LET'S TEAR DOWN THE ENTRANCE STATIONS
Make National Parks a Free Tradition
By Bill Schneider, 5-10-07
 |
|
 | |
|
Yes, I know there is no such thing as a free lunch, but think about the following suggestion before you say “no.”
As reported in late March on NewWest.net and early May in the newspapers, the National Park Service (NPS) is raising the cost of entering our national parks. Now, the agency has launched an aggressive PR campaign to sell its fee increase program. It varies from park to park, but most of the iconic parks will go up to $25 per vehicle or $50 per year.
I say, let’s think about this. On the scale of the total federal budget or even the NPS budget, are these fees really worth it? Could we make better use of park personnel currently living a sedentary life in all those entrance stations? And are we making the national parks playgrounds only for those able to afford it?
Last week, I had a phone chat with Craig Obey, vice president of the National Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA). I was calling about a new position the NPCA had taken, calling for Congress to bring back the National Parks Pass and reconsider the recent implementation of the America the Beautiful Pass.
Obey says his organization, which has long supported charging entrance fees to national parks, liked the now-defunct national park pass more than the multi-agency America the Beautiful pass. “The America the Beautiful Pass is more than an inflationary increase,” Obey notes, and went on to express some concern that money from the new pass might be diverted from the NPS to other agencies.
“There is always the potential for unintended consequences,” he warned.
No kidding, I said to myself, but that statement started me thinking, so I asked him how much money did the NPS raise with fees.
Obey told me the NPS took in almost $159 million in 2006 with fees, 80 percent of which stays with the national park where it was collected and the rest staying with the NPS. He also said the annual NPS budget is $2.6 billion, and using my rudimentary math skills, I conclude that means fee income covers a maximum of 6 percent of the annual NPS budget.
I didn’t drill down into the budget to find out how much the NPS spends on collecting fees, paying staff to sit in entrance booths, or accounting work to handle all the small transactions, but it must take a substantial slice out of that 6 percent.
At the same time, as also noted frequently in the media of late, national park visitation is declining, sometimes dramatically. I’ve seen figures where small parks have seen drops more than 30 percent, but most have less severe declines. And nobody disputes that fees contribute to these declines, although arguably not the major factor, which is likely $3 gas or a societal switch to non-outdoor recreation such as playing video games or a pull back from the traditional two-week family vacation.
The folks who regularly read my columns probably already knew where this is going, but here it is. How about we consider tearing down the entrance stations and make our national parks a free tradition?
Or make entrances fees voluntary, so people who feel able to pay, and are so inclined, can stuff a fifty in the Iron Ranger where the Real Ranger used to collect money?
I know $159 million sounds like a lot of money. I sure could buy a nice fishing boat with it. But 6 percent does not sound like a lot of money. And let us not forget that we burn up $159 million every day over in the Middle East.
Congress could decide to quit fighting the Trillion Dollar War one week early and devote the money saved to our national parks. That would give us enough to allow free entry to our national parks for at least seven years. Quit a month early, and everybody could go to our national parks for free for the next 30 years!
The point is: This is not a huge amount of money when compared to the federal or NPS budget, but it would pay huge dividends to reversing the alarming trend away from enjoying and appreciating the outdoors, especially among our youth.
I know there are fears of “loving the parks to death,” but to me, the frequent news that the generations behind me are losing their connection with nature and outdoor recreation seems more serious. Like it or not, many people equate our national parks with “the great outdoors.” Witness the fact that the vast majority of scenic and wildlife photos we see every day on magazine covers and postcards were taken in national parks. And rest assured that our national parks won’t get much support from people who have never been there.
I’m also thinking about the park personnel currently fighting boredom in those entrance booths who could be assigned to interpretive or enforcement work and make the parks safer and easier for us to enjoy. Those park employees would likely enjoy it more, too.
The NPS does not--publicly at least--intend to use fees to lower visitation and keep us from loving our parks to death. If this was the goal, I might have a different opinion, but even then, we have accomplished the goal. If we need to limit park use, we can do it in many other ways, like restricting vehicular traffic or reducing hiking or outfitter permits or closing down a few hotels where many people can’t afford to stay.
Interestingly, and probably unknown to many people, most national parks, the smaller, lesser-known units, don’t charge entrance fees. And they are not being loved to death. Instead, visitation is declining there, too.
We’ve been aggressive in charging fees to enter national parks and other public lands, and what has it done for us? Has it been worth it? Wouldn’t it be better to fund our national parks 100 percent from the U.S. Treasury instead of only 94 percent?
Again, before you say “no,” think about it.
[End of article]Absolutely, free National Park entrance, and end the privatization of concessions etc. I think the trend towards private concessions and entrance fees is part of the ultraconservative agenda to destroy public institutions.
I am completely willing to support the Parks and many other national programs with my tax money. Unless, of course, all budget items are handled in the same way, then the "users" could pay their own way in fruitless and costly wars.
Well put. These are public lands. By pricing poor people out of the parks, we are not only defeating the purpose stated by Teddy Roosevelt and the system's founders. We are qualifying participants in democracy based on wealth. I know the parks need money for maintenance and growth. Isn't that what taxes are for?
Comment By David Mayfield, 5-10-07I agree- if, and only if, Congress funds not just the operating budget but also the backlog of maintenance requests from the NPS. As it is now, I believe they are around $12- $15 billion behind in maintenance- not operating budget. So, if Congress won't fund them, we, the users, must help make up the difference.
Comment By Ted Weinstein, 5-10-07I'm sorry, I am an ardent environmentalist and a frequent visitor to our national parks and wilderness areas, but I couldn't disagree with Bill more. He even acknowledges "most national parks... don’t charge entrance fees.... [and] visitation is declining there, too." This is special interest whining at its most blatant. EVERYONE thinks their passions should be first priority in the federal budget and should be made available for free to everyone, whether they are lovers of museums, opera, and the list goes on. Even with recent and upcoming increases, the national park fees are a fraction of what a family pays for any other entertainment and recreation opportunity, from Disneyland to taking the kids to a matinee at the local symphony. Why on earth SHOULDN'T I pay some proportion of the cost of a resource I use that many others are not using? Ask Bill vaguely acknowledges, cutting the price of visiting Yellowstone to zero won't do a damn thing to bring poor and/or distant families to the park. As nature lovers with shared values and broad agenda, let's save our rhetorical fire for causes that absolutely require more federal commitment, instead of fighting for what is essentially special interest funding.
Comment By ak, 5-10-07How much of the current park fee total goes directly back to operating the parks? Just a question.
Comment By Geo., 5-10-07I agree with Bill again.
National parks are like public schools. Their value is that they should be open to everyone no matter what their economic circumstances may be. Are we already so poor as a nation that we can not afford to care for our parks and our schools without enacting fees?
To put Bill's number in perspective. A $159 million dollars is only a fraction of the billions we bestowed upon farmers last year. For instance in recent years cotton farmers in the US have, on average, received $1.7 billion. I would suggest supporting our national parks is more critical and vital to the nation than supporting a bunch of agri-businesses using a lot of pesticides and water in California.
ak--80 percent stays in the park where the fee was paid and the rest goes to the parent agency, the National Park Service....Bill
Comment By Gordon, 5-10-07Amen!
Now if you could only get members of Congress to pay attention to what you're saying. Hah! Fat chance! Your arguments are totally logical, and, as we're learning, logic no longer has any place in Congress.
I just do not believe that the people should be taxed for the benefit of recreationalists. Of all of the reasons for taxing the masses, playing just doesn't rank very high with me. I guess fighting a war to protect ourselves seems to me to be what was originally intended by the authority to tax. If we stuck to the basics: schools, roads, protection, & infrastructure, we wouldn't have nearly the pork we do now.
Comment By GPStone, 5-10-07Gordon... ditto amen
GP in Montana
http://www.fishcreekhouse.com
Travel costs will be an item this year, and most likely fewer fees will be collected. $3.50 gas will be the culprit.
Users shouild pay to use. That the Feds are the owner of record should not rate a free pass for all Americans. Some Americans pay a whole lot more taxes than others, so the high earners are still paying for those of lesser earning power in providing park conservation and upkeep. The rich really do support the maginal earners. Without those rich taxpayers, we have a whole lot less. I have never had much success working for poor people. I don't think free use will benefit the poor, either.
So, I don't think it wrong that we pay something to use or visit National Parks. If we realize the rich are paying way more than their share of the cost to provide us with the opportunity, that should be comfort enough to folks with marginal incomes. If they can come up with the money to travel there, a ticket to visit should not be the deal breaker.
Concessionaires do not have to get their budget from Congress by dint of political knowhow and party support. If the Park services were in the Budget, managed by the bureacracy, with union employees, work rules, the works, for seasonal workers, it would be an unmitigated disaster. I know that and you know that. And the service would be worse, and the physical infrastructure would continue to fail to meet expectations. Unless I am wrong, I believe the concessions PAY the US for that benefit, thus producing income for the Parks. If they make a profit, they pay taxes, which further support government. What is wrong with that system?
Tax collections for the US Treasury are at record rates, and the Congressional pork appropriations cannot piss money away as fast as it is coming in, and the deficit is lessening. There has to be some hope National Parks will get some increased level of needed funding. Add entry fees, concession income, and there really could be progress and gains for National Parks.
Of course, USFS WFU conflagrations might use up all the natural resource money again this year, and run another deficit by design, and that might not allow the USFWS enough money to buy shotgun shells to kill barred owls that either rape spotted owls or usurp their territory. If it isn't one thing, it is just another. I don't know if female spotted owls have the right to choose, and have to raise hybrid offspring, or not. Is there a morning after pill for owls?
Yes, this is special interest whining at it's best, and I'm afraid that with this column Bill has jumped the shark.
The paranoia that some private companies provide concessionaire services is part of af conspiracy to privatize the nation's estate approaches the Oliver Stone-grassy knoll stage.
For decades states have charged fees for hunting and fishing, and also for state park visits. But you don't see Disney, Exxon or any of your other enemies taking over those enterprises. Fact is folks, there ain't much money in recreation at the site that a large corporation can make much of a profit on. The real money is in the gear we all buy (like the nine fly rods in my garage).
I appreciate the utopian view that public lands should be free to traverse and we should foist the costs of our impacts across all taxpayers of the nation. But I don't think Congress will buy into the freeloader arguments and repeal FLREA.
I also find it odd that the anti-fee zealots who are quick to connect simple, rather nominal fees to some large corporate takeover of federal lands, never say a thing about the numerous licensed outfitters and guides who leverage our nation's God created public-owned natural resources for their private gain. Is this because the zealots don't know any better? Or is it the fact that many (most) outfitters and guides are actually politically progressive and support the right conservation groups with financial contributions and trip donations? Or is it the fact that outfitting firms have remained largely locally-owned entrerprises and defy the trend in corporate consolidation (because folks, there really isn't that much money to be made in the recreation game aside from manufacture of gear)?
Bernard: you bring up an interesting point with the gear issue. It was not the miners who made the big money, but the people who sold goods to the miners. Probably the same with recreation. The providers don't do nearly as well as the equipment suppliers. And, when it comes to that fishing rod or the box of shotgun shells, it is the Pittman-Robertson taxes on guns and ammo, and the Breaux-Wallop taxes on fishing gear that is shared with states to provide for wildlife. Add to the the taxes and fees on offshore oil and gas exploration that go to the Land and Water Conservation fund to buy private land and make it non tax paying public land to benefit wildlife and recreation. All of which is an indication of how much users do spend to visit Parks and other public lands. Your gas tax pays for the roads and a tax on the fuel producer buys land. You pay a tax on the hunting and fishing gear you use. By your use of sporting goods, you are paying for part of the support. So a gate entry fee is not a big deal. If it reduces crowding, then so much the better.
Comment By Marion, 5-11-07What I find most humourous about the feeling that recreationalists should have a free ride (not just subsidized) is that they are the ones that scream the loudest that food producers are not paying enough for their grazing leases.
There was a very telling article, last week I think it was. The FS is crying because congress has not funded the subsidy for logging where there is no more logging. That has created a shortage for the other things like trail maintenance, etc. Now why do you suppose they still need the money if it was truly logging that was causing the shortfall requiring a subsidy? When all of the ranchers are finally forced out will the "subsidies" to ranchers cause a problem becaue that money is no longer given to the FS? If recreationalists want the lands to themselves, they are going to have to pay for it.
We already pay for the Parks through taxes, why pay a user fee to subsidize commercial concessions? Seems to me this would be like owning a home, but allowing someone else to live there for free, to operate a business from the premises, keep all the profits, and enjoy all the tax breaks and benefits of of home ownership without the responsibility. The taxpayers paid for the home, built up the equity and the private businesses reap the benefits.
Public lands should be accessible to the public. It's ironic that some of you that support user fees cry rivers of tears of the supposed exclusivity of a designated wilderness area but don't have a problem with excluding those that may not be able to pony up $25-50 for a family outing. And perhaps, some advocates of no-fee entry to Parks forget to mention outfitters because we carry our own, often old an worn, equipment into the backcountry on our own backs, and can't afford (or want) the guides that cater to mostly out of state tourists.
I know it's easier to think of "recreationalists" (what exactly does that mean anyway) as GPS toting, Gore-tex clad nimrods with an unlimited budget, but many of us struggle to plan time and save money for our few precious outings. I would also guess that users of National Parks represent a greater cross section of the population than many other venues. It's not really an elite destination for the rich and famous.
There is no product or service in this country that is not subsidized ot taxed so that the real cost or value is totally obscured. Our National Parks are a heritage that transcends the low expectations of a for profit business, and represents much more than a way to pass the time. They are a national trust that we hold in common for ourselves and for posterity. Save the business principals for business. We need a vision for the future of our public lands that is a bit less myopic than just the bottom line.
Marion:
There is a significant difference between tax payers supporting public facilities like schools, parks, and the like, and subsidizing private for profit industry like livestock producers, timber companies, mining companies, and other businesses.
In most cases, these subsidies are given for exclusive use. I.e. a rancher grazing on public lands is given exclusive use of that forage and no other rancher is permitted to use that allotment. I don't get usually get "exclusive" use of a national park or anyplace else because I pay an entrance fee to use it--not that I would support such a notion anyway.
When tax dollars flow only to specific individuals who turn around and at least attempt to profit from that exclusive use, it is a subsidy and an unfair one at that.
Ranchers using private lands exclusively pay for taxes, fencing, and a lot of other things that ranchers utilizing public lands do not pay for and/or get at a reduced cost. Ditto for timber companies cutting timber on public lands. On private lands these companies have to pay taxes plus the entire cost of road construction, fire protection, etc. that a timber company using public lands avoids. Yet in both instances, the public lands welfare rancher and public lands welfare timber company is selling their product on the open market directly competing with those individuals who produce their products entirely from privately held lands. That's a subsidy.
And we wonder why they call us elitists. Our interests are so special and our motives so holy that they should be carried by the rest of society. Every other function of the government should have to fight for dollars and scrap for a piece of the budget and have the users of that program contribute, but the purity of our intentions should put us above the frey and beyond the reach of mere monetary considerations because we are so enlightened. Maybe Bill needs to take in more oxygen on those long uphill slogs on his very expensive bicycle. Of course, he can haul that contraption to Europe for thousands of dollars but ask him to drop a couple of twenties in the park kiosk and hoo boy! what sacrilege. Reminds me of the guy in front of me at the Fish and Game office last year bitching about spending twenty five bucks on a fishing licence while his hundred thousand dollar RV idled down the block with an Explorer on the tow bar.
Comment By Michael Kellett, 5-11-07I totally agree with the editorial writer. He makes a strong case for either no entrance fees or only minimal fees for recreationists.
But there is another reason why it is bad public policy to force the National Park Service to depend on recreation fees--the national parks are at as valuable for non-recreational purposes. They are huge repositories of biodiversity, carbon storehouses to help fight global warming, and vast reservoirs of clean air and water. They are the only public lands that ban logging, mining, livestock grazing, and other destructive resource extraction. On other federal public lands, even wilderness areas usually allow grazing. It's no coincidence that all of the remaining intact ecosystems in the U.S. have large national parks or wilderness areas at their core.
We should gladly support taxpayer funding to protect and maintain our national parks.
Sorry, I meant as LEAST as valuable for non-recreational purposes.
Comment By bearbait, 5-11-07George: there you go again. Mining is extraction. Logging and grazing are utilizing vegetative growth. If you eat meat, you are eating plants. If you use wood or paper in any form, you are using plants. Public vegetation, like private, grows every year. The private grazing allotment requires maintenance by the holder, of the water and fences, and other improvements. That you hold them in a poor light is just because you are you, and not because truth and reason are issues in the discussion from your side's point of view.
The very reason we have public grazing allotments is because prior to laws like the Taylor Grazing Act, anyone could use the unclaimed public domain to graze livestock. The range was being ruined by unrestricted use. The very same emotions and reasons to continue free use of the public domain were offered at the inception of that proposed legislation as are offered for free use of National Parks. The grazing was allotted to local livestock raising landowners, for a fee. No gypsy herds were allowed. The issue was the impact of herds on private land and public roads as the herds were moved from graze to graze. Big outfits were consuming private graze and showing no respect for private property, and unrestricted use of public lands was the cause. Sort of like some recreationists, including mountain bikers. That is where the exclusive use concept originated. The logging of public timber is moot. It is going to all burn, by design, and no public logs will compete with megapulp timber's wood. Environmentalists did not stop logging. They just get the credit. Big Business, the monopolies, stopped public land logging.
My grandfather was a General Land Office attorney for Oregon. He investigated and prosecuted crimes against the Public Domain, mostly phony mining claims to get timber, "round" forty trespasses, railroads not using Grant lands as agreed. He said the advent of tractors diminished the need for horses. So ranches let their horses run on the unclaimed Public Domain until they needed some to hay with in summer. When the grazing allotments were issued, all those horses had an unpaid grazing bill. Any unbranded ones were not claimed, so that they did not have to pay their graze fee. Horses cost more than two cows with a calf, and represented a serious bill. And that is where the wild horse herds came from, he told me. Unclaimed ranch horses. And if you needed a horse, you just went and caught one and broke it. If you were poor, like JR Simplot, you shot them, cooked the meat and bones in a big pot, added cull spuds, and fed hogs. With his profits, he bought teacher salary script at a serious discount, and waited around the courthouse for a foreclosue auction, and redeemed the script at full Wally. And all that before he was 18 years old. When smart guys work hard, good things happen. They can pay the entrance fee to use a National Park, use some amenities, and add to the concessionaires coffers, and indirectly, the national tax coffers to maintain the Parks.
Is this what our elitist entitlement society has come to? They deserve to have even their recreation paid for by working people!
If grazing is not comprable to schools roads, etc, how in the name of anything are you guys able to compare subsidizing your playtime to those things.
No matter what the parks ban, they allow driving, cra*ing in the woods, making new trails, etc. Already one wolf and one bear have been killed in Yellowstone since it opened.
What about the carbon footprint of all of those millions driving to NPs? Should we not only subsidze cheapskates, but also ban anyone who lives more than 110 miles away from entering them?
Sorry, but free use of NPs does nothing good. Entrance fees cost less than a tank of gas/diesel, what is next buy your fuel to get there too?
Wow. The "working people" are paying for the national parks and apparently not recreating in them, Marion? Who's responsible for the regular annual increase in visitor statistics, then? It can't be the same elitists over and over again, can it? After all, once you've donned that same Patagonia-and-North-Face-outfit to climb Grinnell Glacier what's left--or do you really think that's the way "elitists" think? What complete crap--that's right I typed it--crap isn't a swear word, Marion.
Let's face it. The National Parks are used by everyone, regardless of class. Let's move beyond the notion that only so-called "elitists" visit America's National Parks. Everyone does. The facts support increased visitation by all income levels, and anyone that lives near one of our more glamorous parks (such as Glacier, Yellowstone, Great Smoky Mountains, Everglades, or Yosemite) knows it. The notion that only your ideal "working people" are solely supporting the funding of the parks is idiocy, period. We all work for a living--no matter if you live in New Jersey or Montana, or are a banker or a logger--we all visit them. That's why there's such a backlog in basic maintenance; we're all crapping in the same bathrooms in the same campgrounds. Break away from your television once in awhile, Marion, get out in the woods, and you'll find that all sorts of people, young and old, fat and thin, left and right, are on the roads and trails in our national parks (and forests, for that matter).
I pay my taxes. Most Americans do. Therefore, we're already contributing money to our National Parks. The folks that aren't paying their fair share are those receiving subsidies. No, not welfare queens in Oakland and Chicago. And no, you can't point the finger at limousine liberals in New York City or Berkeley. They're small fry when it comes to the overall federal budget. Corporate welfare takes a larger piece of that federal pie. Yum, federal pie. Let's look closer to home, shall we? Who's receiving that massive federal subsidy in Rock Springs or Alder? How about over there in Jordan or down in Chugwater? Gee, look. It's that rancher, that logging company, that farmer. What a bunch of cheapskates. The rest of us working people--in New Jersey, California, and Georgia--are supposed to pay our taxes to support the National Parks AND those guys' livelihoods in far-flung, sparsely populated states like Montana and Wyoming; states who receive more federal dollars than they actually pay into the national treasury? I think not. Do the math, Marion. Then stop complaining. "Elitists" are actually supporting your entire life here in the Rockies.
No, Becky, you do not support my life out here. I paid for my home, I pay taxes, I have worked all of my life, and paid taxes on that income.
I will grant you that there is a fair amount of money coming into our states, partly because the federal government is the owner of most of the property. There is no property tax paid on that land, so those of us who own property in the states must pay for ours and government property too. We also have an airbase, and a huge American Indian Reservation that are owned and maintained by the US government. Perhaps you feel the folks in the states with extensive government property should pay for the whole cost of managing it, and keep our mouths shut about what we would like.
Why are you entitled to free use of an NP by charging the folks who can never come to take care of it?
Just becaue we contribute to NPs with our taxes does not mean thoe taxes pay the full cost, there fore we can either force everyone to pay more, or we can pay entrance fees if we use the parks.
I'm glad you brought up the logging companies. Are you aware that the timber industry in this country has pretty much been forced out after years of "subsidies" documented by the USFS? But guess what those same agencies are screaming their lungs out because congress has cut the "subsides" that have been funded by the government for timber companies since those companies are no longer in the forest. Now if that money was actually being used to fund timbering, why on earth would they need the funding from congress to continue for something that was no longer there?
By the way Becky, it sounds like you have missed the articles on this site about the concern over the dropping use of NPs if you think there is increased visitation.
Someone should bring foregin visitors to the revenue generation stream discussion. If you listen while in Yellowstone, you hear many languages spoken, and most of those are foreign folks who don't pay US taxes. I would think of entry fees to NPs as a sales tax, in that it allows for a universal contribution to NP upkeep and management. Or that is the issue stated for a sales tax in states with income and property taxes only. The sales tax would clip tourists for their use of services and facilities, and on a national basis, that is what the NP entry fee is all about: equality of paying to play, equitable sharing of the load.
Comment By Geo, 5-13-07Marion
The federal government does pay taxes on its holdings--called PILT payment in leiu of taxes. And in most years, this payment (when Republicans in Congress haven't cut funding for it) exceeds greatly what private land owners pay.
I first learned this when a rancher in my Montana county (Park) sold a bunch of property to the FS. The county commissioners--ignorant in an almost unbelievable way, but they were republicans so what can you expect--ranted about how the feds were taking private property from the tax base. They kept up their rant until it was learned that the PILT payments were going to be eight times greater than the taxes previously paid by the rancher on this land.
That's not so much a comment on generous PILt payments as much as it is a comment on how little ranchers, timber companies, etc. pay. I remember another rancher south of Livingston being sold for $16.5 million. In the paper it happened to mention that the taxes on that parcel were $435.00. At the time I was paying $1200 a year for my house in town (still very low compared to the rest of the country) and I can guarantee you that my house was not and still is not worth 16.5 million. But ranchers, timber companies, etc. pay very low taxes--but get to keep the windfall when they sell their property.
In some states, this is not permitted. The low taxes are designed to keep these private lands in production--but of course in most of the West anymore, the ranches and timberlands are worth far more for recreation than production. But as it stands, timber companies and rancher get to "hold" property worth millions at little expense but when they sell the property they keep the big profits.
I've seen several studies--again done in Montana--and in all of them payment from the fed government is higher than taxes on similar lands owned by private individuals.
Furthermore, on these lands, the feds pay for things like road maintanence, weed control, fire protection, etc. that the states and local governments could never afford.
Overall all western states, but particularly states with few people like Montana, Alaska and Wyoming get far more in money from the federal government than is paid in taxes by the citizens of the states. Do you think that Wyoming or Montana citizens pay for things like the airports, interstates and other federally funded interfrastructure that makes living in these states possible and enjoyable.
My apologies, Marion. I went back and checked Bill's original post and the NPS' own statistics on visitors to the National Park system in 2006, and I was definitely in the wrong there on increased visitor use. However (and you knew that was coming), my central objection to your post still stands: your so-called elitists are not the cheapskates, residents of the Rocky Mountain West are. The rest of the nation subsidizes our life here. Yes, our. I live here too. But I'm not so blind as to think that just because I own my home and pay my taxes I'm fully supporting myself. Without the other 49 states' help, and particularly those on the East and West Coasts, I wouldn't have roads to drive on, planes to fly out of here, food in the grocery store, schools for my children, and National Parks to play in. I support entrance fees to the Parks, I don't feel asking people to pay $10 or $25 is too much, especially when you consider it costs $50 just to get into the gate at Disneyland. What I don't like is your assertion that people in other states are not paying their fair share. They are. And they have a right to be concerned when the government raises user fees on public lands. The National Parks and National Forests belong to them, too.
As for the timber industry, there are a lot of reasons why it's being "forced out" of the woods: soft-wood imports from Canada, changing technology in the actual harvest itself, increased cutting on private timberlands--which prevents harvest from the public lands lest the Forest Service run afoul of environmental laws--and the rise of the timber industry in the American South, where trees can grow faster than they can in high, dry, cold Montana. Dead last on the list would be environmentalists and their lawsuits.
George, sorry to break it to you, but PILT is done, so expect your taxes to go up, mine did. By the way our taxes pay for a lot of things that are not included in agriculture land. You know ball parks, recreation halls, skating parks, etc. No one could continue to raise food if they paid residential taxes on their land. It takes a lot more land to raise food, be it plant or animal than to have a house to live in.
Becky, I don't want anyone left out of using NPs or anything else, but I firmly believe that we all should pay entrance fees, even though we alll pay for their upkeep. Bearbait made a good point, consider it a sales tax or use tax. I have brought up the issue of foreign visitors many places many times. I feel they should pay what it actually costs for park maintenance.
The general populas has no respect for what is free. The National Parks need to be protected, and fees are one way to do that. An example of one telling comparison would be WalMart after a busy day to Disneyland at any given time.
Corporate funding and it's inherent commercialism would be another way to trash the national parks with signage and branding every possible place.
MARION:
Where did PILT go?
I think it's still around, it's just that certain political leaders have chosen -- over the past decade, when Republicans have controlled either Congress or the Presidency or both -- have FAILED TO FUND IT. It's up to them, and they're selling us out.
Same thing with the program that was supposed to replace the dwindling 25 Percent Fund -- the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. What happened there? The old Congress FAILED FAILED FAILED to reauthorize it.
Contact the Public Affairs Officer on your local National Forest to find out more.
I'd say the money for our schools, roads, and bridges is being spent building schools, roads, and bridges for Iraqis. (And a lot of those folks can't even safely leave home to take advantage of that stuff.)
There's an enemy out there, but I seriously doubt it's Al Gore, Defenders of Wildlife, and "Canadian" wolves. No, it's greedy oligarchs who want to control and corporatize everything. They're trying to control our food supply, they run our government, they run our major media outlets, and now they take our young people off to invade a petro colony, chew them up, and spit them out.
Wake UP. They LIKE IT if you're distracted into thinking the Greenies are the bogiemen.
YES, the Greenie-Lefties can be annoying and insensitive and mind-boggling out of touch, but come on! They didn't kill PILT or the Secure Rural Schools Program: greedy slimes in DC who wanted to spend that money on a misadventure in Iraq did.
In principle this is a worthy idea, but persuading Congress to replace the fee revenue with regular appropriations is a problem. There are precedents for free admission. Visitors to Washington DC discover that all the Smithsonian museums are open free of charge, and so is the National Gallery of Art. Some art museums in other cities have reverted to free admission, mostly on a trial basis. They find free admission attracts more visitors and boosts ethnic diversity.
Comment By Lauren White, 5-21-07I totally agree with Bill. Also, has anyone experienced the $7.00 parking fee in some of the Forest Service areas to park and go fishing? I've run into this a couple of times in Colorado. How absurd! Or the $5.00 fee I had to pay near Sedona Ariz. just to park and hike up a rock. It's getting crazy. We're just doing different activities anymore instead of recreating on public lands.
Comment By Marion, 7-05-07I googled to try to find the article, and came across this page by Cannon from Utah, who with another was able to get it funded and even increased. Lots of interesting stuff on this link.
http://chriscannon.house.gov/Blog/?cat=3
By the way this is in response to Drover, I jsut got a notice of your post this morning.