAY at the busy parks.
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 I’d say that’s light.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
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.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: olyguy79 on November 23, 2017, 04:22:37 PM
:yeah: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.A day?More anti-Zinke propaganda baloney.$80 is the current annual fee, his proposal would make it $70 a DAY at the busy parks.
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 I’d say that’s light.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
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.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
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
Post by: olyguy79 on November 23, 2017, 04:23:24 PM
Well I guess the Discover Pass should be $70 then. Chump change right?More anti-Zinke propaganda baloney.$80 is the current annual fee, his proposal would make it $70 a DAY at the busy parks.
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 I’d say that’s light.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
The article quotes surge pricing of up to $70 per week at some of the country’s most popular parks.
Chump change.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Bushcraft on November 23, 2017, 04:26:18 PM
Post by: Bushcraft on November 23, 2017, 04:29:51 PM
Hunters always get stuck with a bill. It’s well past time the freeloading public ponies up.
Post by: Special T on November 24, 2017, 12:36:55 PM
Here is an ugly fact. Every agency need more $. Things will continue to get more desperate for 2 reasons.Well I guess the Discover Pass should be $70 then. Chump change right?More anti-Zinke propaganda baloney.$80 is the current annual fee, his proposal would make it $70 a DAY at the busy parks.
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 I’d say that’s light.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
The article quotes surge pricing of up to $70 per week at some of the country’s most popular parks.
Chump change.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
#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
Post by: Stein on November 24, 2017, 12:44:34 PM
If we continue down this path, it will be an upper middle class to wealthy activity to hunt, fish or camp on public land.
Post by: Bushcraft 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 can’t 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.
Post by: Special T on November 24, 2017, 02:22:55 PM
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
Post by: Stein 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 can’t 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.
Post by: Bushcraft 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) haven’t 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.