You are here

Home

All Recent Comments

NPS Unsure What ATB Will Do to Revenues

Apr 2nd - 07:22am | Snowbird

Yes, Sally a little homework helps along with some critical thinking. Instead of mouthing off with your right wing hate rhetoric...start kicking in some constructive ways in how we can save the NPS from Bush's budget slashes.

Apr 2nd - 05:14am | repanshek

Sally, perhaps you should do some reading in the archives. Dubya proposed a $100 million CUT for parks in his FY07 budget...the one that never got past go.

Mar 30th - 19:12pm | parkaholic

The parks were forced into Fee Demo? If you dig you will discover the definition of what can be funded with Fee Demo money has been twisted and shaded more and more each year. But they can still complain about flat budgets...unless the new Bush budget passes intact. Like him or not...it is what it is...the largest base increase in decades.

Is the Centennial Initiative In Need of Life Support?

Apr 2nd - 05:47am | Jim Macdonald

Ummm...ok, I never thought I'd be in a position to defend the Democrats, but it would be helpful to use arguments that make sense. Given that this is the first budget with a Democratic Congress in a dozen years, I'm not sure how Obey could be responsible for that. There's enough wrong with government, right? There's no need to resort to bad or trivial arguments.

Mar 31st - 19:51pm | parkaholic

If Rep Obey is chairing the appropriations committee and such a staunch supporter of the NPS then why do the shortfalls exist in the first place?

Mar 30th - 19:32pm | Constituent

Rep. Dave Obey (not Senator) is a very strong supporter of national parks and environmental causes, but he is one of the few legislators secure enough in his own skin that he says what he believes. He doesn't do much posturing. He also doesn't have any respect for the administration's privatization agenda and will likely fight any effort to put private interests above public interests.

Mar 30th - 19:02pm | parkaholic

Dave Obey sounds more than willing to tear down the Centennial Challenge. I would suspect maybe a little political posturing. Of course the only way for the Government to come up with $3 Billion in spending (over a number of years) is to cut other programs. Sen Obey may not be the best source for info on the Centennial Challenge....unless of course you ask him if he wants to support it.

Centennial Initiative: It's No Mission 66

Apr 1st - 14:32pm | JLongstreet

Parkaholic says “Budgets may appear flat against inflation, but that just requires better management and less waste. Superintendents have unbelievable autonomy for spending in their parks.”

Apr 1st - 11:13am | parkaholic

I totally agree with the authors point that all the funding should come from public coffers. We should further that by eliminating the puppet non-profits that already funnel soft money into their specific parks. Although the $3 billion doesn't compare to Mission 66 in todays dollars it may be more than it appears.

Park Leadership-Thoughts from Montana

Mar 31st - 19:45pm | parkaholic

Sorry Sally, I guess the sarcasm was not evident enough in my previous post. I was trying to make a point....I am actually a confirmed conservative. Has Gore flown in in his private jet to trash the snowmobilers yet? If the Snowmobilers bought carbon credits would it be OK for them to ride? If I pay my fines ahead of time...am I allowed to speed down the highway?

Mar 30th - 21:57pm | Sally

To answer your question parkaholic, NEITHER do damage...all you whacko tree-huggin' types need to get your heads examined...exhaust just floats away in the air...and those bison couldn't give a hoot about a little noise...heck, it probably breaks their boredom!!

Mar 30th - 19:06pm | parkaholic

Let's not limit this to over the snow vehicles. How about all personnal vehicles. What does more damage in Yellowstone over the period of a year....private autos or snowmobiles?

Mar 30th - 09:55am | repanshek

Without a doubt, science will indeed reflect that snowcoaches aren't as clean as no snowcoaches. Heck, the science already demonstrates that.

Mar 30th - 09:40am | Jim Macdonald

"The best way to protect Yellowstone and ensure visitors can enjoy the natural, clean air and quiet that are intrinsic qualities of Yellowstone’s winter is through modern snowcoaches."

Entrance Fee Hikes: Time to Say No?

Mar 29th - 17:09pm | parkaholic

Entry fees for the parks were introduced as a way of generating funds that would directly contribute to the visitor experience. It was begun with the best of intentions and has been twisted and convoluted into a money beast. Fee Demo funds have escalated to the tens of millions in some parks and are referred to as "soft money".

Mar 29th - 13:24pm | Snowbird

MS Kennedy, your comments are well taken. However, under Bush's environmental policies it's strictly scorch earth. I can remember when President Kennedy was in office, he helped to stimulate physical fittest programs...remember those 50 mile certicate walks? Under this present "selected" President, he advocates nothing of the sort...except more bodies for the sickening Iraq war.

Mar 29th - 11:59am | MS Kennedy

Perhaps ecology/environment/personal responsibility for public lands should be taught in all public schools? Seems like kids are ALWAYS turned on by being introduced to just about ANYTHING outdoors, if given the opportunity. Maybe also some kind of Vista-type program for the environment rather than urban areas? Wouldn't it be great if there was a universal draft-for-the-environment?

Mar 29th - 06:51am | Jim Macdonald

If longterm is working community-by-community issue by issue against classism in society (all while linking each issue to the larger problem), I think in the short term that there are solutions that would begin to eliminate class while at the very least not doing any worse ecologically by crown jewel parks.

Mar 28th - 18:52pm | MS Kennedy

OK, Jim, I'm convinced and I agree that this is a class-based debate. I say that I will pay reasonable fees because I CAN pay some fees NOW, but I see those fees rising all the time and understand that I am being cut off from public lands because of lack of money. So what is the solution here? Only the rich should enjoy our crown jewel parks because they can afford to pay the fees?

Mar 27th - 20:25pm | Jim Macdonald

Most poor people will never see one of grand jewel national parks. I've been lucky in my life, and even then, though I planned for instance every year to go to Yellowstone between 1998-2005, I could not possibly scrape the money or the time to go back.

Mar 27th - 18:30pm | MS Kennedy

Hey, I'm one of the "poor" folk you mention. I can't afford $15/20 night camping fees, much less $100/200/night for a hotel room. I splurged last fall and went to Yosemite for 3 days -- camped every night, paid $20/night plus reservation fee plus entrance fee. Campground crowded and falling apart.

Mar 26th - 21:06pm | Ranger X

Matt, Why is public transportation "subsidized" but highway projects are "funded"? You pay only a fraction of the total cost for you to drive your car. Glenn, I'm with you. And some rooms at Crater Lake go for over 200 a night. Who can afford three nights there? That's my rent for a month.

Mar 26th - 12:43pm | Jim Macdonald

All or some, we are still only talking on the utilitarian spectrum; Glenn, all you've done is modify the scope of the spectrum of use, ownership, and therefore entitlement. And, so you are talking about how to shift costs, and the priorities involved with that.

Mar 26th - 11:54am | Glenn Scofield...

However, "poetry" and "commodity" aside, the National Parks are different. They are governed by a sense of democracy. These are literally "the people's parks..." This is not poetry; it is the founding principle of the system. The parks are "set aside" for all Americans - and not just the ones who can afford resort prices, but for all Americans.

Mar 26th - 09:34am | Matt

Jim,

Mar 25th - 23:18pm | lvjzgucqem

binions gambling hall and casino

Mar 25th - 23:17pm | btyucddnks

paradise" rel="nofollow">http://casinofeexinte.tripod.com/paradise-poker-buyin-discount.htm]paradise poker buyin discount

Mar 25th - 21:37pm | Jim Macdonald

So, Kurt, when you read that the parks are simply a marketable commodity defined in terms of their use, it makes you write some of the essays you have about romanticism, eh?

Mar 25th - 16:42pm | Matt

The market will determine the fees. If the seller prices their product too high (a strong argument can be made that this is the case), then people will stop buying it and prices will (eventually, in normal cases) go down.

Mar 25th - 10:51am | kath

If the higher fees mean fewer visitors, great. The land can use a rest from the trampling hordes.

Mar 25th - 07:22am | Ranger X

"If the market determines that $25 is fair value for the benefits and experiences achieved by one's visit, than $25 should be the cost. If demand goes down, so will the price." Wrong. Wrong. And wrong.

Mar 24th - 21:51pm | Matt

I doubt that anyone driving to the Grand Canyon cannot afford to pay $25 to get in. The Flagstaff to Grand Canyon Loop is roughly 200 miles - conservatively estimating vehicle costs @ $0.385 means a family just spent $77 just driving there from the nearest city. Can they afford to drive there but not afford to pay the entrance fee?

Mar 23rd - 13:53pm | jersu

I think another question to ask, is whether the entrance fees are fulfilling there original purpose, which was in-part, to help parks fund projects outside of the scope of the NPS budget. These were supposed to be projects like more wayside interpretive signs, and even to help with the maintenance backlogs. A lot of people stood behind the fees for this reason, including the NPCA -

ESA Under Attack From Bushies?

Mar 29th - 12:34pm | MS Kennedy

I'm writing the appropriate congresspeople today. This is typical of the underhanded way this administration has gone about its business from day one. It's time to stop the erosion and destruction of environmental policy in this country.

Mar 28th - 18:39pm | Alan Gregory

Bush = Son of Pombo.

Retired NPS Employee Laments New 'Loyalty Oaths'

Mar 27th - 09:36am | dasher

I'm guessing Ms. Spude does not mean, literally, "swear an oath". I believe that she is referring to a protocol that requires anyone being placed in a higher position to be first "vetted" by a political appointee. Similar to those seeking positions with the CPA in Iraq being vetted on their political views instead of on their substantive qualifications for the job, with predictable results . .

Mar 27th - 01:45am | Mike Bailey

strange the link above to the "oath" has been removed by OPM, gee I wonder why? Maybe because it is true and they knew it was wrong? The parks belong to all US citizens not the Bush Adminitstration, like all other administrations, they are just the temporary caretakers, and these people have shown they don't care about taking "care" of anything, just how much can they sell it for.

Mar 27th - 00:49am | rablib

Considering the other things these Bu$hies have done, why on earth would you want to give them the benefit of the doubt? I'm leaning toward believing the worst until it's proven different. The track record is horrible.

Mar 26th - 23:57pm | JHS

Asking employees to pledge support for the current policy (just what are these "objectionable" policies, btw?) is a hell of a lot different from asking them to swear a "fealty oath to the administration currently in power".

Entrance Fee Shenanigans

Mar 26th - 21:02pm | Ranger X

Amen brother. You've gotten right to the point. I can't tell you how many times I've been shut down while asking for public information, how many times phone calls and emails have gone unreturned, how many times NPS staff doesn't answer phones.

Have We Lost The Romance of a National Park Visit?

Mar 25th - 21:24pm | Jim Macdonald

"So how do you balance all of this?..." You can't balance it, and that's why I think you have to confront social problems and dynamics in the rest of society if you are going to do anything about parks. We should get out of the business of weaving webs and leave that to spiders.

Mar 25th - 20:38pm | parkaholic

So how do you balance all of this? Reduced improvements in the parks result in less accomodations resulting in higher prices thus eliteism. If you were to increase Yosemites visitation to 6 million then you must have infrastructure to support that i.e. bathrooms,eating establishments etc. Otherwise you limit visitation to no more than X number of people per day.

Mar 24th - 15:28pm | Tim CK

The National Parks visitation is surely down due to high gas prices caused by excessive and radical environmentalism ! ( How irronic ) In addition to this, price gouging by the hotels, restaurants, and general stores are also a major deterrent.

Mar 22nd - 06:24am | Jim Macdonald

Can we really think that we can set places aside based on values that are quite different from those practiced by the public at large and believe that those places can live in relative isolation from those values without over time being infected? I think we know the answer to that.

Mar 22nd - 05:30am | Anne Mitchell ...

Thanks for the mention of my book, Kurt. And I should add that I have two young sons (ages 8 & 10) who absolutely *loved* the Big Meadows Lodge at Shenandoah NP when we visited last summer. It's rustic -- no TV, no Internet -- and, to be honest, somewhat run down (there's your budget issue again), but it had a special coziness that created a sense of adventure.

Grizzly Bears And Their Status

Mar 25th - 14:10pm | phillip summers

i strongly agree with the article that we must not allow polictical satire or any private groups or indviduals to take away the protection act that has enabled a specfic species such as the grizzlies and other related bears to come back to life at such a critical point that has taken several generations(bears)to re populate.their lost to nature and the eco system would even yet be yet our extincti

Mar 23rd - 10:26am | Jim Macdonald

I wrote about this and the week's voluminous news in Yellowstone at: http://www.yellowstone-online.com/2007/03/yellowstone-grizzly-truth.html It's called: Yellowstone: A grizzly truth? I mentioned Kurt's piece on romance in the parks as well.

First Rocky, Then Teddy, And Now Wind Cave

Mar 24th - 18:16pm | jr_ranger

If we hadn't messed up the ecosystem in the 1st place, we wouldn't be having this debate. So instead of messing it up more, we should be restoring it (i.e. reintroducing wolves).

Mar 23rd - 11:10am | ParkRangerX

Put me down for $20 on Zion. Yeah, this is starting to get silly. While natives once hunted in parks, I don't want hunting to resume in every park with high powered modern weapons.

Glacier National Park, Or "Goat" National Park?

Mar 23rd - 03:46am | Cara Fletcher

I am interested if there are touring kayaks because there are many people like me who want to visit the place and try its rivers.:)

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.