[Geysers] Entrance and Backcountry Fee

[David Prast]

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 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 listGeysers at lists.wallawalla.eduhttps://lists.wallawalla.edu/mailman/listinfo/geysers
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geysers mailing list
> Geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu
> 
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </geyser-list/attachments/20141127/d6fda1f4/attachment.html>