[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