[Geysers] Entrance and Backcountry Fee
Karen Webb
caros at xmission.com
Thu Dec 4 12:38:27 PST 2014
The ones I miss most are the ones at the pullouts in Hayden Valley,
although they weren't as bear-proof as they might have been.
Karen Webb
On 12/3/2014 1:49 PM, Lynn Stephens wrote:
> 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
> <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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141204/40386245/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Geysers
mailing list