An interesting discussion. As to whether the NPS should have done another "study" before deciding to raise fees, I don't know what that would cost, but I'd bet a credible survey by a reliable firm to cover users of parks nationwide would run into 6, or more likely, 7 figures.
Interesting article Kurt, thank you. I am generally opposed to these fee increases. these are public lands and should be supported accordingly. The issue of comparability in setting campground fees is puzzling to me, where would you find this, private sector campgrounds that charge what the market will bear? Is this the direction we want to go in our parks?
What was requested above was "a link or copy of that record of comments." What was provided in the previous comment wasn't that information, but simply a link to another story on this much-hashed over issue. No helpful information there.
Like the rest of NPS employees your mind has been made up from the get go Dalton. But for others unfamiliar with the track record of fee abuse and subsequent data manipulation so.characteristic of Jarvis cabal, here is your link. /2011/12/hiker-wants-great-smokies-mountain-national-park-divulge-comments-proposed-backcountry-fee9125
Lee, the topic at the time was the Mules in the Canyon. He wanted to and did for the most part, get rid of them (by 75%) and the 100+ years of a truly American experience. You know, the poo on the trail sissy thing. Not fee increases.
Kurt? Do you?It's pretty pathetic though, that people who are willing to pay $100+ each month for TV and another $100 for smart phone fees, squawk about a small increase to pay for services they use in parks.Heck, y'pay $10 just to go see a bad movie and almost as much for popcorn and sody pop.I guess it's all in one's priorities.
Great article! Kalispell has grown so much since I lived in nearby Columbia Falls, eons ago. I vowed to myself if I ever decided to move back to Montana, Kalispell would be the place I'd go to live. It's a nice-sized town near the edge of Glacier National Park, with (now) plenty to do, and a little less expensive than nearby Whitefish.
Here is an entertaining take on this story by Bob Kirby, the Salt Lake Tribune's most thoughtful ;-} editorialist:http://www.sltrib.com/news/2589177-155/kirby-ignoring-the-warning-signs-...His last paragraph summarizes the whole issue very well.
I don't know why Gary is worried about manufacturing in the US. Between you, Lee and Gary there is more fabrication going on in this country than ever. You all manufacture broad claims and accusations but when asked to back them up, you head for the hills.
And had your own unique interpretation. Oh but then you are smarter than the folks at NBC, CNBC and Newsweek and many more. So tell us, where specifically does this report refute the conclusions of the 2004 report?
Wouldn't it be wonderful if EVERY visitor to every park simply took a few minutes to keep the place clean in the first place?Why should it have been such a surprise the morning I found a camper actually wiping down the sink he had used in a restroom?
Maybe not "environment", ec, but they should be able to shout "Grand Canyon" and shut the two monstrosities down that are planned at Tusyan and at the confluence of the Colorado and Little Colorado rivers.Rick
You know, that phrase 'stake in the game' just struck me wrong. As it stands, the natural beauty speaks for itself without need for justification, and exploiters seeking 'the game' are creating a situation, not just participating in one. The ethics of 'exploitation as a game' leave one needing a shower.
Exactly right, Rick. But those who seek to profit are all too often socialistic conservatives. They are the ones who frequently exploit something in an attempt to gain immediate, temporary profits without any consideration of future consequences. Then, when the conseqences begin to manifest themselves, they sell the operation off and leave the mess for others. In the case of parks and publi
Sure makes sense to me that those who seek to profit from the exploitation should pay the burden of the environmental assessment. Unless one is to be the one profiting, there are no positive definitions of the word 'exploit'.
Gary - Fyi, Kurt is away from the site for a bit this evening, and a volunteer moderator is trying to keep the discussion in bounds. As a result, yes, some comments are being edited, rather than deleting them entirely. I'd appreciate your cooperation so that won't be necessary.
yes algorithms and functions can change,We aren't talking about algorithms and functions. We are tallking about the data. If the temperature reads 76 and they record it as 78 they are "adjusting" (manipulating) the data.
Man, I can tell you've never worked on anything that uses data. I have worked in IT related industries most of my career, and yes algorithms and functions can change, if they are not accurate or are shown to present errors. If variances, or even errors are discovered, then functions can be rewritten, slightly modified, and new queries that pull the data are generated. Usually functions evolv
Question: "Gary, are these " scientists that are grounded in experimentation, math, and research" adjusting the data or not?"Answer (from Gary) "Isn't that how science works?"Thats not affirmation? Ok- I'll give you another chance - Are they adjusting the data or not?
Sorry, but copying and pasting an entire webpage into a comment to use it as your argument is not "citing". I wish Kurt would just kill those posts, because they take up half a comment thread, when all beachdump has to do is post a link. I love how you cherry pick my comments and take it out of context. I did not say anything about changing the data. I clearly said this:
Isn't that how science works?No its not. You don't adjust the data to fit your hypothesis. You adjust your hypothesis to fit the data. is simply called "plagarism",Citing someone elses work is hardly plagarism. Manufacturing data is clearly deception.