Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What about a connection to nature that is deeply ingrained in our souls, Views you will remember for the rest of your Life, and maybe if you are really lucky, seeing some baby deer, elk, or bears.
That is Priceless and Always Will Be.
I think you misunderstood me. I agree it's priceless, which is why it should be more accessible to people than amusement parks and cost less. What I'm saying is the lakes/mountains/forests were already beautiful without mankind and they're beautiful now at $30. What I'm saying is $70 goes beyond basic upkeep of the parks; it's the kind of money you give when someone is building something new with much more maintenance required. So unless the feds have figured out how to create brand new mountain ranges and streams and meadows, they're ripping us off.
I think you misunderstood me. I agree it's priceless, which is why it should be more accessible to people than amusement parks and cost less. What I'm saying is the lakes/mountains/forests were already beautiful without mankind and they're beautiful now at $30. What I'm saying is $70 goes beyond basic upkeep of the parks; it's the kind of money you give when someone is building something new with much more maintenance required. So unless the feds have figured out how to create brand new mountain ranges and streams and meadows, they're ripping us off.
Oh, I got the satire, I just added more food for thought, to the message, which was cute. I see you had more to add again, yes, I find this topic close to the heart also, after all,
We are not the Owners, only the Caretakers.
Congress needs to open its purse strings up and pay to make our national parks safe and the most pleasurable they can be.
We own some of the best places in the world, and not a one of them has a gate that locks us out of them. They are the envy of the rest of the planet in their diversity and their abundance. They refresh our souls, our pride in our nation, and are wonders to behold.
We should treat them like the crown jewels they are, and return them to their best condition. And once there, keep them at their best. It's money well spent for us all.
I live very close to Yellowstone Park, and I go there often. I've made trips into Yellowstone and Teton National Parks all my life, and have stayed in them for weeks, sometimes.
When I was a kid, Yellowstone was only a summer place. But now, it's year-round, and draws as many people in the winter as in the summer.
Um what? You can't be serious. Yellowstone has just one main road open for cars in the winter, the road between Gardiner and Cooke City that skirts the extreme northern end of the park. In order to see the any of the interior of the park, like where all the geothermic features are, you have to book a tour on a snow-coach or a guided snow-mobile trip whose numbers are a tiny fraction of the crush of cars in the park in the non-winter months. I regularly visit Yellowstone in the winter and enjoy the relative solitude. I won't even go near the park in the spring, fall or summer because of all the crowds. It's insane!
EDIT: Oh, and I don't think they plow Grand Teton at all, do they?
I suspect attendance numbers will go down, which will justify even more massive cuts and/or closures. I wonder if it will push more people to buy passes, or whether the pass price will increase as well.
The parks are busier than ever; much lodging booked months in advance.
I particularly am impressed with all the foreign visitors.
My golden pass is the best bargain I ever got!
The real question is how the heck does the park service manage to lose money? The National Parks have line after line, car after car, handing out $30 a crack as fast as the attendants take it. They aren't like a private business-they don't pay for the land they are operating on, let alone the actual natural attractions. And for the most part the park is a series of (often poorly maintained) roads, parking areas and hiking trails. Not exactly big-money investments. You have campgrounds and hotels, but they are also huge, overpriced cash cows.
How exactly does the US government manage to lose money on that? Take money, clean some toilets, empty some trash cans. And even at $30 a vehicle (as a motorcyclist I do find it annoying to pay as much riding solo as an entire family in a camper, but so be it) they can't turn a profit? ONLY the government could lose money on a deal like this. Remember when the US government even managed to lose money running a wh*rehouse?
Want to cut costs? Fire the government drones, contract out the maintenance and manage the money responsibly.
Is it a single visit pass that will cost $70 ? Is the pass for a single person or an adult w/ a child? Or 2 adults and several children?
For sure, all this could make a big difference if a family of four was able to visit 4 national parks on one leg of a vacation loop and 4 more on the return portion of the loop. Paying for 8 single visits would be a lot more expensive for them all.
I know the Park Service has been pushing the seasonal passes harder than the single visit passes, and a seasonal pass will admit the holder into any national park for any number of times during the season. They are a great way of increasing the visitation of some of the less-visited parks, or planning side trips around a single park; the shortest route from one place to another is often through a park, rather than around it.
In Yellowstone, for example, a park visitor could leave the park's boundaries and drive over the Beartooth highway, one of America's top scenic drives, go to Cody, Wyoming to view all the historic western memorabilia there, re-enter the park at the Cody entrance, see some of it, and exit at West Yellowstone to do some fishing, and then go through the park again and take the southern exit to go home.
All on one pass. And then stop at Bryce Canyon and see it on the way home, along with several others. At $80, that's a real cheap admission price for all that access.
The National Parks are there for all people to enjoy. Obviously, it will become a place that only those with discretionary income can afford to visit.
The goal of the new GOP is to turn as many people against the parks as possible. That way they'll have an excuse do away with them entirely and sell the land to private interests. Anything labeled "public" is potentially on the chopping block as far as the Trump administration/alt-right is concerned.
The real question is how the heck does the park service manage to lose money? The National Parks have line after line, car after car, handing out $30 a crack as fast as the attendants take it. They aren't like a private business-they don't pay for the land they are operating on, let alone the actual natural attractions. And for the most part the park is a series of (often poorly maintained) roads, parking areas and hiking trails. Not exactly big-money investments. You have campgrounds and hotels, but they are also huge, overpriced cash cows.
How exactly does the US government manage to lose money on that? Take money, clean some toilets, empty some trash cans. And even at $30 a vehicle (as a motorcyclist I do find it annoying to pay as much riding solo as an entire family in a camper, but so be it) they can't turn a profit? ONLY the government could lose money on a deal like this. Remember when the US government even managed to lose money running a wh*rehouse?
Want to cut costs? Fire the government drones, contract out the maintenance and manage the money responsibly.
lol, ever work in the fed gov? The area where they figure out all the budgeting? Just from my very limited experience, it is like they want to spend for everything other than their core mission, then it makes it easier to cry for money when this core mission does not have funding.
I have seen them tighten the hell out of funds for critical core mission areas, all the while fully funding extracurricular items that are many deviations from the core mission. They love funding things that are "in the face" of the public. So in trying to think of an example for parks, it would be like they would yank money for road and trail maintenance, just so they can fund some new visitor center (complete with all the gaudy tech, which does nothing fundamentally difference than the old one) and some little stations along view points that will broadcast something to an app on a smart phone.
Then, they will need more funds to maintain those items, and craft questionnaires to assist in their legitimacy of doing all of this stuff.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
