[Geysers] Entrance and Backcountry Fee

Karen Webb caros at xmission.com
Wed Dec 3 14:05:46 PST 2014


Thank you for this, Janet. And my recollection is that the number of 
outhouses was cut by a lot more than a third in favor of a mere 2 
oubliettes. It ends up making geysers sits at Fountain a bloody 
nightmare for women, pregnant women, and anyone with urinary tract 
problems. Do you know where that final decision actually rested?
Karen Webb

On 11/29/2014 11:18 AM, Janet Johns wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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 <mailto:caros at xmission.com>>
>         To: Geyser Observation Reports <geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu
>         <mailto: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
>         <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>>         <mailto: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
>>>             <mailto:Geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu>
>>>             
>>>
>>>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         Geysers mailing list
>>>         Geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu
>>>         <mailto:Geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu>
>>>         
>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         Geysers mailing list
>>         Geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu  <mailto:Geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu>
>>         
>
>
>
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         <http://www.avast.com/> 	
>         This email is free from viruses and malware because avast!
>         Antivirus <http://www.avast.com/> protection is active.
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Geysers mailing list
>         Geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu  <mailto:Geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu>
>         
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Geysers mailing list
>         Geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu <mailto:Geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu>
>         
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Geysers mailing list
>     Geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu <mailto: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.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </geyser-list/attachments/20141203/da44f09a/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Geysers mailing list