Instagram     

Go Back   PNW Moto > PNW Moto > Adventure Riding

Adventure Riding Adventure riding, dual sports, and dirt bikes

Like Tree41Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Nov 3rd 2017, 09:20 AM   #46
 Transported's Avatar
 
  Jan 2016
  Portland

  2006 FZ1, 1999 R1
Two things stand out for me in the broadcast. The parks director thinks his entertainment competition is Disneyworld and the possible need for a day use fee and a weekly fee.

I do not see much similarity between a family going to Disneyworld and one going to Yosemite. For perhaps the majority of families in the US, Disneyworld is a very expensive, perhaps once in a lifetime commercial indulgence. Our national parks should be affordable, consistently maintained natural areas with as little commercial influence as possible. One is bling and artificial entertainment. The other is almost a spiritual experience. One is designed to make money, like junk food or pornography. The other is a public resource and bequeathed to us by our ancestors, if not our creator.

And some people travel around and just hit a highlighted park on the journey. They would not mind paying a nominal fee, say up to $30 a day. We should not chase them away by charging them as if we demanded their entire travel budget for a week. I have passed by parks I would have liked to spend an hour or two checking out before moving on. But at $50, $70, $100, not many on a budget are going to think that is doable.

Edited by Transported on Nov 3rd 2017 at 10:17 AM
Nov 3rd 2017, 11:40 PM   #47
 liberpolly's Avatar
 
  Jan 2016
  Seattle

  Ducati Diavel, Triumph Street Twin
And again - by which mysterious criteria $30 fee is "nominal" and $70 is not?
Nov 3rd 2017, 11:41 PM   #48
 liberpolly's Avatar
 
  Jan 2016
  Seattle

  Ducati Diavel, Triumph Street Twin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texasl
On the local level, we have to consider the consequences on local resources. The family which would have no problem with the $30.00 fee for entry and campground access could very well opt to visit one of our already overloaded state parks for their weekend "camping" trip. The net result is that the system pain has not been eased, merely pushed off to the local area.
But the state parks are usually not "wilderness".
Nov 4th 2017, 07:03 AM   #49
 Texasl's Avatar
Moderator
 
  Jan 2016
  Northeast Olalla

  07 Guzzi
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberpolly
But the state parks are usually not "wilderness".
I never said that they were, but they are no less wilderness than the developed campgrounds in many national parks.

For many, it is not the "wilderness" experience that they are looking for as much as it is merely the escape from the concrete jungle of the city. Earlier this year I was going rock climbing at Mt Erie, so I scored a tent site at Deception Pass state park. To me, who lives in a semi rural area in the middle of 5 acres, it was like tenting in the 7-11 parking lot, but for the hundreds of people who were there as an escape from the urban jungle, just being amongst the trees with access to some moderate hiking trails and water views it must have been a fantastically memorable experience.

To get back on target, my point was that an increase in access fees at the national park level can drive the people who are on the budgetary cusp to more economical alternatives for their short stay adventures.
Thumperpilot and tod701 like this.
Nov 4th 2017, 08:45 AM   #50
 Transported's Avatar
 
  Jan 2016
  Portland

  2006 FZ1, 1999 R1
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberpolly
And again - by which mysterious criteria $30 fee is "nominal" and $70 is not?
By people who are on a budget criteria?

We are already paying taxes to maintain parks, like we pay taxes to support our libraries. It is not acceptable to additionally put an entrance fee at the library door. And yet we now deem it acceptable to put an entrance fee at the national park gate.

And now we want to raise it to the level that only the most afluent vacationers can afford. We all must pay our federal taxes to support a public resource that many are going to be priced out of ever enjoying.

The park director again compared the cost of going to a park for a week to what he is nonplussed about spending for a night at the movies for his family: $60. I don't personally know a lot of families who spend $60 to treat their family to a movie with refreshments. I think the director has to stop thinking people in his tax bracket are his typical consumer.
Thumperpilot likes this.
Nov 4th 2017, 09:01 AM   #51
 MotoDan's Avatar
 
  Apr 2016
  Olympia

  2014 KTM 690 / BMW R1150 GS
I'm thinking a Family with kids will pay $60 + with refreshments on a night out at the movies, MAGA 20/20
Nov 4th 2017, 07:07 PM   #52
 tod701's Avatar
 
  Jan 2016
  Stanwood

For me, the repugnant part is it appears as though the primary intent is to reduce visitorship with a small revenue gain as frosting on the cake.
albatrosscafe likes this.
Nov 4th 2017, 07:49 PM   #53
 
  Apr 2016
  WA

Quote:
Originally Posted by tod701
For me, the repugnant part is it appears as though the primary intent is to reduce visitorship with a small revenue gain as frosting on the cake.
Devil's advocate, would it be so bad if the line to get into Mt. Rainier were not a 2-3 hour wait? Just to do the conga line up the hill at 10mph.
Sentinel likes this.
Nov 4th 2017, 11:19 PM   #54
 liberpolly's Avatar
 
  Jan 2016
  Seattle

  Ducati Diavel, Triumph Street Twin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texasl
To get back on target, my point was that an increase in access fees at the national park level can drive the people who are on the budgetary cusp to more economical alternatives for their short stay adventures.
Which seems to be a good thing for both the people and for the wilderness in the national parks, no?
Nov 4th 2017, 11:21 PM   #55
 liberpolly's Avatar
 
  Jan 2016
  Seattle

  Ducati Diavel, Triumph Street Twin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Transported
By people who are on a budget criteria?
One more time, now with feeling: why do you think $30 is nominal and $70 is not? Try to use math.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Transported
We are already paying taxes to maintain parks, like we pay taxes to support our libraries. It is not acceptable to additionally put an entrance fee at the library door. And yet we now deem it acceptable to put an entrance fee at the national park gate.
And yet you seem to approve of $30 fee?
Nov 4th 2017, 11:31 PM   #56
 liberpolly's Avatar
 
  Jan 2016
  Seattle

  Ducati Diavel, Triumph Street Twin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Transported
The park director again compared the cost of going to a park for a week to what he is nonplussed about spending for a night at the movies for his family: $60. I don't personally know a lot of families who spend $60 to treat their family to a movie with refreshments. I think the director has to stop thinking people in his tax bracket are his typical consumer.
Two adults: $13.69*2 = $27.38
Two kids: $10.69*2=21.38
Total: $48.76
Which leaves them $11.24 for refreshments, or $2.81 each.

For comparison, even small popcorn is $6. So to fit in $60 budget, both adults and children have to share two popcorns, and drink tap water.

Math, how does it work?
Nov 5th 2017, 12:47 AM   #57
 Transported's Avatar
 
  Jan 2016
  Portland

  2006 FZ1, 1999 R1
The point is a lot of families find that price prohibitive, as they would the new park entrance fees. So they do Netflix or Redbox or the library movies and popcorn at home. Or go to the $4 second-run theaters I attend most of the time.
Nov 5th 2017, 12:57 AM   #58
 Transported's Avatar
 
  Jan 2016
  Portland

  2006 FZ1, 1999 R1
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberpolly
One more time, now with feeling: why do you think $30 is nominal and $70 is not? Try to use math.



And yet you seem to approve of $30 fee?
Nominal means it is not fee for servce but some agreed on fee that serves whatever purpose the administrators feel is necessary. I said no more than $30 at the high end but preferably less to not exclude based on ability to pay. But I was permitting some leeway for things I had not considered, like heavy use and waiting access times. But a better way to deal with that is probably a lottery system or just a scheduling system as with camping spaces.

Edited by Transported on Nov 5th 2017 at 01:04 AM
Nov 5th 2017, 07:48 AM   #59
 Texasl's Avatar
Moderator
 
  Jan 2016
  Northeast Olalla

  07 Guzzi
Short answer: no

Quote:
Originally Posted by liberpolly
Which seems to be a good thing for both the people and for the wilderness in the national parks, no?
You must have a much different, and rather superficial, definition of what is a good thing for the average citizen, as well as a very limited tactical view on wilderness preservation.

Let's look at the whole concept of the "wilderness" that our hypothetical family under discussion actually experiences and impacts. While they do enjoy the opportunity to drive, hike, and camp amongst the huge trees, the areas to which they are primarily restricted are by no means truly wilderness. Maintained campsites, toilet facilities, wide trails that can actually meet ADA standards, etc. should be a huge tell that it is not actually wilderness. It is wild country, but not wilderness. Those corridors into the national parks that a vast majority of visitors see are actually managed lands, albeit land that is hopefully managed in a minimal manner. The people using those corridors, as well as the corridors themselves, need to be protected from the ravages of nature, so dangerous trees are taken out, check dams to reroute runoff are constructed, and trails are designed to allow controlled access and viewing.

The vast majority of visitors are quite satisfied to stay on the beaten track and "ooh" and "awe" over the wonders that are artfully meted out, with no urge to actually venture into the wilder, more closely wilderness, areas of the parks. Furthermore, circling back to our families under consideration, which I will call the "Joe Sixpacks" of the world, they are not going to be able to pony up the money to gear up and head into the back country. Putting a fiscal tool in place to "protect" the "wilderness" in place would be wastefully unnecessary because, as stated before, the Joe Sixpacks of the world are not leaving the managed and developed corridors anyway. The people who are actually going into the back country have already committed hundreds, if not thousands of dollars to the project, and by far and away have already bought their annual pass, thereby being fiscally invisible to the proposed new fee structure.

Anyone who is truly committed to the preservation of our wild areas should not be willing to financially seal the Joe Sixpacks of the world out of those areas. Doing that does absolutely nothing to bring home the message that these areas deserve preservation or establish the feeling of ownership in those excluded, it does exactly the opposite. It gives rise to the attitude of "If they won't let me in, why should I be worried about protecting their playground?" and fosters short sightedness in policy advocacy. Remember, the average person votes the "What's in it for me?" (WIIFM)ticket as much as they vote with their wallets. Never underestimate the power of magical family memories to get future generations involved in the preservation of our finite wild areas.

Forcing the Joe Sixpacks of the world to settle for the crowded, heavily taxed state park system by putting up financial barriers to visiting the national parks does nothing good. It over burdens the state park system, widens the economic divide, making those less financially well off feel like lesser members of society, and robs our national park system of some of the grass roots support that is so desperately needed.
Nov 5th 2017, 08:36 AM   #60
 Sentinel's Avatar
 
  Jun 2016
  Poor Tortured

  2015 Kawasaki Concours 14 - The Origame Sea-Dragon
Money as the sole criterion for - everything - is just a fucked up value system.

I like the Black Mirror system much better.

Reply

  PNW Moto > PNW Moto > Adventure Riding

Tags
fee, increase, massive, parks



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2017 Parks Canada - Free Discovery Pass bcj Ride Reports 16 Feb 24th 2017 03:43 PM
Massive Coronal Ejection KillerMondoDude Mechanical and Technical 2 Mar 6th 2016 08:28 PM
OR speed limit increase Willow Motorcycles 4 Mar 1st 2016 09:46 AM




Copyright © 2017 PNW Moto. All rights reserved.