[Geysers] Entrance and Backcountry Fee (Young)

[David Prast]

It is my understanding that the Yellowstone park budget is not determined
by the fees that are collected within the park. The fees that are collected
within an individual park are re-distributed to ALL the parks to reimburse
the treasury for the appropriation to the National Park Service. The actual
budget for Yellowstone is determined by the National Park Service, hence
the fees that are collected in Yellowstone do not stay in Yellowstone. Is
that correct? If so, I ask the question, how does increasing fees help
Yellowstone Park and more importantly, what tangible improvements will I
see that will benefit visitors?

Secondly. I would observe that historically the "management" at Yellowstone
Park has not demonstrated good stewardship of the funds that have been
allocated so I don't believe they have earned my support to increase
revenues. For example, there is no excuse for the the unsanitary conditions
of the pit toilets at Fountain Paint Pots. It is especially troubling
considering Yellowstone is an international destination. Will the increased
funding improve the situation? I have yet to see in my 40 years of
experience in facility management that problems can resolved by increased
funding. Usually the problem is one of prioritization by management.
Problems are a challenge to inspired leadership, not an obstacle.

Lastly I would would caution, "be careful what you ask for". What will the
management at Yellowstone do with the supposed increased revenue? Is the
increased entrance fee intended to encourage or discourage park visitation?
Is the increased back country fee intended to further encourage or
discourage back country hiking?

For what it's worth,

David Prast

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Karen Webb <caros at xmission.com> wrote:

>  Thanks for the report, Jacob. I'm still mulling this over. Paul's
> reaction to the rates as they are is that they should just post a sign that
> says "Poor people not welcome." I don't know as much as I should about
> other sources of income for national parks. I would feel after the debacle
> with the government shut-down last year that if the federal government can
> shut down and, with virtually no warning, de facto shut down all national
> parks in-season (don't even get me started on WIC), they should also be
> able to ante up funding to help support park services. I think I've said
> this before, but it's ironic considering that YA bookstores carry the book
> that describes nature deprivation syndrome, escalating fees for all things
> park-related are probably already excluding the segment of the population
> most in need of contact with the natural world. It would be nice if there
> were a way to exchange service for the fee if the bottom line is that this
> money is needed to improve services, or possibly to lower the fee if the
> visitors can document low-income status.
> Karen Webb
>
> On 11/18/2014 10:22 PM, Jacob Young wrote:
>
>  I attended one of the public comment meetings this evening in Bozeman
> along with Will Boekel.  I didn't necessarily have much to comment on but I
> wanted to see what one of these meetings was like.
>
>  The crowd of about 20 heard from acting superintendent Steve Iobst.  The
> head backcountry ranger and the head law enforcement ranger plus another
> Yellowstone somebody were also there.
>
>  Overall, there was not much opposition to these fee increases.  If
> anything, some were saying "why not a little higher?"  Most of the
> discussion revolved around other revenue sources.  Including tour company
> fees, Interagency fees, the *only* $10 Senior Interagency pass, etc.  The
> NPS does not have the authority to change those fees.  My takeaway was that
> those would take acts of Congress to change.  Many NPS Parks are currently
> in a comment period around fee structure changes because this is the time
> that all the legal acts and such have allowed them to be opened to change.
>
>  A tour guide suggested lowering tour fees to encourage visitors to take
> guided services thereby lessening the impact of private autos and better
> "controlling" visitors.  It was a suggestion that didn't seem to have much
> support behind it.  I think when most people think of Yellowstone tour
> groups, they think big busses of foreign (Asian) visitors.  Vehicles with
> more than 26 passengers are in their own fee category that the NPS can't
> touch at this time.  He did mention that Yellowstone is well-known and
> desirable destination in the "Pacific Rim": China, Taiwan, Japan and Korea,
> and they only expect an increase in the number of large 40, 50, maybe even
> 60 passenger busses of visitors from those regions as tour companies
> catering to those countries are not showing signs of decreasing.  They are
> continuing to look for the best ways to manage changing park demographics
> and visitor experiences.
>
>  There was general discussion of budgets, revenue sources, concessionaire
> contracts, and who pays for renovation projects.
>
>  The discussion then drifted away from fees per se onto general park
> visitor experience, primarily gate congestion and parking congestion
> (Midway Geyser Basin and Fountain Paint Pots were singled out here).  To
> paraphrase Iobst, "The solution in the past was to build a bigger parking
> lot.  That is no longer the solution.  It is here where resource protection
> will trump visitor experience.  There have to be other ways to deal with
> it."  So, naturally, the conversation went to a shuttle bus system as exist
> in other big NPS parks.  All the NPS reps there seemed to talk around the
> idea, mentioning cost and not putting trust in the idea that visitors are
> so willing to give up the autonomy that an automobile provides.  Iobst also
> mentioned the unintended consequences of shuttling in Zion: a heavy
> increase in trail use and bicycling that they were not prepared for...so,
> more study is needed.  They're definitely gun shy after the failure of a
> regional bus system for Yellowstone.
>
>  Let's see, oh yeah, entrance gates.  Because of the splitting of fees
> for Yellowstone and Grand Teton, the South Gate will likely get an added
> lane to relieve congestion.  The Gardiner Gateway project will be entering
> phase 1 of 3 next year--the "money is there" so it will be happening.  Some
> talk about the West Gate, but no changes that I heard.  Discussion of the
> Chamber of Commerce in West assisting in selling entrance passes (not sure
> if they actually do that), or otherwise acting as a place to ask questions
> in person instead of holding up the entrance line was overwhelmingly
> positive as a decrease in gate congestion.  A Gardiner business owner
> offered to sell entrance passes at her business and other Gardiner
> businesses to alleviate North Gate waiting times.  The general consensus is
> that it's probably too difficult to pull off legally.
>
>  The NPS wants to get proactive about selling entrance passes online,
> joining the 21st century, etc. but are slow to get there
> because...government.  It was clear that they WANT to hold on to the chance
> to stop and talk to vehicles at the gate.  For some visitors, that is the
> only interaction the NPS will get with them and provide even limited
> education on how not to die or cause destruction during their visit.  I
> don't see how gate congestion will ever really be eliminated if that is the
> case.  It's clearly frustrating for frequent visitors to have to wait in
> traffic, but I get the impression that the trade-off of talking to every
> vehicle is probably worth it given budget constraints and limited other
> options.
>
>  It was a good experience overall and the bureucracy of it all seemed
> much further away in an intimate setting.  I left feeling satisfied that
> there ARE reasonable, articulate, and thoughtful public servants working in
> Yellowstone.
>
>  Jake Young
>
>
>
>   ------------------------------
>  *From:* JEFFREY CROSS <jeff.cross at utah.edu> <jeff.cross at utah.edu>
> *To:* "geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu" <geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu>
> <geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu> <geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu>
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 16, 2014 9:19 PM
> *Subject:* [Geysers] Entrance and Backcountry Fee
>
>  Note that Yellowstone is proposing to increase the entrance fee, and
> also to institute an overnight backcountry use fee.
>
> Comments must be turned in by December 5th, 2014.
>
> http://www.nps.gov/yell/parknews/14083.htm
>
> What do we think of these ideas?
>
> Jeff Cross
> jeff.cross at utah.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/20141119/fd43d692/attachment-0001.html>