[Geysers] Entrance and Backcountry Fee
Lynn Stephens
lstephens2006 at hotmail.com
Wed Dec 3 12:49:53 PST 2014
Thanks Janet, but I think you meant new outhouses at Midway Geyser Basin parking lot rather than Lower Geyser Basin parking lot.
And, when the garbage can was removed at Great Fountain, garbage cans also disappeared from all other places--Black Sand, Biscuit, Steel Bridge, Flood pull-out, Hot Lake, etc., etc., etc., all over the park. The rationale I was given for taking out the garbage cans was cost, potential injury to maintenance persons trying to empty the garbage cans, and use of dumpsters wherever there were outhouses would handle the garbage that otherwise would have gone into the cans.
Lynn
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 13:18:00 -0500
From: pinkconemtgo at gmail.com
To: geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu
Subject: Re: [Geysers] Entrance and Backcountry Fee
During the comment period, before the parking lot for Fountain Paint Pots was actually approved, the Johns family read the EIS (I think it was called that then.) We went and counted parking lot spaces. It was designed to cut the spaces by a third. We went to the Visitor Center and explained it to a number of the naturalists at the time. They had all thought it would be a bigger lot! Everyone complained. We gave out forms to every geyser gazer that appeared before the comment period ended. Not only was the lot shortened but the number of outhouses was cut by a third also. That was to accommodate new outhouses at the Lower Geyser Basin parking lot. Adding those outhouses required additional time to stop to clean them so it was determined that Fountain needed a third less to keep from hiring more cleaners. That is also why the garbage can at Great Fountain was removed. Personnel hiring needed to decline. As always in Yellowstone, the rates go up and the services to the public go down. I don't think a rate increase will change that trend. Its all well and good to fight with fish....but humans need help in the park too. The only option to this is to limit the number of visitors per day. I suggest that eliminating all tour groups (particularly foreign groups) would be a fine start.
Now this very grumpy ex-volunteer will shut up.
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 8:50 AM, David Prast <davidjprast at gmail.com> wrote:
Jim,
You stated, "and then they get to keep 80 million". Did you mean up to 80 million? Are you stating collection of revenue is capped at 80 million? Later in your posting you referred to a 20 million dollar split between Yellowstone and Grand Tetons. What is the source of that 20 million dollar figure? I'm a little confused.
It seems the funding stream is somewhat complicated based on a number of variables. How have you come to learn about the funding mechanism? Do you know where I could find the actual formula?
David Prast
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 6:38 AM, <seeyellowstone at aol.com> wrote:
I'm wondering why no one is complaining about winter use in Yellowstone. This has truly become for the elite. It's not possible for a family of 4 to go to Old Faithful in the winter under $400 for the day. By the way the park does not get to keep 80% of the revenue until they paid Congress the amount the park brought in back in 1996, the park has to pay that first, then they get to keep 80 million. For example, our of the 3.5 million visitors that came in last year, let's say there were 1 million vehicles (it seemed like it some days), at $25 per car load, that would be $25 million. The park even advertises that they get to split 2.5 million last year though this program (no where near 20 million), if Congress would keep their hands out of the pot in the first place, Yellowstone and Grand Teton would be splitting over 20 million, and all national parks would be self sustaining, likely without a fee increase.
Jim Holstein
-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Webb <caros at xmission.com>
To: Geyser Observation Reports <geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu>
Sent: Tue, Nov 25, 2014 5:50 pm
Subject: Re: [Geysers] Entrance and Backcountry Fee
Can I just point out
that, in the case of FPP, the parking lot used to extend to the
north and have the decent, airier,
I-have-not-just-been-dropped-into-an-oubliette sort of latrine.
If an environmental impact statement was the cause of either the
shrinkage of the parking lot or the placement of these blots on
the name of humanity, I was not aware of it (although that can
be said of other things).
Karen Webb
On 11/24/2014 1:35 AM,
michellechristine08 at gmail.com wrote:
There is not an exact plan yet for where the extra revenue
will go, but they hope to use a portion of it for gill netting
in Yellowstone Lake as well as setting some aside for a
rehabilitation fund.
Also, just a note on the parking areas at FPP and Midway. The
reason that those parking
lots are not expanded has nothing to do with funding.
Therefore, you should not expect that to be in the plans for
extra revenue. Expanding parking areas in protected areas like
our national parks is pretty complicated, involving
environmental impact statements and other plans that take years
to complete. In Yellowstone, you also have to take into account
the thermal areas that lie close to those parking lots. If those
parking area were being built today, they would never be where
they are. They are already too close to thermal areas, so
expanding them is out of the question. It stinks, but it is
true.
As far as the entrance fee increase goes, the fact is that
our national parks need more money. Thankfully, Yellowstone was
not impacted too much by the sequester a couple years back
(because it is such a popular and large park) but visitor
centers all over the nation were closed and important jobs cut.
Unless parks get more money, actions like that will become much
more common. As was stated earlier, short of changes in federal
government funding, there really aren't a lot of other ways to
get that extra money. They have to do what they have to do.
For those that are interested, there are days that the
national parks allow free entrance. For those that truly cannot
afford the entrance fee, I am sure they can plan their trips to
coincide with those days, especially if they live within short
driving distance. The NPS advertises those days on their
website.
Michelle Eide
On Nov 23, 2014, at 6:38 PM, David Prast <davidjprast at gmail.com>
wrote:
Having reviewed the minutes if the meeting that were
provided, I noticed there was no mention of the the
specific use of the additional revenue. It would seem
there is no interest in a shuttle system (thank goodness)
and the no interest in expanded parking at Fountain Paint
Pots even though the number of automobile parking spaces
was reduced during the last parking lot project.
So....what is the "plan" for the additional revenue? Is
there a specific designated project for the additional
revenue?
Just wondering,
David Prast
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 12:05 PM, <mmjustus at mmjustus.com>
wrote:
I disagree wholeheartedly with
this, especially for people who live within a
reasonably short drive (say within a tank of
gas) and make trips to the park on a
shoestring. Or who have to save pennies to
make trips to the national parks. Every
dollar counts. This is how I visit national
parks, and I will tell you that yes, doubling
the entrance fee would make a huge difference
to people like me. And there are a lot more
of us than those making this argument seem to
think there are.
Meg Justus
I
agree with Ben. The cost is a real
bargain—Disneyland and Disney World
charge $100 per day. It seems to me
highly unlikely that the small rise in
entrance fee would prevent any but the
most casual potential visitor from
coming, considering the cost of travel
and other expenses.
Ralph
Taylor
_______________________________________________
Geysers mailing list
Geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu
_______________________________________________
Geysers mailing list
Geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu
_______________________________________________
Geysers mailing list
Geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
_______________________________________________
Geysers mailing list
Geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu
_______________________________________________
Geysers mailing list
Geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu
_______________________________________________
Geysers mailing list
Geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu
_______________________________________________
Geysers mailing list
Geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </geyser-list/attachments/20141203/047eb7d8/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Geysers
mailing list