Forum Index > Trail Talk > More Fees, More Reservations...Tourism
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
joker
seeker



Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 7426 | TRs
Location: state of confusion
joker
  Top

seeker
PostSun Nov 25, 2018 1:28 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
kevperro wrote:
Yes.... I agree.   We should subsidize wild space and habitats.    That doesn't mean we need to subsidize your ability to play in it.

Recreating on our public lands has a well-proven public health benefit. Even holding aside the benefits from physical exercise from activities like hiking, even  just being outside in places like  wooded and alpine environments has  been shown in multiple peer-reviewed studies to have a significant mental  health  benefit. Add to that the fact that drawing  recreationalists to public lands quite  often gives  an economic boost to neighboring communities (similar in nature to the  stadium  funding argument, though  also I think just as argued on just how much it really helps, which varies a LOT from venue to venue).


I think this all adds up to a good justification for some level of public subsidy, though I have no problem with some degree of user fees (which we have in place today - I paid several on a recent swing through the Southwest for instance). I think it's important for this resource to be accessible to folks across the  economic spectrum, and that the  public be encouraged to use this resource (these resources).
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Pahoehoe
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Oct 2017
Posts: 184 | TRs

Pahoehoe
  Top

Member
PostSun Nov 25, 2018 1:38 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
For the record, I am against cities paying for sports stadiums for privately owned pro sports franchises.

I am in favor of publicly funded national parks and forests.

I'm ok with a nominal entry fee and fees to help off set excessive use/resource shortage... ie, take the free shuttle bus or pay 50 bucks to park as long as it isn't making the public land/attraction inaccessible to some.

That's the thing with National Parks.  They are suppose to accessible to everyone...
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 5891 | TRs
Location: Mobile
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostSun Nov 25, 2018 3:08 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Joseph wrote:
RandyHiker wrote:
Where's my option for opting out of the state taxes used to pay for football and baseball stadiums for couch potatoes to watch millionaires play ball? Where may I opt out of the federal taxes used to pay for a new fleets of aircraft carriers,  fighter aircraft and tanks so excessive in number that the army simply mothballs them?

I think its called elections.  You get to vote for leaders who are in support of spending $$ on defense more wisely / efficiently.  Maybe you're an expect in defense spending, how many aircraft carriers we need, tanks, etc.  If so, maybe you should run for office.

That's hilarious,  as the initiative to fund the Mariners  stadium was voted down by the electorate,  but the legislature then passed a bill publicly funding the field.

Special Interests lobby the Legislature and Congress to fund spending that makes those Special Interests tons of money, but preservation, conservation and recreational interests just don't have the money to buy the required number of senators.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
kevperro
Member
Member


Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Posts: 33 | TRs
Location: Monroe, WA
kevperro
  Top

Member
PostSun Nov 25, 2018 6:29 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
joker wrote:
kevperro wrote:
Yes.... I agree.   We should subsidize wild space and habitats.    That doesn't mean we need to subsidize your ability to play in it.

Recreating on our public lands has a well-proven public health benefit. Even holding aside the benefits from physical exercise from activities like hiking, even  just being outside in places like  wooded and alpine environments has  been shown in multiple peer-reviewed studies to have a significant mental  health  benefit. Add to that the fact that drawing  recreationalists to public lands quite  often gives  an economic boost to neighboring communities (similar in nature to the  stadium  funding argument, though  also I think just as argued on just how much it really helps, which varies a LOT from venue to venue).


I think this all adds up to a good justification for some level of public subsidy, though I have no problem with some degree of user fees (which we have in place today - I paid several on a recent swing through the Southwest for instance). I think it's important for this resource to be accessible to folks across the  economic spectrum, and that the  public be encouraged to use this resource (these resources).

I think there is some reasonable middle-ground.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
DIYSteve
seeking hygge



Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12641 | TRs
Location: here now
DIYSteve
  Top

seeking hygge
PostMon Nov 26, 2018 8:51 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Pahoehoe wrote:
That's the thing with National Parks.  They are suppose to accessible to everyone...

Some NPs are accessible to the general public, some aren't. For example, 99%+ of NCNP is inaccessible to non-hikers and 90%+ of the park is inaccessible to trail hikers.

I'm not pointing this out to support imposition of a fee. To the contrary, highly developed NPs (e.g., Yellowstone, Great Smoky) are expensive to construct and maintain. Contrast a 99% wilderness NP (e.g., NCNP), which requires far less money to operate.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
kevperro
Member
Member


Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Posts: 33 | TRs
Location: Monroe, WA
kevperro
  Top

Member
PostMon Nov 26, 2018 4:15 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Pahoehoe wrote:
That's the thing with National Parks.  They are suppose to accessible to everyone...


I don't have any specific data but I'd bet.... that NP visits even when free is predominantly middle-upper class.    They are a resource that by nature requires resources to access/visit even if the entry fee is zero.     Just like climbing/backpacking are predominantly middle-class activities.   You don't have people scratching by shopping at REI.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 5107 | TRs

Kim Brown
  Top

Member
PostMon Nov 26, 2018 4:23 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
You make it seem as if shopping at REI were a requirement for visiting public lands.

--------------
" I'm really happy about this! … I have very strong good and horrible memories up there."  – oldgranola, NWH’s outdoors advocate.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RumiDude
Marmota olympus



Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 2591 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles
RumiDude
  Top

Marmota olympus
PostMon Nov 26, 2018 4:58 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
kevperro wrote:
Pahoehoe wrote:
That's the thing with National Parks.  They are suppose to accessible to everyone...

I don't have any specific data but I'd bet.... that NP visits even when free is predominantly middle-upper class.    They are a resource that by nature requires resources to access/visit even if the entry fee is zero.     Just like climbing/backpacking are predominantly middle-class activities.   You don't have people scratching by shopping at REI.

It doesn't matter what the predominant income demographic is. What matters is that any fee should be within the range of even low income people.

Rumi

--------------
"This is my Indian summer ... I'm far more dangerous now, because I don't care at all."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
DIYSteve
seeking hygge



Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12641 | TRs
Location: here now
DIYSteve
  Top

seeking hygge
PostMon Nov 26, 2018 6:27 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I seldom see people more than a couple hours off-trail in NCNP, but a good share of the few I see are dirtbags.

kevperro wrote:
I don't have any specific data but I'd bet.... that NP visits even when free is predominantly middle-upper class.

Well, that begs the definition of a woefully vague term.

It'd be interesting to have data on how much respective income classes spend on recreation. I know plenty of working class people that spend significantly more on recreation (e.g., fishing boats, hunting rifles, gear and tags, ATVs, 5th wheel toy haulers, snowmobiles, motorcycles, etc.) than most professional class people I know.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 9564 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostMon Nov 26, 2018 7:25 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
kevperro wrote:
I don't have any specific data but I'd bet.... that NP visits even when free is predominantly middle-upper class.

So.... all those college kids I run into up on the trail at ONP are "middle-upper class" ?

That's a hoot. lol.gif

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Pahoehoe
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Oct 2017
Posts: 184 | TRs

Pahoehoe
  Top

Member
PostTue Nov 27, 2018 7:40 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
DIYSteve wrote:
Pahoehoe wrote:
That's the thing with National Parks.  They are suppose to accessible to everyone...

Some NPs are accessible to the general public, some aren't. For example, 99%+ of NCNP is inaccessible to non-hikers and 90%+ of the park is inaccessible to trail hikers.

I'm not pointing this out to support imposition of a fee. To the contrary, highly developed NPs (e.g., Yellowstone, Great Smoky) are expensive to construct and maintain. Contrast a 99% wilderness NP (e.g., NCNP), which requires far less money to operate.

The idea of "accessible to all" is that parks would have a main "road" with front county attractions (view points, educational displays, etc) that was accessible to just about anyone.  The rest of the parks should be left relatively wild.

In the beginning, parks were only accessible to weathly people who could afford to pay for guides and horses and mules to haul them and their stuff plus could also afford to be away from their work for weeks at a time or young, strong types that didn't have responsibilities they couldn't shirk..

The popularity of the car, Steven Mathers and the growing middle class changed that.

Obviously, some parks have more front country attractions than others.  The point is that they belong to everyone, and everyone should be able to visit them... ie, see the reason it's a national park, have a picnic, listen to an interpretive talk, etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Pahoehoe
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Oct 2017
Posts: 184 | TRs

Pahoehoe
  Top

Member
PostTue Nov 27, 2018 7:41 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski wrote:
kevperro wrote:
I don't have any specific data but I'd bet.... that NP visits even when free is predominantly middle-upper class.

So.... all those college kids I run into up on the trail at ONP are "middle-upper class" ?

That's a hoot. lol.gif

Ummm.  Yes.  Most college students are middle and upper class.  What rock have you been hiding under?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Pahoehoe
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Oct 2017
Posts: 184 | TRs

Pahoehoe
  Top

Member
PostTue Nov 27, 2018 7:47 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
kevperro wrote:
Pahoehoe wrote:
That's the thing with National Parks.  They are suppose to accessible to everyone...


I don't have any specific data but I'd bet.... that NP visits even when free is predominantly middle-upper class.    They are a resource that by nature requires resources to access/visit even if the entry fee is zero.     Just like climbing/backpacking are predominantly middle-class activities.   You don't have people scratching by shopping at REI.

Umm, you can go for a hike on a well traveled trail with things solely bought at thrift stores.

You don't have to climb or backpack to enjoy a national park.  Some people just want to enjoy the view and have a picnic.

That's ok, right?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
kevperro
Member
Member


Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Posts: 33 | TRs
Location: Monroe, WA
kevperro
  Top

Member
PostTue Nov 27, 2018 8:50 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RumiDude wrote:
It doesn't matter what the predominant income demographic is. What matters is that any fee should be within the range of even low income people.


That sort of policy is largely symbolic.   We foster kids and work at a homeless shelter.   Those living in poverty get zero benefits from free entrance to National Parks.   What they need are basic services and programs to move them out of poverty. 

So draw the line where you wish, but the people who most need help are not impacted one iota by entrance fees to National Parks.   In fact, since it is a resource that is funded by our taxes, and used more by upper-income groups, it is in effect regressive in nature.   

I for one see no issue with user fees that are reasonable to maintain our public lands.   The most efficient way to manage resources is to charge fees to the groups who most utilize the asset.   That is why I like gas taxes or carbon taxes.    You directly attach a fee to the utilization of the resource and those who use it, pay for it in proportion to the value they place upon it.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 5891 | TRs
Location: Mobile
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostTue Nov 27, 2018 9:33 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
kevperro wrote:
You directly attach a fee to the utilization of the resource and those who use it, pay for it in proportion to the value they place upon it.

Cool, how do we structure that so that oil companies pay for 90% of our military spending, as they are the primary beneficiaries of our current military operations.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Trail Talk > More Fees, More Reservations...Tourism
  Happy Birthday Flash Gordon, raz2sea!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy