[Geysers] Entrance and Backcountry Fee

[michellechristine08 at gmail.com]

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
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </geyser-list/attachments/20141124/ddbd733b/attachment-0001.html>