What both of you are forgetting is that the national parks were "privatized" years ago. Concessionaires (private interests) reap the profits for the sake of a franchise "fee." For that fee, Uncle Sam staffs, protects, and maintains the parks, i.e., does everything that isn't profitable.
I don't see anyone slinking off. I see the article attributing the success to state marketing efforts and private investment. If higher tax dollars are your goal for these lands (its not mine) who knows how much could be raised if these lands were 100% state and privately owned. I dare guess that tax revenues per acre are far higher on private land than federal land.
In Utah, we love to hate the federal lands. But then something like this comes along and the gummint haters kind of slink off into the shadows for awhile until the hoopla dies down.
While on the other hand, it also lends a lot of weight to Michael Frome's thesis that our parks are becoming little more than money machines.
We need more people like Michael Frome. And at this time of centennial, we should be shouting from the rooftops the story of the conflicts built into the Enabling Act. We are missing a wonderful opportunity to educate Americans. Let's not just encourage them to descend upon our parks like plagues of locust. Let's teach them how they may enjoy their parks while still PRESERVING them.
Lets take RMNP as an example. 3.5 million visitors at a count of 2 per car. That is 1.75 million cars. Some of which will have annual passes (anybody know the number?) Lets assume 30%. That means 1.23 million paying vehicles. With a $10 increase, thats $12 million in additional revenue on top of $ 24 million already collected. Thats alot of restrooms.
EC, the rest of the story..."Congress just passed a CR which (even though this was not widely reported) included an across the board reduction of 0.2108%. That lasts, of course, through December 11."The Administration's proposed centennial bill, which would increase funding for FY16, has zero chance of passing the Congress -- especially with the disarray in the House now.
Seems like if the total request was for $433 million and $150 is infrastructure that leaves alot for personnel.
Another question, are the "fees" outside the budgeted amount and how much did they total in 2014?
With an increase in 2015, a 33% additional increase requested in 2016 and substantial increases in entrance fees, why does that one superintendent think the NPS will have less money next year?
PS Tell us more about the trip. More pictures.
A few days ago in Grant Teton, I heard a thought provoking comment from a ranger. She pointed to the Enabling Act inscribed above the information desk at the new VC in Moose and asked, "Are we missing the boat in this Centennial year by urging more people to visit our parks, but failing to try to educate them on why these places are here and what we all must do to try to protect them?"
I agree with EC and don't believe that congress should micromanage the NPS (or any other agency). However, when constituents complain loud enough about being denied or restricted access by an agency for dubious reasons not supported by science certain members of congress, apparently, believe they now must get involved.
ec, you need to run for Congress. You're really good at dodging around and covering tracks.
How do you fail to see the irony in your comment: "Meanwhile you have consistently made unsubstantiated claims regarding funding even while admitting that "Trying to discover exactly where political contributions come from is about as easy as nailing Jello to the wall"
The fact she worked with packrafters to craft the amendments in no way implies she has taken her position only because of money. It is common sense that if one believes that packrafting is appropriate that they would consult with packrafting companies in drafting the legislation.
Thank you, Kurt. Trying to discover exactly where political contributions come from is about as easy as nailing Jello to the wall in this age of funding hidden behind walls of secrecy and funneled through various PACs.
Our lawmakers are experts at hiding their tracks within that maze of secrecy.
And nary a packrafter outfit on the lists. I don't agree with her bill but there is no evidence that she is doing anything other than earnestly representing the interest of her constituents - i.e. her job. That makes your claims pure empty accusations.
Yes, Kurt, you really know better than trying to use the old "carrying water" bit. Certainly you know it should have read, "Carrying pocketsful of money from packrafters businesses seeking access to rivers and streams."
Shame upon you!
While I believe it is in Congress's perview to broadly define the role of the NPS including requesting studies, I am totally against the micro management that this bill mandates. What is the purpose of a "study" if it is already determined that certain waters must be opened?
Missing from this report is a list of people or organizations that are pushing the Congresswoman to shove this bill through. Are they a small group of individuals? A large group of individuals? Are they mainly outfitters who would be able to open new opportunities to make money using Yellowstone's rivers?
I was hiking to iceberg lake in September and encountered this same bear. The Rangers had to set off flashbacks to chase her off because she was doing false changes on hikers. I'm glad they aren't going to punish her for being a good mother. Way way to many 60 year old plus hikers in the back country. If you need a break every 100 yards maybe you shouldn't hike 10 miles in the mountains.
Just back from a week in Yellowstone and Grand Teton. In YELL, I happened upon a ranger demonstration of using an inert bear spray. He explained exactly when and how to use it and gave any interested visitors a chance to try it for themselves.
Oct 6th - 15:26pm |
The incident discussed here is one reason bogus "research" shows bear spray is more effective than a firearm. If the hiker had a gun, this would be a firearms failure. During 27% percent of the incidents in Efficacy of Firearms For Bear Deterrence in Alaska, people were injured before they could shoot.
The use of pepper spray can have a potentially negative impact on bear/human encounters. Obviously, a bear that charges a person is a prime candidate for spraying at close quarters. However, automatically spraying a bear that you happen to encounter on a trail and which shows no aggressive behavior may do more harm than good.
It has been very difficult to find a map showing the location of this project. But using descriptions in this and some other articles, I found that it is to the northwest of Mojave Preserve between the towns of Baker and Zzyzx. While we certainly need to develop alternative energy sources, I hope we will always seek the best balance between energy needs and wise conservation of othe
"A true drone, one flown by remote camera, are currently illegal everywhere."
Here's a link to an FAA website about RC and drone aircraft limitations:
And another interesting article:
There was a police log item in this past week's issue of Mount Desert Islander, about Acadia National Park issuing summons to Mass. man for operating drone. No other details or explanation, just this paragraph:
The plight of elephants and rhinos in Africa due to poaching, and Africa's wildlife in general due to an array of factors, is truly heartbreaking. Thank you for an excellent article. Prince William of the UK also recently published an excellent article in the London Financial Times on this topic.