[Geysers] Entrance and Backcountry Fee (Young)

[Udo Freund]

Since the mid-90s 80% of fees stay in the park where collected in order to
make improvements.  The balance is shared among all other sites.

Thanks,
Udo Freund
On Nov 20, 2014 5:45 PM, "David Prast" <davidjprast at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>> 
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geysers mailing list
> Geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu
> 
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </geyser-list/attachments/20141120/01100286/attachment-0001.html>