[Geysers] Entrance and Backcountry Fee

[David Prast]

An "Old School" solution could be a simple trough on the back of the
building with a privacy screen. This would get the men out of the privy,
keeping it cleaner for the women. This was the arrangement at the Milwaukee
Brewers County Stadium until they built the new one about 10 years ago.

David Prast

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Karen Webb <caros at xmission.com> wrote:

>  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>
> 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 listGeysers at lists.wallawalla.eduhttps://lists.wallawalla.edu/mailman/listinfo/geysers
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>     <http://www.avast.com/>
>>> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
>>> <http://www.avast.com/> protection is active.
>>>
>>>   _______________________________________________
>>> Geysers mailing listGeysers at lists.wallawalla.eduhttps://lists.wallawalla.edu/mailman/listinfo/geysers
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Geysers mailing list
>>> Geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu
>>> 
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Geysers mailing list
>> Geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu
>> 
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geysers mailing listGeysers at lists.wallawalla.eduhttps://lists.wallawalla.edu/mailman/listinfo/geysers
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>    <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
> 
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </geyser-list/attachments/20141204/2e5daca8/attachment-0001.html>