Post by: bigtex on March 14, 2018, 10:43:15 AM
During an at times contentious appearance before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the secretary, explaining why he's considering a surge pricing system for 17 national parks, said parks are losing too much money to those pass programs.
"I've spent a lot of time in a (park) kiosk, and it's amazing, in our parks, which the maintenance (backlog) as you know, we're far behind," the secretary told the committee Tuesday while explaining the Trump administration's FY2019 budget proposal for the Interior Department. "But when you give discounted or free passes to elderly, fourth-graders, veterans, disabled, and you do it by the carload, there's not a whole lot of people that actually pay at our front door.
"As well as you have a lot of foreign guests," he added. "We're looking at ways to make sure we have more revenue in the front door of our parks themselves. Because when you have a park like (Mount) Rainier, the money they receive coming in the front gate, I want to make sure more of it goes to that park superintendent so he has flexibility in how he spends it."
Under current pass programs, senior citizens 62 and older can purchase a lifetime pass to the parks for $80 (the fee had been $10 until it increased last year), fourth-grade students can receive a free pass through the Every Kid in a Park program started by the Obama administration, active military and their dependents gain free passes, and U.S. citizens who are permanently disabled receive free passes.
While Secretary Zinke said too much of entrance fee revenues go back to Washington, D.C., under current regulations 80 percent of the fees collected in a park stay there, while the other 20 percent is sent to Washington to be redistributed to other areas, including to parks that do not collect entrance fees.
He did acknowledge that park fees alone won't significantly address the park system's $11.7 billion maintenance backlog.
"But a lot of our parks have record visitation," he said. "We expect them to have record visitation again."
Under questioning from Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, Secretary Zinke said he wasn't suggesting that the free entry given to military, seniors, and fourth-graders should be done away with.
"No, what I'm saying is this: We subsidize and we allow, by design, a lot of people to go through. If you're in a car and you have a veteran in the car, everyone, whether they're a veteran or not, is free in that car," said Secretary Zinke. "Same thing with disabled, same thing with elderly, on passes. Basically, one person with a pass, everyone in that car comes in for free. Whether or not that's correct, we're looking at it."
Secretary Zinke added that the $80 America the Beautiful parks pass, which allows holders to enter parks as many times as they want for a one-year period, is an incredible bargain, telling the committee that he took his family to a movie the other night and that the bill, which included popcorn, came to more than $80.
He said that his staff's review of park fee structures is designed to "make sure that revenue coming into the door of our principal parks is appropriate, making sure that we still have value. Because American parks belong to the public, they belong to all Americans, and everyone should have access."
"We definitely believe we should be increasing access, not disincentivizing it," responded Sen. Cantwell.
https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2018/03/zinke-4-year-olds-seniors-disabled-and-veterans-prompting-higher-park-entrance-fees
Post by: olyguy79 on March 14, 2018, 10:44:11 AM
Post by: Stein on March 14, 2018, 10:49:12 AM
For what it is worth, if we are going to discuss recreational access fees, we may also want to look at the current grazing fees. :peep:
Post by: bigtex on March 14, 2018, 10:52:29 AM
For what it is worth, if we are going to discuss recreational access fees, we may also want to look at the current grazing fees. :peep:I agree. The fed rates went down again this year and haven't had a significant increase since the 1960s.
Post by: timberfaller on March 14, 2018, 10:53:51 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 14, 2018, 12:56:17 PM
psssst Zinke, get back to logging and mining so the department can generate some revenue instead of expenses!! But then he'd be in court battling out with the Eco-freaks and Democrats!! OH Wait, that is what has been happening for decades now THAT IS where all their money has GONE!!! silly me! :chuckle:How much should a permit to log on public land cost?
Post by: timberfaller on March 14, 2018, 01:18:38 PM
Timber sales where "contracted" purchased from USFS for said amount for said amount of board feet removed. Worked great until the Spotted Owl and Salmon came along, or was that the tree huggers???
Back when the "system" worked, access to public land WAS FREE and the USFS/BLM was flowing in $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Hummmmmm wonder what happened????
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 14, 2018, 01:42:59 PM
How much? Nothing!Ok- that's still the way they work, right? The timber co bids on the sale according to the BF removed, and the FS gets the money from the sale, but has to pay for NEPA, EA, and different improvements- i.e roads, culverts ect...
Timber sales where "contracted" purchased from USFS for said amount for said amount of board feet removed. Worked great until the Spotted Owl and Salmon came along, or was that the tree huggers???
Back when the "system" worked, access to public land WAS FREE and the USFS/BLM was flowing in $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
In NE Washington there are sales that the log buyer does NEPA as part of the contract. The project is called "A to Z" and it's a pretty great idea, since the FS takes forever for permitting.
Anyways- I don't think logging and mining is the problem (and certainly not the solution) for National Park Service budget shortfalls. Charging at the door is not the answer either... in my opinion it should be funded by congress.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on March 14, 2018, 03:56:35 PM
How much? Nothing!Ok- that's still the way they work, right? The timber co bids on the sale according to the BF removed, and the FS gets the money from the sale, but has to pay for NEPA, EA, and different improvements- i.e roads, culverts ect...
Timber sales where "contracted" purchased from USFS for said amount for said amount of board feet removed. Worked great until the Spotted Owl and Salmon came along, or was that the tree huggers???
Back when the "system" worked, access to public land WAS FREE and the USFS/BLM was flowing in $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
In NE Washington there are sales that the log buyer does NEPA as part of the contract. The project is called "A to Z" and it's a pretty great idea, since the FS takes forever for permitting.
Anyways- I don't think logging and mining is the problem (and certainly not the solution) for National Park Service budget shortfalls. Charging at the door is not the answer either... in my opinion it should be funded by congress.
That may well be the best way then, paid for by everyone who pays taxes, regardless of whether they utilize it or not.
Post by: Special T on March 14, 2018, 04:58:58 PM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Calvin Rayborn on March 15, 2018, 01:38:06 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 15, 2018, 06:51:08 AM
@logger has plenty of experience with the massive limitations on logging federal land. If DNT here in Washington can find a way to make $ & pay for infrastructure why can't the USFS do it?. If DNT here in Washington can find a way to make $ & pay for infrastructure
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
[/quote]
DNR has a different mission, they are required to.make money. USFS is a multiple use agency, they don't need to make money, nor should they be expected to. Their job is to manage the forest for the benefit of the people of our country.
How much would a grazing lease cost if the goal was to make money???
Post by: Stein on March 15, 2018, 06:54:07 AM
How much? Nothing!Ok- that's still the way they work, right? The timber co bids on the sale according to the BF removed, and the FS gets the money from the sale, but has to pay for NEPA, EA, and different improvements- i.e roads, culverts ect...
Timber sales where "contracted" purchased from USFS for said amount for said amount of board feet removed. Worked great until the Spotted Owl and Salmon came along, or was that the tree huggers???
Back when the "system" worked, access to public land WAS FREE and the USFS/BLM was flowing in $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
In NE Washington there are sales that the log buyer does NEPA as part of the contract. The project is called "A to Z" and it's a pretty great idea, since the FS takes forever for permitting.
Anyways- I don't think logging and mining is the problem (and certainly not the solution) for National Park Service budget shortfalls. Charging at the door is not the answer either... in my opinion it should be funded by congress.
That may well be the best way then, paid for by everyone who pays taxes, regardless of whether they utilize it or not.
I would agree with this (at both the federal and state level). Public lands are a possession of the public and have a certain cost to maintain that should be paid for by the public. It's part of the cost of being a citizen of the country and each can choose to use it or not.
Post by: Okanagan on March 15, 2018, 08:39:10 AM
How much? Nothing!Ok- that's still the way they work, right? The timber co bids on the sale according to the BF removed, and the FS gets the money from the sale, but has to pay for NEPA, EA, and different improvements- i.e roads, culverts ect...
Timber sales where "contracted" purchased from USFS for said amount for said amount of board feet removed. Worked great until the Spotted Owl and Salmon came along, or was that the tree huggers???
Back when the "system" worked, access to public land WAS FREE and the USFS/BLM was flowing in $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
In NE Washington there are sales that the log buyer does NEPA as part of the contract. The project is called "A to Z" and it's a pretty great idea, since the FS takes forever for permitting.
Anyways- I don't think logging and mining is the problem (and certainly not the solution) for National Park Service budget shortfalls. Charging at the door is not the answer either... in my opinion it should be funded by congress.
That may well be the best way then, paid for by everyone who pays taxes, regardless of whether they utilize it or not.
I would agree with this (at both the federal and state level). Public lands are a possession of the public and have a certain cost to maintain that should be paid for by the public. It's part of the cost of being a citizen of the country and each can choose to use it or not.
+ one more. Public land is public, costs paid by all taxpayers who all "own" it as citizens.
Post by: Special T on March 15, 2018, 09:17:20 AM
DNR has a different mission, they are required to.make money. USFS is a multiple use agency, they don't need to make money, nor should they be expected to. Their job is to manage the forest for the benefit of the people of our country.@logger has plenty of experience with the massive limitations on logging federal land. If DNT here in Washington can find a way to make $ & pay for infrastructure why can't the USFS do it?. If DNT here in Washington can find a way to make $ & pay for infrastructure
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
How much would a grazing lease cost if the goal was to make money???
[/quote]The USFS wouldn't have a budget problem if they actually logged. Yes DNR has a different mandate which is to raise $ for schools and municipalities. Roads get maintained because revenue comes from logging. Has there been over logging in the past? Yes, but now we are over compensating and not cutting enough.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on March 15, 2018, 09:20:23 AM
The USFS wouldn't have a budget problem if they actually logged. Yes DNR has a different mandate which is to raise $ for schools and municipalities. Roads get maintained because revenue comes from logging. Has there been over logging in the past? Yes, but now we are over compensating and not cutting enough.DNR has a different mission, they are required to.make money. USFS is a multiple use agency, they don't need to make money, nor should they be expected to. Their job is to manage the forest for the benefit of the people of our country.@logger has plenty of experience with the massive limitations on logging federal land. If DNT here in Washington can find a way to make $ & pay for infrastructure why can't the USFS do it?. If DNT here in Washington can find a way to make $ & pay for infrastructure
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
How much would a grazing lease cost if the goal was to make money???
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
[/quote]
Logging on USFS has increased the past 10 years compared to the 15 years before it.
Post by: olyguy79 on March 15, 2018, 09:24:59 AM
The USFS wouldn't have a budget problem if they actually logged. Yes DNR has a different mandate which is to raise $ for schools and municipalities. Roads get maintained because revenue comes from logging. Has there been over logging in the past? Yes, but now we are over compensating and not cutting enough.DNR has a different mission, they are required to.make money. USFS is a multiple use agency, they don't need to make money, nor should they be expected to. Their job is to manage the forest for the benefit of the people of our country.@logger has plenty of experience with the massive limitations on logging federal land. If DNT here in Washington can find a way to make $ & pay for infrastructure why can't the USFS do it?. If DNT here in Washington can find a way to make $ & pay for infrastructure
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
How much would a grazing lease cost if the goal was to make money???
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
[/quote]
Sure they would. USFS wouldn't be a self-sustaining agency just on logging. WA DNR isn't a self-sustaining agency either.
Post by: mossy8352 on March 15, 2018, 09:28:21 AM
Post by: olyguy79 on March 15, 2018, 09:40:28 AM
Want a real eye opener go to Bryce Canyon Lodge and find out how many visitors stay at the lodge in a 12 month period time x dollars and how many paying cars visit every day times xs dollars it is amazing. Yes some are on passes but my guess is poor management of the funds and someone is making a killing on the funds generated but not used for maintenance. It is called political theft just like they have done with social security to date!The Lodge is a concessionaire within the park. The private company gets to keep a percentage of the profits, with some of it going back to the NPS. Flash back 50 years when all the lodges were ran by govt employees and the govt kept all the profits.
But I agree the NPS does need to look at where they're money is going.
Also doesn't help every year Congress designates new parks to staff and run. :twocents:
Post by: mossy8352 on March 15, 2018, 09:43:37 AM
Post by: olyguy79 on March 15, 2018, 09:45:27 AM
You are correct my point was take the amount of paying lodge resident in 12 months time x dollars (whatever the government keeps) and it is in the millions times every park in the country. The income will exceed the maintenance and costs every time! Follow the money!!!!!Not according to Zinke:
"He did acknowledge that park fees alone won't significantly address the park system's $11.7 billion maintenance backlog."
Post by: bearpaw on March 15, 2018, 09:47:49 AM
Sure they would. USFS wouldn't be a self-sustaining agency just on logging. WA DNR isn't a self-sustaining agency either.The USFS wouldn't have a budget problem if they actually logged. Yes DNR has a different mandate which is to raise $ for schools and municipalities. Roads get maintained because revenue comes from logging. Has there been over logging in the past? Yes, but now we are over compensating and not cutting enough.DNR has a different mission, they are required to.make money. USFS is a multiple use agency, they don't need to make money, nor should they be expected to. Their job is to manage the forest for the benefit of the people of our country.@logger has plenty of experience with the massive limitations on logging federal land. If DNT here in Washington can find a way to make $ & pay for infrastructure why can't the USFS do it?. If DNT here in Washington can find a way to make $ & pay for infrastructure
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
How much would a grazing lease cost if the goal was to make money???
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
[/quote]
USFS has become a worthless agency that only knows how to close roads and further restrict use to more and more of Americans. When revenue was created from logging and before all the enviros started controlling the agency they used to maintain roads and trails for the public benefit. Now they just close roads rather than maintain or repair them. Many trails are plugged by downfall with no maintenance. Every year there is less and less access to use forests for most Americans.
Post by: bearpaw on March 15, 2018, 09:50:05 AM
Post by: mossy8352 on March 15, 2018, 09:50:14 AM
Sure they would. USFS wouldn't be a self-sustaining agency just on logging. WA DNR isn't a self-sustaining agency either.The USFS wouldn't have a budget problem if they actually logged. Yes DNR has a different mandate which is to raise $ for schools and municipalities. Roads get maintained because revenue comes from logging. Has there been over logging in the past? Yes, but now we are over compensating and not cutting enough.DNR has a different mission, they are required to.make money. USFS is a multiple use agency, they don't need to make money, nor should they be expected to. Their job is to manage the forest for the benefit of the people of our country.@logger has plenty of experience with the massive limitations on logging federal land. If DNT here in Washington can find a way to make $ & pay for infrastructure why can't the USFS do it?. If DNT here in Washington can find a way to make $ & pay for infrastructure
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
How much would a grazing lease cost if the goal was to make money???
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
USFS has become a worthless agency that only knows how to close roads and further restrict use to more and more of Americans. When revenue was created from logging and before all the enviros started controlling the agency they used to maintain roads and trails for the public benefit. Now they just close roads rather than maintain or repair them. Many trails are plugged by downfall with no maintenance. Every year there is less and less access to use forests for most Americans.
[/quote]
1199% spot on!
Post by: olyguy79 on March 15, 2018, 09:51:23 AM
USFS has become a worthless agency that only knows how to close roads and further restrict use to more and more of Americans. When revenue was created from logging and before all the enviros started controlling the agency they used to maintain roads and trails for the public benefit. Now they just close roads rather than maintain or repair them. Many trails are plugged by downfall with no maintenance. Every year there is less and less access to use forests for most Americans.Sure they would. USFS wouldn't be a self-sustaining agency just on logging. WA DNR isn't a self-sustaining agency either.The USFS wouldn't have a budget problem if they actually logged. Yes DNR has a different mandate which is to raise $ for schools and municipalities. Roads get maintained because revenue comes from logging. Has there been over logging in the past? Yes, but now we are over compensating and not cutting enough.DNR has a different mission, they are required to.make money. USFS is a multiple use agency, they don't need to make money, nor should they be expected to. Their job is to manage the forest for the benefit of the people of our country.@logger has plenty of experience with the massive limitations on logging federal land. If DNT here in Washington can find a way to make $ & pay for infrastructure why can't the USFS do it?. If DNT here in Washington can find a way to make $ & pay for infrastructure
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
How much would a grazing lease cost if the goal was to make money???
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
[/quote]
GW Bush signed the order for every National Forest has to create a "Travel Management Plan" specifically closing or keeping roads open. Why succeeding presidents haven't repealed it who knows.
Post by: bearpaw on March 15, 2018, 10:01:14 AM
GW Bush signed the order for every National Forest has to create a "Travel Management Plan" specifically closing or keeping roads open. Why succeeding presidents haven't repealed it who knows.USFS has become a worthless agency that only knows how to close roads and further restrict use to more and more of Americans. When revenue was created from logging and before all the enviros started controlling the agency they used to maintain roads and trails for the public benefit. Now they just close roads rather than maintain or repair them. Many trails are plugged by downfall with no maintenance. Every year there is less and less access to use forests for most Americans.Sure they would. USFS wouldn't be a self-sustaining agency just on logging. WA DNR isn't a self-sustaining agency either.The USFS wouldn't have a budget problem if they actually logged. Yes DNR has a different mandate which is to raise $ for schools and municipalities. Roads get maintained because revenue comes from logging. Has there been over logging in the past? Yes, but now we are over compensating and not cutting enough.DNR has a different mission, they are required to.make money. USFS is a multiple use agency, they don't need to make money, nor should they be expected to. Their job is to manage the forest for the benefit of the people of our country.@logger has plenty of experience with the massive limitations on logging federal land. If DNT here in Washington can find a way to make $ & pay for infrastructure why can't the USFS do it?. If DNT here in Washington can find a way to make $ & pay for infrastructure
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
How much would a grazing lease cost if the goal was to make money???
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
[/quote]
I sure hope we get a new USFS Director who will reorganze the USFS!
Post by: olyguy79 on March 15, 2018, 10:04:25 AM
I sure hope we get a new USFS Director who will reorganze the USFS!GW Bush signed the order for every National Forest has to create a "Travel Management Plan" specifically closing or keeping roads open. Why succeeding presidents haven't repealed it who knows.USFS has become a worthless agency that only knows how to close roads and further restrict use to more and more of Americans. When revenue was created from logging and before all the enviros started controlling the agency they used to maintain roads and trails for the public benefit. Now they just close roads rather than maintain or repair them. Many trails are plugged by downfall with no maintenance. Every year there is less and less access to use forests for most Americans.Sure they would. USFS wouldn't be a self-sustaining agency just on logging. WA DNR isn't a self-sustaining agency either.The USFS wouldn't have a budget problem if they actually logged. Yes DNR has a different mandate which is to raise $ for schools and municipalities. Roads get maintained because revenue comes from logging. Has there been over logging in the past? Yes, but now we are over compensating and not cutting enough.DNR has a different mission, they are required to.make money. USFS is a multiple use agency, they don't need to make money, nor should they be expected to. Their job is to manage the forest for the benefit of the people of our country.@logger has plenty of experience with the massive limitations on logging federal land. If DNT here in Washington can find a way to make $ & pay for infrastructure why can't the USFS do it?. If DNT here in Washington can find a way to make $ & pay for infrastructure
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
How much would a grazing lease cost if the goal was to make money???
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
[/quote]
With Sonny Perdue at the helm of Agriculture who knows. He seems to care more about the agriculture side of the dept. then the forestry side.
Even with that, a president would have to repeal the TMP rules in order for road closures to stop happening.
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 15, 2018, 10:12:12 AM
Post by: Special T on March 15, 2018, 10:13:13 AM
Logging on USFS has increased the past 10 years compared to the 15 years before it.The USFS wouldn't have a budget problem if they actually logged. Yes DNR has a different mandate which is to raise $ for schools and municipalities. Roads get maintained because revenue comes from logging. Has there been over logging in the past? Yes, but now we are over compensating and not cutting enough.DNR has a different mission, they are required to.make money. USFS is a multiple use agency, they don't need to make money, nor should they be expected to. Their job is to manage the forest for the benefit of the people of our country.@logger has plenty of experience with the massive limitations on logging federal land. If DNT here in Washington can find a way to make $ & pay for infrastructure why can't the USFS do it?. If DNT here in Washington can find a way to make $ & pay for infrastructure
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
How much would a grazing lease cost if the goal was to make money???
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
[/quote]25 years ago we were at the tail end of the spotted owl fiasco where virtually all USFS land was shut down. They sure weren't paying the way when that was in full swing.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on March 15, 2018, 10:17:40 AM
I don't think this is a single solution problem. Logging is possible but we're talking about National Parks, which for the most part, are supposed to be untouched, natural wilderness areas. So, you're not going to completely solve the problem by clear cutting Yellowstone. I agree with his assessment that more people should pay, that a car with a disabled person and 4 other abled people should fork up 4 admissions or at least require 4 passes. And although I agree that active duty and their families should visit free, this should not apply to the Air Force. ;)As far as I know most fees are per car. Rainier is $25 per car. What would you say the per person price be? Visiting public lands will sure get expensive.
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 15, 2018, 10:31:29 AM
I don't think this is a single solution problem. Logging is possible but we're talking about National Parks, which for the most part, are supposed to be untouched, natural wilderness areas. So, you're not going to completely solve the problem by clear cutting Yellowstone. I agree with his assessment that more people should pay, that a car with a disabled person and 4 other abled people should fork up 4 admissions or at least require 4 passes. And although I agree that active duty and their families should visit free, this should not apply to the Air Force. ;)As far as I know most fees are per car. Rainier is $25 per car. What would you say the per person price be? Visiting public lands will sure get expensive.
I don't know and am not even sure that's the solution. But visiting public lands is already expensive. It's just we're not paying the bill. It's clear something needs to be done to finance the maintenance backlog. Take the senior pass, for example. One person pays $80/year and then, for all intents and purposes, could bring a van of 10 seniors, none of whom have bought the pass. Is that fiscally sensible? Consider allowing a spouse but others should have to pay to play. Again, just as an example. Not sure it's a solution. But I do get where he's coming from.
Post by: bigtex on March 15, 2018, 10:33:44 AM
The senior pass is good for life, it's not an annual pass.I don't think this is a single solution problem. Logging is possible but we're talking about National Parks, which for the most part, are supposed to be untouched, natural wilderness areas. So, you're not going to completely solve the problem by clear cutting Yellowstone. I agree with his assessment that more people should pay, that a car with a disabled person and 4 other abled people should fork up 4 admissions or at least require 4 passes. And although I agree that active duty and their families should visit free, this should not apply to the Air Force. ;)As far as I know most fees are per car. Rainier is $25 per car. What would you say the per person price be? Visiting public lands will sure get expensive.
I don't know and am not even sure that's the solution. But visiting public lands is already expensive. It's just we're not paying the bill. It's clear something needs to be done to finance the maintenance backlog. Take the senior pass, for example. One person pays $80/year and then, for all intents and purposes, could bring a van of 10 seniors, none of whom have bought the pass. Is that fiscally sensible? Consider allowing a spouse but others should have to pay to play. Again, just as an example. Not sure it's a solution. But I do get where he's coming from.
And I agree with you. But we all know many people don't like fees.
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 15, 2018, 10:37:26 AM
I think movie tickets are too expensive. So I don't go. We all have a choice.The senior pass is good for life, it's not an annual pass.I don't think this is a single solution problem. Logging is possible but we're talking about National Parks, which for the most part, are supposed to be untouched, natural wilderness areas. So, you're not going to completely solve the problem by clear cutting Yellowstone. I agree with his assessment that more people should pay, that a car with a disabled person and 4 other abled people should fork up 4 admissions or at least require 4 passes. And although I agree that active duty and their families should visit free, this should not apply to the Air Force. ;)As far as I know most fees are per car. Rainier is $25 per car. What would you say the per person price be? Visiting public lands will sure get expensive.
I don't know and am not even sure that's the solution. But visiting public lands is already expensive. It's just we're not paying the bill. It's clear something needs to be done to finance the maintenance backlog. Take the senior pass, for example. One person pays $80/year and then, for all intents and purposes, could bring a van of 10 seniors, none of whom have bought the pass. Is that fiscally sensible? Consider allowing a spouse but others should have to pay to play. Again, just as an example. Not sure it's a solution. But I do get where he's coming from.
And I agree with you. But we all know many people don't like fees.
Post by: Special T on March 15, 2018, 10:45:07 AM
Logging generates federal funds, and it is congresses fault they done nothing to spend wisely or look at it in a fiscally responcible matter.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on March 15, 2018, 10:46:33 AM
I think movie tickets are too expensive. So I don't go. We all have a choice.The senior pass is good for life, it's not an annual pass.I don't think this is a single solution problem. Logging is possible but we're talking about National Parks, which for the most part, are supposed to be untouched, natural wilderness areas. So, you're not going to completely solve the problem by clear cutting Yellowstone. I agree with his assessment that more people should pay, that a car with a disabled person and 4 other abled people should fork up 4 admissions or at least require 4 passes. And although I agree that active duty and their families should visit free, this should not apply to the Air Force. ;)As far as I know most fees are per car. Rainier is $25 per car. What would you say the per person price be? Visiting public lands will sure get expensive.
I don't know and am not even sure that's the solution. But visiting public lands is already expensive. It's just we're not paying the bill. It's clear something needs to be done to finance the maintenance backlog. Take the senior pass, for example. One person pays $80/year and then, for all intents and purposes, could bring a van of 10 seniors, none of whom have bought the pass. Is that fiscally sensible? Consider allowing a spouse but others should have to pay to play. Again, just as an example. Not sure it's a solution. But I do get where he's coming from.
And I agree with you. But we all know many people don't like fees.
Cost is an important issue too, if passes cost too much people will stop going. That is exactly what happened with parks in WA. I think the best answer is for congress to fund the parks shortfall with everyone's tax dollars and at the same time managers need to cut costs in the parks so they can balance their operating budgets.
Post by: Special T on March 15, 2018, 11:00:05 AM
It should be obvious the trend is that the Gov isn't willing to make it a spending priority. That means it's up to the users to pay for the services. That means the way funding in the parks is done will have to be changed. No one likes rising prices especially when they have been allowed to ride for free.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on March 15, 2018, 11:01:08 AM
I agree. But on the federal side prices have been going up and so is visitation, so they haven't hit that peak/plateau yet.Cost is an important issue too, if passes cost too much people will stop going. That is exactly what happened with parks in WA. I think the best answer is for congress to fund the parks shortfall with everyone's tax dollars and at the same time managers need to cut costs in the parks so they can balance their operating budgets.I think movie tickets are too expensive. So I don't go. We all have a choice.The senior pass is good for life, it's not an annual pass.I don't think this is a single solution problem. Logging is possible but we're talking about National Parks, which for the most part, are supposed to be untouched, natural wilderness areas. So, you're not going to completely solve the problem by clear cutting Yellowstone. I agree with his assessment that more people should pay, that a car with a disabled person and 4 other abled people should fork up 4 admissions or at least require 4 passes. And although I agree that active duty and their families should visit free, this should not apply to the Air Force. ;)As far as I know most fees are per car. Rainier is $25 per car. What would you say the per person price be? Visiting public lands will sure get expensive.
I don't know and am not even sure that's the solution. But visiting public lands is already expensive. It's just we're not paying the bill. It's clear something needs to be done to finance the maintenance backlog. Take the senior pass, for example. One person pays $80/year and then, for all intents and purposes, could bring a van of 10 seniors, none of whom have bought the pass. Is that fiscally sensible? Consider allowing a spouse but others should have to pay to play. Again, just as an example. Not sure it's a solution. But I do get where he's coming from.
And I agree with you. But we all know many people don't like fees.
What many people fail to realize is most of your larger and some medium size federal parks are essentially mini cities. They have their own water treatment/wastewater facilities staffed by NPS employees, the roads are maintained by the NPS, they have their own law enforcement force, some even have schools in them. And in some of the older parks it has to be this way because the state has no jurisdiction within the park. WSP/WDFW/Sheriff/WA DOT has no authority in Olympic and Rainier, so the feds are forced to operate all of those things on their own. You don't see these things with state parks.
Post by: bearpaw on March 15, 2018, 01:49:50 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on March 15, 2018, 02:09:43 PM
I didn't know so many people went through parks completely free, maybe they should be paying half, maybe that would help?
The parks largely base their fees on a per-vehicle basis. Hence this issue.
Post by: bigtex on March 15, 2018, 02:27:42 PM
I didn't know so many people went through parks completely free, maybe they should be paying half, maybe that would help?It's not just parks it's all federal lands. The pass that let's then into park for free let them on all the other fed lands for free too.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Special T on March 15, 2018, 02:34:32 PM
Here in lays part of my issue. I have NO problem charging fees that correlate with the cost of upkeep for services. Trail heads that are plowed and traveled, have vault toilets that need servicing, campgrounds, or national parks that cost to upkeep.I didn't know so many people went through parks completely free, maybe they should be paying half, maybe that would help?It's not just parks it's all federal lands. The pass that let's then into park for free let them on all the other fed lands for free too.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
I have not seen the NP camping rates, but if they are anything like the state parks, they are well under market, and have long wait lists. Campers, just like sportsmen, seem more than willing to open thier wallet for services rendered... Day use folks, not so much.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: npaull on March 15, 2018, 03:50:32 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 15, 2018, 04:05:34 PM
I'll listen to Zinke bitch about people not paying National Park fees after he stops charging the American taxpayers $12,000 for private jets from Vegas to Montana when commercial flights cost a couple hundred bucks. I thought we were draining the swamp, no?
I'd be more worried about the millions Pelosi spent than 12,000 spent by Zinke! ;)
https://www.activistpost.com/2017/02/nancy-pelosi-commute-california-air-force-takes-plane.html
Overall, according to documents uncovered by Judicial Watch in January 2011, Pelosi used the Air Force aircraft for a total of 43 trips, covering 90,155 miles, from January 1 through October 1, 2010. Judicial Watch, through FOIA, continues to pursue other records related to Pelosi’s use of Air Force aircraft.Previous documents obtained by Judicial Watch show the former Speaker’s military travel cost the USAF $2,100,744.59 over one two-year period — $101,429.14 of which was for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol. For example, purchases for one Pelosi-led congressional delegation traveling from Washington, DC, through Tel Aviv, Israel to Baghdad, Iraq May 15-20, 2008 included: Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey’s Irish Crème, Maker’s Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewars scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey, Corona beer and several bottles of wine.
Post by: npaull on March 15, 2018, 06:02:00 PM
I have no problem paying more for admission to our federal public lands, but I don't want to be closing down our federal lands or selling them to private companies while the cost for the remaining ones is going up. For FAR too long, hunters' main concern has been gun rights and anti-hunters. Those problems can be fixed with the stroke of a pen. Loss of habitat, and loss of access, is basically forever. That's where the future of hunting lives or dies.
Post by: davk on March 15, 2018, 08:28:05 PM
It's all bad, and the one won't forgive the other. But anyway back on topic...That's because anti-hunters and gun rights are by far the biggest threats to hunters. To say it can be fixed with a stroke of a pen is just ignorance. It would be along the lines of me saying any developed land will eventually turn back into habitat.
I have no problem paying more for admission to our federal public lands, but I don't want to be closing down our federal lands or selling them to private companies while the cost for the remaining ones is going up. For FAR too long, hunters' main concern has been gun rights and anti-hunters. Those problems can be fixed with the stroke of a pen. Loss of habitat, and loss of access, is basically forever. That's where the future of hunting lives or dies.
Post by: fireweed on March 16, 2018, 09:39:42 AM
Now, imagine the process for fixing the same roof in a National Park! Environmental analysis, public comment, alphabet soup of regulations, then if that building is over 50 years old--watch out--a whole new process of historic structures with a whole new slate of regulations. No wonder nothing gets done. Multiply that process by every road, trail, outhouse, viewpoint, bridge...you get the picture. I actually get letters in the mail detailing simple USFS maintenance proposals like removing a few tress that are blocking a viewpoint, asking for comment and outlining the whole regulation process moving forward. EEEKKKK.
There should be no new fees or fee increases unless they reduce the process burden on the ground first.
Post by: bigtex on March 16, 2018, 10:32:58 AM
The HUGE problem with anything "federal"--USFS, Parks, BLM--is that process and overhead eat money like a hog at a trough. Imagine that a park has an old building that needs a new roof. A normal business calls in a few contractors, gets some bids, and BINGO in a few weeks there is a new roof with one county permit.And who mandates these reviews/studies? Congress
Now, imagine the process for fixing the same roof in a National Park! Environmental analysis, public comment, alphabet soup of regulations, then if that building is over 50 years old--watch out--a whole new process of historic structures with a whole new slate of regulations. No wonder nothing gets done. Multiply that process by every road, trail, outhouse, viewpoint, bridge...you get the picture. I actually get letters in the mail detailing simple USFS maintenance proposals like removing a few tress that are blocking a viewpoint, asking for comment and outlining the whole regulation process moving forward. EEEKKKK.
There should be no new fees or fee increases unless they reduce the process burden on the ground first.
People like to lay blame at the agencies for doing it but they're just following the law. Believe me, if they didn't have to spend all the time and money on the studies they wouldn't. But when Congress consistently puts out vague laws like NEPA they end up forced to having to follow them.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on March 16, 2018, 12:00:08 PM
Post by: bigtex on March 16, 2018, 12:03:58 PM
Well lets hope this administration eliminates a lot of those stumbling blocks!!Congress has to do it, not the administration.
Post by: olyguy79 on March 16, 2018, 12:27:27 PM
Post by: fireweed on March 16, 2018, 04:57:54 PM
Well lets hope this administration eliminates a lot of those stumbling blocks!!Congress has to do it, not the administration.
Then the administration (or the agencies themselves) can send congress a list of all the over-the-top regs that need repealed before any fee increase or budget increase. Part of the problem has been lawsuits by mostly environmental groups trying to slow down or stop any action by using these laws as weapons. Fixing a road has become a political weapon and a nightmare of inefficiency. Look at the Cispus washout--which took years to fix, when the local loggers were offering do it immediately, for FREE, with essentially the same end result.
Post by: logger on March 20, 2018, 12:18:51 PM
Post by: bigtex on March 20, 2018, 01:21:07 PM
boy I could go on forever, my experince is with the f.s only, first thing they could do is do away with nepa, re write the current contracts without all the hoops to jump through and that alone would increase their stumpage value overnight, Way to many people on the payroll doing zero! And the ones that are trying to get things done run into constant push back, years to lay out a simple timber sale, helocopter required logging on units on units that have a road right through the middle of it. I don't have enough time in the day to go over the contunial waste I see everyday of people who just march to their own drum with no repercussions for productivity, not all are that way but the vast majorityNEPA applies to all federal agencies. It was a good idea by Congress but was written so vaguely that now every single action fed lands ranging from putting up a new sign to a timber sale has to go thru NEPA analysis.
Still waiting for Congress to do something on NEPA decades after it was enacted...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk