$4 fee still a go

[HooKooDooKu]

I do not have kids but definately think the cost should be per person. I promise the cost to the Park of a family of 4 using a backcountry site is WAY more than the cost of me using a back country site due to things like: use of the outhouse, impact on the site and gargage as these are all impacted by the number of people on the site. I also know the impact with my partner and I go out together is more than when I go out by myself for the same reasons....

All that is true... for front country (aka developed) camp grounds. There are lavatories to clean and stock, trash cans to empty, etc. But there isn't any of that in the back country. There are VERY few outhouses in the back country (and the ones that are there are not "stocked"), no trash cans etc. I'm afraid that the only thing we are going to get is an online reservation system... something the front country camp sites already have. But given that I can stay at a front country camp site for as little as $14/night, is seems out-of-place to then pay $15/night (3 people) to get less serviced.

Yea, they claim the fees are going to fund improvements in the back country. Sergeant is a good job laying out the history. But I get the feeling that after we've been paying these fees for a year, the reservation system is going to be the only thing we see of it.

[HooKooDooKu]

pay $15/night (3 people)

Oops, make that $12/night for 3 people, $16/night for four in the back country.

[JAK]

I'm wondering if all they really want, besides revenue, is some sort of reliable data on park usage so they can use that for planning and park management, and to defend their budget, that sort of thing. So they paid to have a registration system and now they want it to work better, and of course they have to pay for it. I wonder how much of the revenue from the registration system is used up the the development, maintenance, and operation of the registration system, and how much actually goes into maintenance and operation of the park.

[Sly]

I'm wondering if all they really want, besides revenue, is some sort of reliable data on park usage so they can use that for planning and park management, and to defend their budget, that sort of thing. So they paid to have a registration system and now they want it to work better, and of course they have to pay for it. I wonder how much of the revenue from the registration system is used up the the development, maintenance, and operation of the registration system, and how much actually goes into maintenance and operation of the park.

Another thing that Rock touched on in a similar thread was many times a group would overbook a shelter in an apparent attempt to lock anyone else out. Now at least they'll have to pay for the privilege.

[Sly]

I've said time and time again, my only complaint with the new fee structure is that the price is per person. That means when I take the family camping, I'm paying about as much or more to camp in the back country that I do if I camp in the front country.

That's how I feel when traveling solo and have to pay the same price to enter a park and pay the same as a carload at a front country camp ground.

[Chappy]

GSMNP has a FAQ on their new fee system.

http://www.nps.gov/grsm/parkmgmt/bc-...permit-faq.htm

To summarize, it basically says, FLREA (federal lands recreation enchancement act) makes no provisions for giving anyone a discount, so go pound sand. They have tried very hard to justify this fee, and while I have no problem paying it, I am still a bit annoyed.

I wonder if they could do something in the park like they do at Olympic National Park. You can drive through the park all you want for free, but if you want to stop anywhere in the park, you have to have purchased a permit that you display in your window. (at least that was how I remember they did it when I was there 14 years ago.)

No fee to enter GRSM and you can stop and visit any of the historic sites. Fees for front country camping have always been in effect and now these new fees for the back country. I don't have a problem with the fee, especially when I consider the fees to get in most other parks. Most range $10 - $25.

[SGT Rock]

I'm wondering if all they really want, besides revenue, is some sort of reliable data on park usage so they can use that for planning and park management, and to defend their budget, that sort of thing. So they paid to have a registration system and now they want it to work better, and of course they have to pay for it. I wonder how much of the revenue from the registration system is used up the the development, maintenance, and operation of the registration system, and how much actually goes into maintenance and operation of the park.

Part of the fees are to pay for the system. Part are to pay for two part time back country law enforcement rangers. But the BMTA crunched the numbers, even if the numbers of people using the back country stayed the same as they currently are, they will probably be short the amount they need just to fund these two things. That means that the system will most likely need money from other budget areas to make up the shortfall. As to getting more money for improvement for back-country sites, this program will probably never have extra for that. I also know from a scheduling and manpower perspective that at some point in the future someone is going to ask the obvious question: "Why are we paying for two guys to walk around in the back country when they rarely cite anyone or prevent anything, when at the same time we have a manpower shortage in the front country areas?" At that point the back-country fees will be financing front country services. If you think that this is a far-fetched possibility I brought this exact question up to the head LEO ranger during one of their open house meetings over this and he agreed with me that it would be very possible this could happen down the road and there would be no real way to stop it.

[Christine_Runs]

I think this happens in the Cdn park system. I spent 30 days in Algonquin last year. I did not see a single ranger in the interior (not that I am complaining because honestly I don't want to see them ). I know they do have rangers go into the interior to clean campsites and get sites ready - so in the spring and fall a crew goes into the backcountry but there really are no rangers going through the backcountry on a regular basis. This summer we had a very low water year. There is a page that tells you which routes are not navigable by boat. We took a route not on the list that was definately not navigable. I told the park and they added it to the list which makes me think that it is actually a list of what campers have told them rather than what rangers have told them!

[sliderule]

I really don't mind paying $20, but I'm curious if there is a discount for disabled veterans?

I went through the info i could find, but couldn't find any definitive answers. I know there is the access pass for people who are disabled, but not sure it has any effect on the permits we need.

Typically, a disabled veteran receiving disability payments would be entitled to a free Access Pass. The Access Pass covers entrance fees and may offer discounts on certain fees. Special recreation permits are not eligible for discounts, however. Presumably, the NPS considers the backcountry permit to be a "special recreation permit."

[ATL Backpacker]

Typically, a disabled veteran receiving disability payments would be entitled to a free Access Pass. The Access Pass covers entrance fees and may offer discounts on certain fees. Special recreation permits are not eligible for discounts, however. Presumably, the NPS considers the backcountry permit to be a "special recreation permit."

I'm 99% certain that Supt Ditmanson, when asked, stated there would be no exceptions to the $4 fee. Children, Boy Scouts, trail volunteers, church groups, veterans - no one would be exempt from the fee. Can't recall if someone specifically asked about disabled veterans. But judging by the hard-line stance the Supt. took, I'd expect disabled vets to pay the full price, same as everyone.

[JAK]

$4 a day is nothing really. It would just be nice to know it is making a difference, and it isn't. Take a look at stuff like what happened on Max Patch, with ATVers ruining land. They can get away with it because ATVs are a huge money making industry, so they can run amok and not enough is done to prevent it and they will not change their ways because the mindset is because they are paying more for their equipment and licences and clubs and what not, they should be accommodated, and so more foot trails will become shared trails, which ultimately means their trails, and that will eventually lead to less protection, and less protected areas. Increasingly, it is not enough for natural habitats to be natural habitats. If they are not revenue makers, they will become endangered species. It's madness. Everything has to be a revenue stream. Parks, sports, education, children, everything, or it will be gone.

May as well not have created the National Parks in the first place.
In the end all it did was take land away from one group of people and give it to someone else.

[sliderule]

$4 a day is nothing really.

Problem is, money isn't the only issue. You have to have a bank account or plastic card, a computer, an internet connection and a printer.

Before, all you needed was a blank permit, a pen and a telephone if rationed sites were involved.

[dbright]

Does anyone know how the NAtional Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass affects this fee.

[sliderule]

Does anyone know how the NAtional Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass affects this fee.

It doesn't. The backcountry permit fee is NOT an entrance fee.