[Geysers] Entrance and Backcountry Fee

[Ralph Taylor]

Dick Powell and I noted that when the cans were removed and some were
replaced by dumpsters the amount of trash we picked up in the parking lots
and areas that used to have cans greatly increased.  We discussed this with
Old Faithful maintenance several times with no luck.  One thing about some
of the dumpsters that we found particularly inconvenient was the bearproof
locks that required one hand to unlatch, one hand to simultaneously lift the
cover, and your third hand to actually place the trash in the dumpster.  I
understand that the park is really in a crunch with declining budgets and
increased workload, but I think the trashcan removal was a big mistake (from
my admittedly biased point of view).

 

 

From: geysers-bounces at lists.wallawalla.edu
[mailto:geysers-bounces at lists.wallawalla.edu] On Behalf Of Karen Webb
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 3:38 PM
To: Geyser Observation Reports
Subject: Re: [Geysers] Entrance and Backcountry Fee

 

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> 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







  _____  


 <http://www.avast.com/> Image removed by sender.

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



_______________________________________________
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






  _____  


 <http://www.avast.com/> Image removed by sender.

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
<http://www.avast.com/>  protection is active. 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </geyser-list/attachments/20141206/7092b73d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ~WRD000.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </geyser-list/attachments/20141206/7092b73d/attachment-0001.jpg>