It very likely will be a bit more costly to enter Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Acadia, Shenandoah and the other 126 units that charge entrance fees by the time the National Park Service's centennial arrives in 2016, and you also should brace for slightly higher fees to camp, shower, paddle, and participate in boat and cave tours.
Park Service Director Jon Jarvis last month notified his superintendents (see attachment) that they could increase their park's fees "after they have actively engaged the public and stakeholders about proposed changes and impacts."
Accompanying that notification, which was not announced publicly, was an entrance fee schedule that placed the 131 units that now charge entrance fees into four groups. Under those guidelines, for example, Yellowstone, which now costs $25 for a week's entry by vehicle, would be allowed to charge $30 after going through public engagement activities, which could entail "soliciting opinions through local media or online media such as Facebook, Twitter, etc."
The four groupings are intended to reflect the size and expense of running a park. So parks such as Yellowstone in Wyoming, Grand Canyon in Arizona, Glacier in Montana, and Yosemite in California would be in Group 4, while parks such as Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area in Wyoming, Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park in Maryland, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, and Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve in Idaho would be in Group 1.
Under Director Jarvis' schedule, "if supported by civic engagement," by 2017 all Group 4 parks would charge $30 per week for vehicle entry, $15 for someone on foot, and $25 for a motorcycle; all Group 3 parks would set their entrance fees at $25, $12 and $20; all Group 2 parks would move to $20, $10, and $15, and; all Group 1 parks would move to $15, $7 and $10.
Also increasing would be the cost of an individual park's (or parks') annual pass, and the director left open the possibility that parks could increase fees for camping, RV dump stations, and tour fees, just to mention some of the fees now in place across the National Park System.
The Park Service is promoting these proposed increases as a way to provide needed dollars "to invest in the improvements necessary to provide the best possible park experience to our visitors."
"Additional funds will enable us to enhance visitor facilities and services as we approach our centennial anniversary in 2016," Director Jarvis wrote in his letter to regional directors. "Each park should identify how the additional revenue will be used to improve the park experience. Sharing this information will be an important part of each park's civic engagement plan."
Park managers authorized to seek fee increases were instructred to begin the engagement process this fall.
"Each park's implementation timeline may vary, depending on the public feedback received," wrote Director Jarvis. "If there is significant public controversy, a park may choose not to implement new fees, may phase in the new rates over three years, or delay the new rates until 2016 or 2017."
(Back in 2007, then-Park Service Director Mary Bomar relented on a proposal to increase Yosemite's entrance fee from $20 to $25 after local communities complained in a letter-writing campaign that high gas fees and declining visitation were already hurting park visitation and a higher entrance fee would not be prudent at the time.)
Also likely to be increasing next year are the costs of using Recreation.gov to reserve a campsite or cabin in the parks, or to participate in some tours.
"All parks on Recreation.gov will be subject to slight increases in overhead costs so it is advisable for parks to examine rates for 2015," wrote Director Jarvis.
Higher fees to enjoy the parks seldom are welcomed. The Park Service notes that entrance fees across the system have not changed since 2008, and that "the majority of fees have not increased since 2006, and there continues to be a growing need for funds to improve facilities, infrastructure and visitor services in parks."
Congress also has been reluctant to increase discretionary spending.
There was no mention in the director's directive concerning the price of the America the Beautiful National Parks and Federal Lands Pass, which has been $80 for a number of years. That pass allows the holder unlimited entry to all national parks and other federal lands that charge entrance fees. As such, it could become even more of a bargain if its price tag does not increase while the parks move towards the new entrance fee schedule.
How the proposed increases are received, both by the public and in Congress, remains to be seen. There has been an effort in the House to rewrite the fee authority legislation that governs fees collected by the Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and other federal land managers. That legislation, as drafted, would require the price of the America the Beautiful passes to be recalculated every three years "to reflect the change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers over the same period..."
That legislation, if enacted, also would restrict sales of the passes to U.S. citizens and permanent residents, a move that likely would prove unpopular with international travelers who come to the United States to see a number of national parks on one visit. Kitty Benzar, president of the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition that long has fought fee creep on public lands, said that restriction could require one to provide proof of U.S. citizenship or permanent residency to purchase an America the Beautiful pass.
"Besides being unfriendly to foreign visitors, it opens the door to all kinds of racial and ethnic profiling abuse," she said Wednesday in an email to the Traveler. "Would the groups that are opposing ID requirements to vote be OK with having to show ID to purchase an ATB pass? I don't think so. Would entrance station staff have to see proof of citizenship/residency along with each pass presented?
"My Canadian friends are livid about this, pointing out that although their annual Parks Canada passes are more expensive than ours, they are available equally to all, both Canadians and foreign visitors. Because they WANT to encourage foreign tourism. Don't we?," she added. "Overall, I think that making the parks less affordable, both to Americans and others, is a pretty shabby way to celebrate the NPS Centennial."
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
"if supported by civic engagement", Jarvis says.
What a joke. The Smokies fee was widely rejected by "civic engagement" and a public input of 18-1 in direct opposition to fees. But that didn't matter to the NPS then, why should we believe it is going to matter now? Because it isn't. Thank you Kitty Benzar for fighting fee creep and the creeps who push them. The NPS is going to do what it wishes regardless of public "engagement".
When the park service director says fees will only be allowed "if supported by civic engagement," that reminds me of that scene in Animal House where the fraternity is appearing before the disciplinary board and John Belushi gets a frog in his throat....and the sneezing and coughing begins. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROxvT8KKdFw
Amazing to think that you can't even take a family of four to the movies for two hours for $30, and people are going to get up in arms about $30 to take a family to Yellowstone National Park for an entire week!
I'm glad Director Jarvis is pushing forward with this as this proposal is going to generate funds for much-needed improvements to national parks, by asking people who love the parks the most to contribute a little bit towards the cost of their visit.
..."if supported by civic engagement". Right...and the moon is made of smoked gouda. This decision is a lock folks. It has been rendered thus by the oligarchs.
Find the funds elsewhere Director Jarvis. Try harder.
And Sabattis, we don't pay for the movie theater with our tax dollars.
Well, Steve, I guess you don't live in New Mexico. Here enormous amounts of tax dollars are used to subsidize movie and tv productions. So, we pay twice;; once with our tax dollars to entice shows like "Breaking Bad" to be filmed here and once to see it on Netflix or whatever.
Rick
This is right up there with the unreasonable increases in lodging prices.
They don't want "regular people" to visit the parks anymore.
Rick Smith makes a valid point about subsidizing other forms of entertainment, and I wonder if Steve George actually believes what he says. Fees should be kept low because we pay for the parks with taxes? What about the 40-some percent who pay no income taxes? Should they then have to pay fees, since they're not paying through the tax code? I doubt those complaining about higher fees would agree with that. $80 for an annual pass is the best bargain in the world. It would still be the best bargain at twice the price. I use the parks, I'm happy to pay to get in, just as I do for other activities.
While I believe that Rick's comparison is flawed, I too have no problem paying fees to enter a National Park that has highly variable operating expense based on the number of visitors. No doubt $30 for a family of four to visit Yellowstone for a week is a bargain. Now for the single person driving through for the day, it might seem high. Perhaps entry should be sold on a scaled 1/3/7 day basis to more fairly allocate the fees.
Poor NPS crying again and how many fall for their lies. Totally lost sight of their mission since the national parks are now nothing more than revenue generators. They ought to learn how to make do or do without like everyone else. Charging fees to enter God created NOT government created lands is wrong on many levels, especially when tax dollars already fund the basic needs of visitors. Learn to make do with what you have. If they want more young people to start visiting parks, raising already ridiculous fees wont help that. Hypocrites.
Actually, the government protects these lands. Without the NPS it would be overran and the resources would be destroyed. You guys obviously skipped out on the history behind the Park Service, and sound clueless, like usual. Maybe if there weren't buffalo soldiers, there would be no buffalo. Just this morning when I entered the Smokies, I saw maintence spray painting the park sign brown again, because some idiot tagged it. I guess if you don't mind that your park looks like a used up trailer park, then that's one thing.
Secondly, how many of you that are whining about this actually travel to other National parks? I know that smokies backpacker always belittles me for doing such activities and so I know he spends little to any time outside of Tennessee. The question is how many of you actually spent time beyond just the Smokies, since the only ones complaining about this seem to be the Southern Forest Watch crowd (steve gorge, john quillen, myers morton, etc), and from what I see none of you travel much beyond the 20 miles from where you were born. Outside of the Smokies, fees are common in just about every park in the west, and even in parks like Shenandoah in the East, and have been that way since many of those parks establishment.
Actually, many national forests dont charge entrance fees, are much larger than national parks, and get along just fine. The amount one travels has nothing to do with what is wrong or right. Go lay troll bait elsewhere.
I've seen many of the National Forests around this region. A lot of them are trashed, compared to what you find in national parks, like the Smokies.I went to the cherokee NF to do some hellbender surveys, and so many trees were cut around the campsite areas, and it was not anywhere near as protected as what you find in the Smokies. You could tell it was a free-for-all party place. It's a free for all in the USFS areas, and it shows. You go up to the wilderness areas like the Shining Rock, and Linville Gorge, and you find a Dr Seuss line of tents crowded into areas because it's free. Like I said, if you don't mind the place looking like a used up trailer park, then I can understand why you think all places should look and function like that. At least there is campsite number limits, permits and regulations in the National Parks.
Fees are not "double taxation." They're entirely voluntary. I agree that the NPS, like all government agencies, could and should be better stewards of the money they receive. But, while God may have created the land, we have charged the government with protecting it. That costs money. People who use the parks should pay for their use, the same way people who drive pay a gas tax to build and repair roads. That seems little enough to ask.
I am not one of those people who live in Tennessee and haven't traveled more than twenty miles from home (I've been to all but three of the fifty states, and dozens of national parks), and I think raising the fees is wrong because it's elitist, the same way that raising lodging prices is.
I also think the *inequity* of fees is wrong. Why should Mt. Rainier NP cost $15 for an entrance fee when it's free to get into the Smokies? You folks in the Smokies have *no idea* how good you have it, to be able to get into your local national park for free. None. Whatsoever.
If the NPS *really* wants to balance its budget, it will fix the inequity (IOW, figure out a way to get round that legal fiasco), and the fees from the Smokies alone (the park with the most visits, BTW) will help more than anything else.
Wow Gary you've really put your foot in that one. Perhaps you should ask smokies backpacker for a copy of his e-book about his latest Himalayan expedition.
Let's see . . . How much does a day in Dizzyworld cost?
As for taxes, a new Megaplex theater is under construction nearby. The city is building a new road to serve it. The city has laid water and sewer lines to serve it. And the city has given them a two-year "tax holiday."
Should I be able to go to movies for free now?
Then there are the football and baseball stadiums all around the country that were built on similar deals to keep their wealthy owners happy and prevent them from taking their teams and leaving town.
Free football or baseball or basketball tickets anyone?
My heartburn on this issue is a result of the astounding amount of government waste and how it impacts the allocation of funds for the NPS. After you read this, go to your choice of search engine and look up "government waste". How is it possible that funds cannot be directed to what I consider the greatest of gifts? If after you read this and you are unable to make the connection, I can't say anymore to convince you otherwise.
Yeah, i've seen the ghetto trail shelters with their privies and mile after mile of absolutely horrid muddy swamps from horseback riders too. Which i might add is far worse than any trail conditions i've ever encountered in a national forest as of now. And i don't think we need to even talk about trees being cut after that one certain article that was on here.
So using your own two feet to travel, using no amenities is grounds for a fee? Okay, sure, if you drive a road in a park or use facilities that cost money to maintain. But even then if and only if they have stretched their dollars to the bare minimum first, which often isn't the case.
You guys obviously don't understand the difference between a national park and a national forest. To you it's all the same and you think the rules and regulations should be the same that you find in the lesser managed places that let you do what you want. And seriously horse use and the rules legislating them are a lot less strict in the National Forest areas... Are you guys really just trying to mess with people? Sometimes I wonder, if all the misinformation and garbage spewed on this site 24/7 is just one big joke to you. Because it's evident many of you have little understanding about why National parks are held at higher levels of resource protection, and seem to want others to just buy into rampant conspiracy theories that you can find on any teaparty.com site. One would expect that the readership here would have a better comprehension of land management, and understand the differences between the various organizations that manage public lands, but I assumed too much, and that's definitely my fault.
And once again, to these Tennessee residents, that can only whine about how bad it is in the smokies - seriously, it's getting old. Your fiddle has worn out. I realize most of you have never been anywhere else in the national park system, so you aren't used to having to pay for anything. Your extent of the NPS world is perhaps big south fork, and cumberland gap, where everything is also free, so you just beat the same old drum, and this site is constantly stuck in the same old whiney rhythms day-in-and-day-out, because a few of you refuse to learn something about other areas, or try to comprehend the importance of the public lands that you actually have in your back yard. You think this public land is just supposed to sit there and be free, and youre wrong - it comes with a cost to manage public lands, and if you think public lands don't need managed, then you are very delusional. I think Megaera's comment were right on. But, Megaera the problem with that is some of these boys don't want to be contributors and they EXPECT others to pay and hand everything to them. It's an entitlement mentality that dates back a little more than a hundred some years, and it's just how they were raised..
In the early days of the National Parks only the wealthy few could afford the time and effort required to visit them. So they were enclaves of the elite. After WWII and through the Mission 66 years they became accessible to people of more limited means. With the new and increased fees that emerged under Fee Demo that pendulum began to swing back.
These new increases, and the "pay to play" philosophy that underlies them, bring us full circle. Once again the Parks are becoming enclaves for the elite few who can afford $200 a night for a cabin on the north rim of Grand Canyon, or $600+ for the Bracebridge Dinner at the Ahwahnee in Yosemite.
More than most people I fully understand the difference between National Parks and National Forests.
The Parks are where the fee stations are.
For a bunch of supposed backpackers, you can visit one of these preserved natural gems in the West for well under 50.00, if you choose. Yellowstone cost 25.00 to get in, and 25.00 for a backcountry permit. Yosemite cost 25.00 to get in, then a 5.00 permit registration fee, and 5.00 per night per person to visit the backcountry, although depending on your route permits are limited, but you'll always be able to do something there because not all zones get filled. Grand Canon cost 10.00 for a permit registration, then 5.00 per night. Then there are other parks where the fee is 10.00 to get in, and backcountry camping is free, but you still need a permit. By comparison, the Smokies doesn't even have a registration fee, and is just 4.00 per night, and in my opinion it's a Group 1 park, like the other three mentioned. If you can't afford 50.00 to spend a week in a place, then your biggest concern shouldn't be hiking.. As for staying in hotels. Yes, there is very limited lodging availability in our parks, so your best and cheaper options are staying outside of the park, or getting a tent.. Inside the park, it can be 10 to 25.00 to get a campsite. Even if you spent 5 days in Yellowstone at one of the more developed campgrounds, that's just 125.00 to spend the week there. That's at least 2 nights in a cheap 1 star roach motel, or one night in one with at least a 4 star rating. Yes, such elitism at play...
I'm happy to have all taxpayers pay towards the basic protection of a park area - law enforcement, resource management, poaching prevention, etc. However, visitation isn't "free" regardless of whether a user fee is charged or not. Visitor centers, tour roads, trail maintenance, and ranger programs all cost money - and the more people who visit, the more these things cost. It only makes sense to make the people who are actually visiting contribute to covering the additional costs of their visit.
Then why are the people who are using the visitor centers and their bathrooms not having to put a dollar in the slot to get the doors to open? I'll tell you why. Because it would create outrage and the NPS knows better than to set up such an obviously ridiculous symbol that would be the butt of editorial cartoons all over. So they just nickel and dime the backcountry folks. So ironic to hear Wilson talk about backcountry camping. I've seen no evidence he's ever spent a single night in the Smokies backcountry. But thanks for educating us, Gary.
And the name calling is outrageous. One thing is for sure. Every time he shows up on a thread the ad hominum attacks begin and the thread gets shut down. Last time I checked, this article was about fee increases and he turns it into personal attacks of individuals and groups yet again.
There's quite a lot of evidence. I have terrabytes worth of footage, a few movies, and thousands of pictures worth of evidence. In fact, Kurt posted an article about me on this site in which they talk about my exploits in the backcountry. I've also done quite a few presentations around the region in regards to my exploration through photos and videos around the country. Regardless, i'm not here to impress the propaganda greenhorns of the urban jungles of knoxville.
Me too Sabattis and that is my point. We do contribute to the necessities you've outlined with the taxes we pay. Unfortunately it seems that Director Jarvis is unable to convince the Budget Committee of the basic needs of our National Park system. This seeming inability results in the default proposals to enact additional taxes in the from of fees on the citizens. I want the Director to work harder to garner the support of those who allocate the funds for our National Parks. If he cannot then step aside and let someone else do the job.
Some will take a stand and with great detail point out how paltry these fees are and how the reward and experience is well worth the expence. Point noted and fully appreciated. I have been to many National Parks (besides GSM) and paid the fees and can readily recall those life experiences. It was worth every penny.
However, it disgusts me to see the unimanageable amount of wasteful spending for things of far less importance than that of our natural monuments. Please don't compare a $25.00 entry fee with the billions upon billions of tax dollars vanishing into the vortex of governmental wasteful spending. All of the "units", in my heart and mind, should be financed as required and without fees at all.
Get busy Director Jarvis. The natural wonders of the country are waiting as are we.
Then it should be no problem for you, Gary, to produce a copy of your most recent backcountry permit for us to view?
prediction: He will talk about all his dayhiking exploits and provide no proof of backcountry camping in the park. Then do some more name calling.
But Katie, park entrance fees have no relation whatsoever with lodging fees. Although I agree completely that fees for spending a night in most park accomodations are outlandish, those are not a fee charged by the park.
And Steve, let's not try to place all the blame on Jon Jarvis. NPS directors as far back as Steve Mather have had the same problem. That's a complaint you need to take up with your Congressperson.
Steve, I am 100% with you when it comes to government waste. Certainly the NPS itself spends monies voluntarily and by fiat unnessisarily as evidenced here in the discussions about inappropriate units or employee resistence to the use of volunteers. Even so, that is not a reason to suggest that the Parks should be 100% free any more than it would be to demand every government service be free - after all you (or some of you) paid taxes that go to all government services.
The closer we can get the payer of the service to the user of the service the better. Fees, while inevitably imperfect, move us towards that goal.
Oh my goodness!
I have to agree 100% with ec's post.
It must be Friday or something.
Sure, no problem, John Quillen. Here you go. It's not the most recent, but it's a weekend outing with the family we took over labor day.
http://www.infininaut.com/permit-copy.jpg
Since we are whipping out permits, go ahead and post all the recent permits from your recent exploits in the Smokies. You tend to showcase a lot of people (more than what is legally allowable) hanging out at your backcountry bon fires, so let's make sure you are also doing things legally!
The flawed logic here is thus: Should you pay the library every time you check out a library book? Should the police get paid additionally every time they arrest someone? Should we pay the highway dept a supplement every time they repave a road? The NPS budgets have steadily increased while other entities have seen budget reductions and they send folks out here to argue for supplementing their taxpayer funded bureau with user fees? It is a ridiculous point. Why is the NPS exempted from responsible mgmt of budgets when other federal agencies are not and they are about the only one that charges user fees in addition? It is as ridiculous as the NPS claims that the Smokies receives 9 million visits per year. Everyone knows that 9 million cars that pass the clicker twice (once from the casino in Cherokee and the next time from the ko cart track in Gatlinburg) gets counted as a visitor despite the fact that most never even leave their car. But it is data they use to cry for more funds. Very convenient NPS math.
Noted ec and Lee. Thanks. Gobbs of wishfull thinking.
The NPS has seen budget reductions. Boy, you just continue to prove that anyone can post anything on the internet as fact, when it's not true.
Gary, I am flattered that you also follow my weekly backcountry adventures. An unfortunate side effect was that I had to quit broadcasting my weekly movements in advance so folks like you would quit showing up at my camp unannounced.
If we could end the personal bickering, it would be appreciated by a great many.
Post your permits... Come on. What is fair is fair. Quit being a flip-flopping-flop-flipper, and post your permits. I whipped out mine. And seriously, I don't have a reputation for going up to people and trying to get into fights with them. Can't say the same about you, since I know of two such accounts.
Smokies
Services like police and fire or military are "insurance" services. Everyone pays in so those services are there in case they are needed - everyone is being protected. Roads are paid for through gasoline taxes and registration fees so it is indeed the users that are the primary funders. You want to charge a dollar a book at a library, I don't have a problem with that. You hold the book longer than two weeks you should and do pay a fee.
It shouldn't be exempt from responsible mgmt. I never claimed it should. Finally, I would like to know what agencies you have in mind that dont charge user fees.
Here is one of my permits, Gary.
http://www.southernhighlanders.com/mybigpermit.jpg
And here is a chart that shows the steady increase in NPS budgets from 2008 to 2012 with a slight dip in 13 that doesn't take in stimulus spending which skews the chart.
http://www.southernhighlanders.com/tumblr_inline_mkwbq8FAP21qz4rgp.jpg
And regarding pay for service, do we have to pay the police every time they arrest someone? How about the fire dept when they put out our house fire?
And by the way, there must be a whole lot of free time over at the GSMA today. Bet folks would appreciate knowing their contributions are being put to such good use.
Here you go Kurt, please take a moment, and read this link. It showcase the form of harassment, and bullying that John Quillen posts about me constantly. The online bullying and harassment from this guy is noted. He uses his blogs to harass and try to intimidate anyone that disagrees with him, just because of the things I say here on this site, which are from ME, and not from the GSMA, or from the NPS. I speak for myself here, and he's twisted it into something else.
http://www.southernhighlanders.com/kephart_shelter%2014.html
Notice, how I can't respond to his page, so i'll just respond to it here. Considering this guy is a taxpayer funded drug counselor at a local school district, one would expect that he exhibits at least some sort of role model type qualities, that isn't based on harrassment, online bullying, and attempting to coerce and try to intimidate people but then again, Tennessee's educational system is ranked at the bottom of the country, so I can't expect much.
Gary, we certainly don't endorse or promote the approach taken on SFW, but we also don't intend to see/let the Traveler turn into a sounding board for personal grudges/disputes that have nothing to do with the site's content.
I understand Kurt.. I just think it's important to note that because I have stated opinions on this site, these guys use what I say here as an attempt to drum up attacks and intimidate me and my family. They are not rational people. They have also done and threatened quite a few others in the Smokies, so if you can understand why I do not like these guys, this is why. I do not behave like them. But i'm not afraid to call them out on their comments and misinformation.
And for the record, I do spend more than 13 weeks in the Smokies, and document a lot of different subjects. The phenology that i've captured and documented will be utilized for a long time, well after i've moved on.
Kurt, I'm sure this is an oversight but the website above is not the Southern Forest Watch. It is not affiliated with the Southern Forest Watch and neither are my opinions. That site is an independent backpacking website owned by a private individual. My opinions are my own and the expressions on southernhighlanders are not those of the SFW. And Gary has been given multiple opportunities to voice his opinions there.
Asked and answered. All benefit by having those services in place for when they are needed. They are the equivalent of an insurance policy. Oh, and in fact, in many cases these agencies are reimbursed.
Actually, Smokies, I do a lot of research, and can't always make time to get to the Library of Congress or another major research institution. So I pay $3 for every book I get through interlibrary loan. It's well worth it. Just like paying for an annual pass is well worth it to be able to drive over to Shenandoah for a day hike or to tramp the trails at Manassas. So, taxes pay for basic services, and users pay for additional services. As for wasteful spending, I could easily find a trillion dollars to cut. You probably could too. Problem is, it probably wouldn't be the same trillion. One man's waste is another man's essential government program.
Wow.
When I first saw the original headline and article I knew it would be an incendiary mud wallow and sat back to observe. Unfortunately, and no doubt to Kurt's regret, I was right.
If we eliminate the DOI then we could probably pay users to come to the parks. That agency is a giant waste of money and full of needless beauracracy.
Yes, if we also eliminate the EPA we can breathe free black soot and be free! I also love having a picnic down by the river and watching the chemicals burn off of it.. I heard that the DOI is trying to restore that river? Why? Our country should have let the Cuyahoga continue to devolve from precious H20 to chemicals that kill lots of stuff and catch fire. That's freedom in action right there. Ohhh I love thinking of the days Americans can be free like Somalians too!
Whaoh! I just agreed with beach . . . . .
What's happening today?
ec, there are still a few parts of the country where fire protection services are provided only by subscription. Don't subscribe, better not have a fire. That all goes back to a time in history when fire departments were not tax supported and sometimes tradition is hard to kill. (Or politicians are reluctant to create a tax.) It's a surprisingly common practice in some states.
http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2026445,00.html
Lee, I have absolutely no problem with a subscription based fire department. Owners choice to participate or not. Direct payment from homeowner to FD so no skimming off the top by bureaucrats. Direct link between who pays and who gets the benefit.
Pages