PDA

View Full Version : You pay to go into the wilderness?



LiamNZ
06-24-2009, 08:10
http://www.nps.gov/bibe/planyourvisit/feesandreservations.htm

I personally don't live in the USA, but I was looking at the website of the NPS (specifically the Big Bend National Park) and realised you nee to pay to visit the wilderness! How redicolous is that,that you have to pay to visit the wilderness, away from civilisation. I never knew such a thing existed.

I read an online article by Michael J. Medler, and here's the link:

http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/article/viewFile/173/213

Fiddleback
06-24-2009, 08:28
Some feel that 'user fees' are more appropriate, and economically more efficient, than taxation on all citizens. But in the end, the fees come no where close to supporting the areas and there's some question as to whether they even return to the area where they are collected.

Still, there's something to be said about the rationale that people treat 'things' better if they have a recognizable cost attached than they do if 'things' are free, i.e., the tradgedy of the commons.

All environmental problems, including conservation and protection of parks, are economic ones at their heart. Recognizing, quantifying and applying cost is one of the most difficult issues...

FB

JokerJersey
06-24-2009, 08:28
If you went out into the middle of the wilderness without paying a fee, would you expect a park ranger to drive out to where you were for free? Gas costs money, the truck costs money, the insurances on the truck costs money, the salary for the park ranger...more money. The upkeep and repair of the trails and roads to get to you...more money. The upkeep and repair of the ranger station, ranger vehicle, communication equipment...more money. What about the map you picked up when you came into the park? The website you looked at to get information about the trail? What about the trash can you dumped your garbage in? The salary of the guy who empties that trash can? The restrooms you stopped in heading in to the park? The salary of the guy who cleans/empties the restrooms/portable toilets? The safe parking lot where you left your car? It all costs money, money, and more money.

How do you pay for all that? Fees.

Sure, some of them seem a bit much and we all know not all of it goes towards maintenance of the park, but that is what it is SUPPOSED to be for. Besides all the varied things most of us can think of, try this on for size. This past weekend, I was down on Eastern Neck Island in Maryland. It's a national wildlife refuge that is on the Atlantic Flyway, the main migratory path for birds on the eastern seaboard of the US. Due to loss of habitat and to keep the birds away from potential harmful pesticides used in commercial farming, the park service plants and maintains hundreds of acres of feed corn for the birds to eat on thier trip south. Granted, we are the ones who destroyed the habitat in the first place, so it is only right that we help repair the damage we've done, but who pays for that? Who pays for the land, the tractors, the seeds, the labor? Fees from the park service and taxes.

A hundred thousand more tiny details like that all go into it, things that people like you or I would never think about. Sure, we all complain when we have to cough up $20 for a campsite, but maybe if we stopped and thought about all they do with that money...trying not to focus on any of the potential corruption in the system...perhaps we wouldn't complain so much.

mudhead
06-24-2009, 08:49
You seek National Forest or BLM areas in the western states.

I have a $40 sticker on the truck, that entitles me to walk on the other side of my property line and look back. I wouldn't mind, if I did not see wasted funds.

I am glad the park is there.

Alligator
06-24-2009, 09:03
Big Bend is a National Park, which very often have fees. I think most do. However, the US also has Wilderness Areas which have different rules for management.

The wilderness article cited in the OP is 12 years old. There are some user fees at National Forests, but I don't know how prevalent user fees are at Wilderness Areas? Could be some at parking areas?

There are multiple types of public use lands in the US governed by different sets of rules.

Jayboflavin04
06-24-2009, 09:07
I dontate money on my state return to the state parks. I have also payed for camping at unmonitored campsite(i could have probably got away with not paying). The NPS is more than likely so under-funded. Pretty soon the "oil" people and "loggers" are going to be knocking at their door with alot more dollars than you and I have.

Nean
06-24-2009, 09:14
http://www.nps.gov/bibe/planyourvisit/feesandreservations.htm

I personally don't live in the USA, but I was looking at the website of the NPS (specifically the Big Bend National Park) and realised you nee to pay to visit the wilderness! How redicolous is that,that you have to pay to visit the wilderness, away from civilisation. I never knew such a thing existed.

I read an online article by Michael J. Medler, and here's the link:

http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/article/viewFile/173/213

Have you ever done any tramping in your country??!:D Never heard of fees??!:confused: Your either joking or trolling...:eek:

LiamNZ
06-24-2009, 09:36
Have you ever done any tramping in your country??!:D Never heard of fees??!:confused: Your either joking or trolling...:eek:

Yes, New Zealand has some great tramping tracks :D, and I've done some of them. Sure there are some fees, for well maintained campsites and huts, most of which have wooden beds and matresses etc, and some even have stoves. But paying to enter land in which you own (the citizens) is another thing entirely. :-?

I'm not joking, nor trolling. ;)

Alligator
06-24-2009, 09:57
No tax money in NZ goes to your national parks?

Ridge Rat
06-24-2009, 09:57
Most National parks are free if you hike in. Its more of a parking fee than anything else. I usually dont mind paying. Its cheaper than a hotel and/or amusement park and the return is 50 times better.

LiamNZ
06-24-2009, 10:01
No tax money in NZ goes to your national parks?

Of course some does.

Alligator
06-24-2009, 10:04
Then you have paid for your park from the back end. Just not up front.

MOWGLI
06-24-2009, 10:05
I don't mind paying a reasonable fee to obtain a backcountry permit in a wilderness area. I have done so a number of times. Take the John Muir Trail for example. If there wasn't a permit system, this beautiful trail that crosses 5 or 6 different wilderness areas would be overrun by hikers and equestrians. That permit system has to be managed. That takes dedicated staff and costs money.

Anybody remember this old sticker? :D

http://www.bumperart.com/ProductImages/2004011319_Display-35.gif

LiamNZ
06-24-2009, 10:07
Then you have paid for your park from the back end. Just not up front.

Yeah, but I guess physically paying specifically to go into land you own yourself (citizens of your country) is more of a psychological thing, I guess it's almost like an insult.

Anyway, to be honest your parks and the fees that are charged aren't really my business at the moment, nor do they affect me, however I just wanted to give people links to some articles so they can form their own opinions. ;)

Nean
06-24-2009, 10:10
Yes, New Zealand has some great tramping tracks :D, and I've done some of them. Sure there are some fees, for well maintained campsites and huts, most of which have wooden beds and matresses etc, and some even have stoves. But paying to enter land in which you own (the citizens) is another thing entirely. :-?

I'm not joking, nor trolling. ;)

And the places you pay here have services as well.:-? It's not like everywhere you go you have to pay a fee but a lot of our National Parks have amenities far beyond the small fee required.;)

Why do you think you are entitled to free, :confused: how old are you?:eek:


:D:Dsorry, thats me trolling:o:o

LiamNZ
06-24-2009, 10:17
And the places you pay here have services as well.:-? It's not like everywhere you go you have to pay a fee but a lot of our National Parks have amenities far beyond the small fee required.;)

Why do you think you are entitled to free, :confused: how old are you?:eek:


:D:Dsorry, thats me trolling:o:o

Did I ever once say I'm entitled to free National Parks? And anyway, they're not free at all. Taxpayers pay for their upkeep. I wouldn't have a problem for that, it's just like people paying to maintain their roads etc, which are fundamentally the assets of the country.

I just find it interesting that the government takes money away from taxpayers to maintain the parks (among other things) and then charges you further fees to use the assets that you (the citizens) own and have paid to be maintained (for you to use).

DAJA
06-24-2009, 10:20
And the places you pay here have services as well.:-? It's not like everywhere you go you have to pay a fee but a lot of our National Parks have amenities far beyond the small fee required.;)

Why do you think you are entitled to free, :confused: how old are you?:eek:


:D:Dsorry, thats me trolling:o:o


The best hiking i've found in Canada is on Crown Land (land owned by the people), and there are zero fee's... National or Provincial Parks on the other hand do have fee's but also provide services that attract people.... Another reason to avoid parks and stick to public lands... No amenities means no crowds and a whole giant forest all to yourself! :banana

JokerJersey
06-24-2009, 10:27
You mention paying taxes for the construction and maintenance of roadways, but what about the bridge tolls or toll-roads where you have to pay extra for using that feature? Bridges and high-speed highways with amenties cost more to maintain than an average country road. So, the taxes go towards ALL of the roads in one lump, then individual roads/bridges impose a toll to affect repairs outside of what the taxes can cover.

Same thing applies here. Part of the overall taxes paid goes towards the maintenance of the park system, but nowhere near enough is allocated to take care of everything that needs to be done. In the end, the balance of the funds must be obtained from those who actually USE the services provided, which, in truth, is only fair.

Nean
06-24-2009, 10:28
Did I ever once say I'm entitled to free National Parks? And anyway, they're not free at all. Taxpayers pay for their upkeep. I wouldn't have a problem for that, it's just like people paying to maintain their roads etc, which are fundamentally the assets of the country.

I just find it interesting that the government takes money away from taxpayers to maintain the parks (among other things) and then charges you further fees to use the assets that you (the citizens) own and have paid to be maintained (for you to use).

Yeah, we get taxed on top of taxes.:mad: Got toll roads too.:( And if you own a small business- lordy be!:eek: Be happy you live down under; I love NZ btw. :banana
Please shoot up here first chance you get and straighten this mess out for us, won't you? I'm sure it would be appreciated.:)

DAJA
06-24-2009, 10:31
I just find it interesting that the government takes money away from taxpayers to maintain the parks (among other things) and then charges you further fees to use the assets that you (the citizens) own and have paid to be maintained (for you to use).

It's common these days.... I have no problem paying my taxes, so long as that money goes to benifit the people through social programs, schools, roads, hospitals etc.... But I have a huge problem when they cut these programs so they can bail out banks and auto companys.

I remember reading an article back in the mid to late 90s where the Royal Bank of Canada was proclaiming to have a "crisis of profit", meaning they where making so much money they couldn't lend it out fast enough to continue to make "their" money profitable... Hmmm, to bad these company's that are begging for money today didn't have to follow a budget like us ordinary folks and plan for hard times... I guess they already understood that the friendly tax payer would happily foot the bill for their bad decisions...

So as we hand billions over to billionaires, we get to watch as our roads crumble, social programs get hacked to peices, school cuts, and hospital wait times increase... But no worries our wealthy are being well looked after..

Alligator
06-24-2009, 10:31
Did I ever once say I'm entitled to free National Parks? And anyway, they're not free at all. Taxpayers pay for their upkeep. I wouldn't have a problem for that, it's just like people paying to maintain their roads etc, which are fundamentally the assets of the country.

I just find it interesting that the government takes money away from taxpayers to maintain the parks (among other things) and then charges you further fees to use the assets that you (the citizens) own and have paid to be maintained (for you to use).It's just semantics. The fee is another way the government takes money from you, similar to what Nean is saying. Some might argue it's a better way because the money is being taken from people using the resource. General taxes aren't covering the upkeep.

Nean
06-24-2009, 10:33
The best hiking i've found in Canada is on Crown Land (land owned by the people), and there are zero fee's... National or Provincial Parks on the other hand do have fee's but also provide services that attract people.... Another reason to avoid parks and stick to public lands... No amenities means no crowds and a whole giant forest all to yourself! :banana

That does sound wonderful.

The Frank Church Wilderness is one of my favorites in this particular country. Don't recall paying a fee either.

Alligator
06-24-2009, 10:34
You can walk the AT for free though:sun.

MOWGLI
06-24-2009, 10:34
The Frank Church Wilderness is one of my favorites in this particular country. Don't recall paying a fee either.

Idaho is on my lengthy short list.

Alligator
06-24-2009, 10:36
You just might have to pay to sleep in a few places though;). Now I'm trolling a bit.

Alligator
06-24-2009, 10:38
"Free" as in LiamNZ's definition BTW. The AT is supported by volunteers and taxes.

Nean
06-24-2009, 10:49
It's common these days.... I have no problem paying my taxes, so long as that money goes to benifit the people through social programs, schools, roads, hospitals etc.... But I have a huge problem when they cut these programs so they can bail out banks and auto companys.

I remember reading an article back in the mid to late 90s where the Royal Bank of Canada was proclaiming to have a "crisis of profit", meaning they where making so much money they couldn't lend it out fast enough to continue to make "their" money profitable... Hmmm, to bad these company's that are begging for money today didn't have to follow a budget like us ordinary folks and plan for hard times... I guess they already understood that the friendly tax payer would happily foot the bill for their bad decisions...

So as we hand billions over to billionaires, we get to watch as our roads crumble, social programs get hacked to peices, school cuts, and hospital wait times increase... But no worries our wealthy are being well looked after..

THAT does it! :eek:

I'ma going hikin'!:banana

Ever think of getting into politics DAJA? Maybe you could make a difference?:-?
Canada does sound too much like the States. :datz I don't know about you, but I'm moving to NZ as soon as I get done w/ my hike! :D Liam, gotta couch? I'll need a free place to stay.:o

Homer&Marje
06-24-2009, 11:56
get sum good maps, and go bushwacking away from people. no one charge u athing

Blissful
06-24-2009, 12:00
I was happy to pluck down $80 for a general park pass to see some awesome scenery on my vacation. The people from other countries (and we saw a lot) could only marvel at our parks and also how clean they were. A couple from Germany we talked to just loved being here and how fortunate we are to have such beauty. And none complained about fees.

Bidwell
06-24-2009, 12:28
$80 for a yearly pass... I have one and even if I don't visit any parks, its a good donation. 2 years ago, myself and two of my buddies went for a 7 day backcountry trip in Glacier NP... total fees between the 3 of us was like $140 for the week. A cheap alternative to using those vacation days for a trip to Cancun or Miami!

I got state/national forests in my backyard (literally) and are free/cheap to roam, so if you're too cheap to check out National Parks, go there :)

dperry
06-24-2009, 12:53
My feeling has always been that if you can afford to get to the park in the first place, you can afford to pay the fee. No one's getting shut out of the parks just because they can't pay the fee.

mudhead
06-24-2009, 13:01
My feeling has always been that if you can afford to get to the park in the first place, you can afford to pay the fee. That makes sense.


No one's getting shut out of the parks just because they can't pay the fee.

Unless they collect at the entry. The NP here got stimulus money to build an additional toll booth. Odd.

Still plenty of backdoors, but this is an "urbanized" park.


Hikers and bikers pay a smaller fee than vehicles if they wish to walk or roll in.

Course, all the locals know what time the tollbooths open...

Rockhead
06-24-2009, 13:20
http://www.nps.gov/bibe/planyourvisit/feesandreservations.htm

I personally don't live in the USA, but I was looking at the website of the NPS (specifically the Big Bend National Park) and realised you nee to pay to visit the wilderness! How redicolous is that,that you have to pay to visit the wilderness, away from civilisation. I never knew such a thing existed.

I read an online article by Michael J. Medler, and here's the link:

http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/article/viewFile/173/213

In addition to helping support the park (as many here have pointed out), fees and passes are charged in some parks to regulate the number of visitors, in short to keep then from being loved to death. Remember, the U.S. is a country of 300+ million people and not everybody knows how to behave responsibly in the wild.

DAJA
06-24-2009, 13:48
In addition to helping support the park (as many here have pointed out), fees and passes are charged in some parks to regulate the number of visitors, in short to keep then from being loved to death. Remember, the U.S. is a country of 300+ million people and not everybody knows how to behave responsibly in the wild.

So how does a fee determine those who know how to behave and those who don't?

Alligator
06-24-2009, 13:53
So how does a fee determine those who know how to behave and those who don't?It doesn't determine behavior, unless the money goes to backcountry education. The permits regulate the number of people.

Alligator
06-24-2009, 13:57
There is information on the permit as well, but who reads those:eek:.

skinewmexico
06-24-2009, 14:14
Yeah, but I guess physically paying specifically to go into land you own yourself (citizens of your country) is more of a psychological thing, I guess it's almost like an insult.

We get insulted a lot anymore. Amazes me that so many people depend what is essentially a revenue stream, to offset government waste and stupidity in other areas. And the greatest trick is getting people to believe it! Not the National Park system envisioned by Teddy, that's for sure. But there are millions of acres not in National Parks.

Frosty
06-24-2009, 14:26
I personally don't live in the USA, but I was looking at the website of the NPS (specifically the Big Bend National Park) and realised you nee to pay to visit the wilderness! How redicolous is that,that you have to pay to visit the wilderness, away from civilisation.


I'm not joking, nor trolling. ;)No, if you think that your natural areas are maintained, serviced and staffed without money, they you are either joking or a fool.

It's just that different countries have different means of coming up with the money.




I personally don't live in the USA, but I was looking at the website of the NPS (specifically the Big Bend National Park) and realised you nee to pay to visit the wilderness! How redicolous is that,that you have to pay to visit the wilderness, away from civilisation.How ridiculous is it that in your country people have to pay for wilderness that they don't even visit?

Face it, the money needs to come from somewhere. Charging the people who use the services makes sense. So does charging everyone whether they use it or not. It all depends on how a given country perfers to do it.

mudhead
06-24-2009, 16:47
So how does a fee determine those who know how to behave and those who don't?

It does weed out some deviants that would rather spend the $ on something else.

freefall
06-24-2009, 17:10
The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) of 2005 replaced the expiring Fee Demonstration Act of 1996 and states that 100% of fees collected stay within the National Park Service and 80% stays with the park collecting the fee. http://www.nps.gov/feedemo/

So if you pay $10 to enter SNP, $8 stays there and the other $2 gets pooled with the other 20% collected at other parks and is redistributed within the park system to meet needs not covered otherwise.

I personally like this system as the parks that collect the most money have the most users and thus higher costs for maintenance, staffing etc... but does not totally overlook the under-utilized parks and recreational areas.

rootball
06-24-2009, 21:55
Double taxation is more like quadruple taxation in the US. We are taxed for our parks and wildernesses - and then we have to pay to use them. Come on over and join us - don't forget your checkbook.

Wise Old Owl
06-24-2009, 22:34
Wow, hey I am not going to point fingers or owl claws, but when it comes to understand state park fees or “other crap” a couple of years ago we were on the same fence. Today after “listening” to Rush. And keep in mind I don’t think he is right, or left or FOS. There is a problem here in this thread.

First a fee never covers anything when we are talking about the gov.
Second,


The American gov always operates at a LOSS, Amtrack, Postal Service, Medicare

It was never to make money Period/

LiamNZ
06-24-2009, 22:56
No, if you think that your natural areas are maintained, serviced and staffed without money, they you are either joking or a fool.

It's just that different countries have different means of coming up with the money.


How ridiculous is it that in your country people have to pay for wilderness that they don't even visit?

Face it, the money needs to come from somewhere. Charging the people who use the services makes sense. So does charging everyone whether they use it or not. It all depends on how a given country perfers to do it.

If it makes you feel better, feel free to believe that I am troll/fool.

Please stop twisting my words. I never said the parks can be serviced/staffed without money. I'm saying that charging fees directly to enter your own national park, which you, as a citizen partly own, seems stupid, and like an insult. Sure, taking money from taxes I find fair, as you, and the rest of the citizens are paying to maintain the assets that they own.

But charging you to enter your own property? A different matter entirely.


How ridiculous is it that in your country people have to pay for wilderness that they don't even visit?


New Zealand prides itself on it's clean, green image and this is what attracts a lot of tourists. Many businesses and therefore individuals that have payed taxes to maintain parks get lots of business from our image.

Having to pay to go into the wilderness would spoil the experience for me. I'd feel like (as said in the document in the OP) I was visiting a theme park. And that's not what I want to do when I visit the wilderness. I want to experience it.

Dogwood
06-24-2009, 22:58
http://www.nps.gov/bibe/planyourvisit/feesandreservations.htm

I personally don't live in the USA, but I was looking at the website of the NPS (specifically the Big Bend National Park) and realised you nee to pay to visit the wilderness! How redicolous is that,that you have to pay to visit the wilderness, away from civilisation. I never knew such a thing existed.

I read an online article by Michael J. Medler, and here's the link:

http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/article/viewFile/173/213


I certainly can't get to the bottom of intelligently or adequately detailing where specific tax money and fees are distributed or allocated, but I don't look at it as paying to visit the wilderness. I look at it as paying for roads, maintenance, services, staffing, etc. I also agree with Frosty that stated different countries have different ways of paying for these "improvements' or "conveniences." in front country "wilderness" areas. I don't know where you are from, and you may not be aware of it, but I'm sure your country runs its parks by money that it has received from you.

No, if you think that your natural areas are maintained, serviced and staffed without money, then you are either joking or a fool.

Tinker
06-24-2009, 23:04
If it makes you feel any better, I've never seen any wilderness on the east cost of the USA. It's all been logged within the past 100 years, excepting for pockets too expensive to get logging machinery to.
The illusion of wilderness, in a way is a theme park, and the dollars collected are probably used up in litter pickup and unwarrented "rescue" missions of unprepared touristas going for a walk in the woods that ends up being a little more uncomfortable than they bargained for. I can't say I don't mind paying for it, but that's just the way it is. Many of the parking areas where fees are charged have overused trails which I avoid like the plague during the peak of tourist season.

Frosty
06-24-2009, 23:12
If it makes you feel better, feel free to believe that I am troll/fool.

Please stop twisting my words. I never said the parks can be serviced/staffed without money. I'm saying that charging fees directly to enter your own national park, which you, as a citizen partly own, seems stupid, and like an insult. Sure, taking money from taxes I find fair, as you, and the rest of the citizens are paying to maintain the assets that they own. And when you pay entrance fees you are paying to maintain the the assets of your country. No difference.

But charging you to enter your own property? A different matter entirely. You have toll roads in NZ. Your land. You pay tolls to enter. It isn't any different. It is only the manner in which the money is collected. For some things, use fees make sense. Money can be collected from everyone in the country, or by people who use the area. It is not an insult to pay for what you receive. At least in this country. Evidently people think differently in NZ.



But charging you to enter your own property? A different matter entirely.You keep talking like you own government lands. You don't. Second, national, state or local land is not your property. You only have the rights the country, state or municipality grant you. You sound very naive. Are you young? Have you ever tried to walk into the offices of your government? If it is "your own property" as you say, try it. Walk into every office of you national government's officials. When challenged by guards at the entrance, tell them it is your property and you have the right to enter it.

Grow up. You as an individual do not have ownership rights of public lands, in NZ or here.

Tinker
06-24-2009, 23:17
Good points, Frosty, though I'd stay away from generalizing (generalising) about people from NZ.
Take care.

LiamNZ
06-24-2009, 23:33
And when you pay entrance fees you are paying to maintain the the assets of your country. No difference.
You have toll roads in NZ. Your land. You pay tolls to enter. It isn't any different. It is only the manner in which the money is collected. For some things, use fees make sense. Money can be collected from everyone in the country, or by people who use the area. It is not an insult to pay for what you receive. At least in this country. Evidently people think differently in NZ.


You keep talking like you own government lands. You don't. Second, national, state or local land is not your property. You only have the rights the country, state or municipality grant you. You sound very naive. Are you young? Have you ever tried to walk into the offices of your government? If it is "your own property" as you say, try it. Walk into every office of you national government's officials. When challenged by guards at the entrance, tell them it is your property and you have the right to enter it.

Grow up. You as an individual do not have ownership rights of public lands, in NZ or here.

Look, this is evidently an arguement that I cannot win with you. You're not reading what I say and responding to it properly, you're simply twisting my words and believing that because you are 62, and I am younger, that your opinion means more. Feel free to think what you want, because you have the right to. Have a great day. :)

Homer&Marje
06-25-2009, 07:33
(singing) "Friends, how many of us have them.......Friends, ones we can depend on.....Friends, ones we can rely on to be......Friends!!"

Tipi Walter
06-25-2009, 08:20
The best hiking i've found in Canada is on Crown Land (land owned by the people), and there are zero fee's... National or Provincial Parks on the other hand do have fee's but also provide services that attract people.... Another reason to avoid parks and stick to public lands... No amenities means no crowds and a whole giant forest all to yourself! :banana

Short and sweet. Crowds in Parks translates to cars and rolling traffic, take easy access away and interior park roadways and you cut out at least 50% of the overcrowding.


You can walk the AT for free though:sun.

This is the part that doesn't make sense to me. The "Fees Are Good" crowd never talk about charging a nightly fee to hike or backpack the Appalachian Trail. Why not?


In addition to helping support the park (as many here have pointed out), fees and passes are charged in some parks to regulate the number of visitors, in short to keep then from being loved to death. Remember, the U.S. is a country of 300+ million people and not everybody knows how to behave responsibly in the wild.

Regulating numbers would be easy by limiting car access and roads. This will eventually have to be done as the population skyrockets towards 450 million by 2050. Why do places like Yellowstone and the Smokies have car campgrounds for motor homes and RVs? Who's in charge? Haven't we had enough of wheeled traffic in all it's clever forms? Why can't people park in one huge designated lot outside the Park and walk in from there?


If it makes you feel any better, I've never seen any wilderness on the east cost of the USA. It's all been logged within the past 100 years, excepting for pockets too expensive to get logging machinery to.
The illusion of wilderness, in a way is a theme park, and the dollars collected are probably used up in litter pickup and unwarrented "rescue" missions of unprepared touristas going for a walk in the woods that ends up being a little more uncomfortable than they bargained for. I can't say I don't mind paying for it, but that's just the way it is. Many of the parking areas where fees are charged have overused trails which I avoid like the plague during the peak of tourist season.

Here again, too easy access by the rolling couch potatoes. Close the roads to these places and make what once was remote difficult again to reach. On foot. BTW, there's a 4000 acre wilderness valley in the Slickrock/Kilmer area of NC that has never been logged.

Safari
06-25-2009, 08:37
Your kidding right Mr LiamNZ, (yeah, I'm a half Kiwi, lived in the South Island for 25 years, Adventure/Tour Guide, etc)... pretty much every publicised walk, every National Park has a substantial entry fee attached, NZ is not a cheap place to 'get into the wilderness', overseas visitors moan about it all the time... Apart from public hunting zones and mixed forestry areas, what 'wilderness' is free of charge?

DavidNH
06-25-2009, 08:59
I'll throw in my two cents here. Federal land (forest service, park service etc) should ideally be free to enter for American citizens. They are tax supported. We pay for all sorts of stuff through our taxes that we don't necessarily use. I have no kids, but I don't mind my taxes going to your kids education because that makes our society better. charging everyone for upkeep and maintenance of national parks and forests whether we use them or not does make sense because they benefit our society. That said, given realities, I don't mind forking over 20 a year for a white mountain national forests rec pass. The forest is too valuable and too important to me to let it go downhill for "lack of funding."

David

Alligator
06-25-2009, 09:21
...
This is the part that doesn't make sense to me. The "Fees Are Good" crowd never talk about charging a nightly fee to hike or backpack the Appalachian Trail. Why not?

....Don't mischaracterize my position to pull me into one of your personal digressions;). I made a point about the AT to bring some relevancy to the AT and to illustrate that not all public lands have a fee system. I find fees acceptable because I recognize that parks and wilderness areas are underfunded. It's simply reality that money is needed to run them--protection, conservation, maintenance, education etc. I also entered the argument because I think it is illogical to complain about fees when you pay taxes. Money comes out of one's pocket to pay for the parks. You can pretend the govt didn't tag you but it did. It's just semantics.

Nean
06-25-2009, 10:29
Your kidding right Mr LiamNZ, (yeah, I'm a half Kiwi, lived in the South Island for 25 years, Adventure/Tour Guide, etc)... pretty much every publicised walk, every National Park has a substantial entry fee attached, NZ is not a cheap place to 'get into the wilderness', overseas visitors moan about it all the time... Apart from public hunting zones and mixed forestry areas, what 'wilderness' is free of charge?

This is what I remember and from what I've heard the price has gone up from '91. :( Huts, beds, stoves, toilets and the people it takes to install and maintain those things cost money.;) Yep, thats my idea of wilderness too Liam- and you pay fees for it. Over here we like to put a road thru most nice places so athletes w/ injuries can enjoy the scenery too:rolleyes:. Just like NZ we pay to use the path provided, paved or not.:) Liam seems to want to twist things- sum he knows nuthin bout.:eek:

Jim Adams
06-25-2009, 13:47
Make the wilderness free as it was always meant to be...charge to enter and use CITIES!!!!!!

geek

TD55
06-25-2009, 14:27
From reading these post, I'm not sure alot of folks understand that there are big differences between National Parks, National Forest, Bureau of Land Management Lands, and Wildernes Lands. In regards to land designated as National Wilderness, strict rules and regulations are maintained. You have to have a permit and only limited numbers of those permits are issued. Great effort and exspense is dedicated to maintaining those areas as actual wilderness.
National Forest and BLM lands are mostly free and with a little research you can find more hikes than you will ever be able to hike in a lifetime. While these areas may not be true wilderness, if you bushwack you can be places that no one else has been in a hundred years. Two years ago I found a cast iron stove front in the Little Big Horns that had to be over a hundred years old.
National Parks speak for themselves. There is all kinds of stuff there for visitors.

Dogwood
06-25-2009, 14:35
Short and sweet. Crowds in Parks translates to cars and rolling traffic, take easy access away and interior park roadways and you cut out at least 50% of the overcrowding.

I wholeheartedly agree Tipi, but do you truely think this will happen on a large enough scale to make a difference? I woud guess that the National Park Service, in its present form, is under pressure by some from within and many others involved in making a profit from industrial tourism(fast food, hotels, petroleum industry, automobile industry, road building contractors, politicians, lawers, gift shop owners, etc, etc.) to allow greater access by motorized vehicles. Seems to be the philosophy in some national parks, build more roads and they will come and with them comes their money. Let's build roads! Let's exploit the nation's natural resources and wilderness for profit. Very often the profiteers have strong political and economic allies or government officials themselves believe in economically developing - code word for exploiting the wilderness for profit - the national parks.

If one wants to look at some successful vehicular traffic solutions look at what Yosemite NP has done in the valley with their bus system, or the Grand Canyon NP bus system on the S. Rim, or the way Zion NP has drastically cut traffic congestion and pollution by instituting a bus system.

Here again, too easy access by the rolling couch potatoes. Close the roads to these places and make what once was remote difficult again to reach.

It's designed this way because this is what Americans have been brainwashed into believing is a viable lifestyle. If someone(???) can control your movements they can readily contol the information that is most readily availble to you. If they can control the flow of info to you they can contol your thoughts and beliefs. Welcome to the ring through the nose crowd here in America.

I like to paraphrase an article I read in Reader's Digest not long ago. In a study conducted across the U.S. in 1997 statistics showed that the avg. American in the study walked an avg. of 9.7 miles per week which included the miles walk while at work and at home. In 2007 a similar study was conducted that saw those numbers drop to less than 2 miles per week! If we are to believe these figures hold true across the U.S. Americans are walking 1/5 of what they were just a decade earlier!

We are turning into a couch potato society! with grave consequences!

Alligator
06-25-2009, 14:36
Good points TD55. There's even differences in rules within unit types. I personally hadn't been in wilderness that I remember needing to pay for a permit, but Mowgli cited one. There are some wilderness areas that the AT passes through and AFAIK there isn't a need even for a permit, plus I know at least one other where there was no permit issued.

Alligator
06-25-2009, 15:01
New thread started in General for Tipi and Dogwood.

Pedaling Fool
06-25-2009, 15:47
I'll throw in my two cents here. Federal land (forest service, park service etc) should ideally be free to enter for American citizens. They are tax supported. We pay for all sorts of stuff through our taxes that we don't necessarily use. I have no kids, but I don't mind my taxes going to your kids education because that makes our society better. charging everyone for upkeep and maintenance of national parks and forests whether we use them or not does make sense because they benefit our society. That said, given realities, I don't mind forking over 20 a year for a white mountain national forests rec pass. The forest is too valuable and too important to me to let it go downhill for "lack of funding."

David
I don't mind taxes either for the common good, however, I really DON'T like the "Treasurer" (congress), they can't manage sht... and they don't have to, because they don't keep an eye on the bottomline, don't need to because taxes is an endless supply coming in. I don't know about the fees to parks and such, but taxes (both direct and indirect) are going to skyrocket in the years to come.

TD55
06-25-2009, 17:17
Double taxation is more like quadruple taxation in the US. We are taxed for our parks and wildernesses - and then we have to pay to use them. Come on over and join us - don't forget your checkbook.
Actually, there are some free National Parks. One significant one is The Mall in Washington, DC. Not only are the monuments and memorials free, but entrance to some of the greatest museums in the world are yes, free too. And calling them some of the greatest in the world is not just a loose saying or exageration.
What the heck, the AT is a NP.