Visitor Center
Copyright 2005-2013
National Park Advocates LLC
Follow the Traveler
Recent comments
-
Bob Janiskee
on
Creature Feature: The Banana Slug is...
18 hours 43 min ago
-
Megaera
on
Wilderness Hike This Weekend At...
1 day 11 hours ago
-
Susan Blake
on
Creature Feature: The Banana Slug is...
1 day 13 hours ago
-
justinh
on
Wilderness Hike This Weekend At...
1 day 16 hours ago
-
justinh
on
Democratic Congressman Laments Impact...
1 day 17 hours ago
-
Jim Burnett
on
Wildfire Skirts Scotty's Castle At...
1 day 17 hours ago
-
ecbuck
on
Democratic Congressman Laments Impact...
1 day 17 hours ago
-
ecbuck
on
Democratic Congressman Laments Impact...
1 day 17 hours ago
-
Rick Smith
on
Democratic Congressman Laments Impact...
1 day 17 hours ago
-
Kurt Repanshek
on
Democratic Congressman Laments Impact...
1 day 18 hours ago


















Kurt's right, the $6 is a reservation fee.
From the NRRS Operating Procedures Manual, Appendix 1 page 8:
"Reservation Fee. An Agency-approved fee charged to the customer at the time a reservation is made, to cover the cost of reservation services. This fee is in addition to the Recreation Use Fee"
In Chapter 2(pg19) the manual states,
"Reservation fees are charged at some agency facilities and are non-refundable."
and
"The National Park Service has a reservation fee of $1.50 for tour tickets at non-fee parks, i.e., the Washington Monument."
Lee said he wasn't charged a reservation fee at Arches for a campgound reservation. Arches has an entrance fee, Fire Island doesn't.
http://tinyurl.com/m8qkmvv[/b]
Nope. Over the last three years, I've traveled the backcountry of nearly thirty national parks, and I've had the exact opposite exerience with NPS.
Not ready to reach that conclusion yet. What do you think their motive would be?
Sounds like a camping fee disguised as a reservation fee. Is anyone else here feeling like the NPS would prefer to decrease visitation to the backcountry of all NPS areas?
Doesn't that prove its not a "Reservation" fee. Its a camping fee. Right or wrong - call it what it is.
EC, you're claiming a false victory. You pay the fee to reserve a permit to camp in the backcountry, as the language Sara cited clearly states: "A $20 permit fee is assessed for each permit. This includes a $6 service fee which is required for each permit reserved."
How isn't it a reservation fee?
And if you try to duck that fee and simply wander into the wilderness area, what happens if you get caught without a permit? Odds are you get booted out and possible cited. The park sets limits on how many people can overnight in the backcountry and work to keep track by requiring folks to check in.
So what? Being a spectator is free to either. Oh and BTW - there is a limit on the # of Ride the Rockies riders. Not to mention they pay $495 to ride, unless you want the special package at $2,500.
Thanks Sara - so the $20 isn't a "Reservation" fee.
Say Sara, if you are up to the risk of being investigated by the DOJ for leaks, can you get us a link to the detail proposal for the Pro Challange in CONM?
Sara the fact finder comes through yet again! Thanks.
This is what it says on recreation.gov when you look at the fee policy for Fire Island:
"A $20.00 permit fee is assessed for each permit. This includes a $6.00 service fee which is required for each permit reserved."
My best guess is that the $6 service fee goes to the NRRS contractor, ReserveAmerica, as $14 is refundable if you cancel.
ec, you don't have to specifically ask for an entitlement. Your very attitude demonstrates that you don't ask. You demand.
If you don't understand my comment, read yours again.
And our current mayor is a Republican who saw the light after his predecessor caved in to the race pushers. (Who may not be much different than other kinds of pushers.)
You say you would be against the race if you saw or heard from anyone who will acknowledge cost to the NPS. Perhaps if you'd open your eyes or ears you'd see and hear what the rest of are witnesssing.
It struck me last night that this entire debate has devolved into an excellent analogy for what's happening in Congress right now. Some people who are trying to find sensible solutions to vexing problems are being outshouted by a few very noisy ones who spend their time obfuscating, delaying, twisting, dodging and trying to prevent anything productive or that might benefit more than a few powerfully wealthy organizations or individuals who insist on gaining short term profit over long term policies that may prevent destruction of good things.
With all due respect, I acknowledge that no matter how wrong you may be, you will never be able to see the light because you will continue -- for whatever reason -- to cover your eyes and ears. All I can do is continue to hope that there will be enough Americans who will recognize the fallacy of that approach and continue to fight against it. They once handed one heck of a surprise to a fella named Mitt because he tried the same thing.
They call that John Q disease in these parts.
FYI,
The Pro Challenge is a professional race with a limit as to who can enter (professional bicyclists).
The Ride the Rockies Tour is not professional and is not a race and has no limit as to who can enter (entry is by lottery to anyone, not just professional cyclists).
So, you are comparing apples to oranges, here.
Commercialism has nothing to do with the decision to permit one and not the other. The scope of each event is completely different; one is open to the public and for pleasure, the other is closed to the public and for profit.
I dont believe this place is worthy of the upgrade. I've spent some time here, and I just feel that it is a smaller version of Cathedral Valley in Capitol Reef.
Lately, it seems like a lot of places are trying to get their national wilderness lands or national monuments upgraded to National Parks, and my concern is that a lot of these lands are not worthy of the designation, and it cheapens the overall brand.
Cuyahoga National Park was the start of the cheapening of the brand in my opinion. That area is just a glorified state park, and when you compare it to the grandeur of a place like the Smokies, or Glacier, or the Grand Canyon it is not even on the same level in terms of the amount of wilderness, and the amount of protected natural features. I feel that Colorado National Monument should stay a national monument. Yes, it's beautiful. Yes it has some flora and fauna biodiversity that is typical of the region. BUt it is not vast enough or significant enough to stand up there in the National Park realm.
Since ecbuck has retrieved this story, here's a recent Op-ed from Isle Royale biologists on the issue of wolf re-introduction:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/opinion/save-the-wolves-of-isle-royale-national-park.html
Thank you Scott Merritt, right on.
Nicely said, indeed, Scott Merritt.
More inconvenience:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023
Thanks, Scott. Nicely said :-)
I'm going to take a wild guess here, but I'm going to say it costs more because it's New York. They will charge what the market will bear. Anyone who has ever traveled to New York knows everything is more expensive there. Not just the city but the whole state.
I hereby give my full support to the organizations who give full support to the redesignation of CNM to CNP with the one caveat that as a part owner of the public land I am granted full veto power over these organizations who would like to be granted full veto power. I also have an additional 350 events per year planned for CNM/P that may or may not make money but are good, honest, wholesome commercial ventures that promote stuff that I like and will only require some part of the M/P to be closed but only on those 350 days and only for limited times. Events for week 1 will get us kicked off with a skateboarding race, a wild west equestrian ride, a soapbox derby, a model train show, a romance novels clubs street crawl, a Baptist scooter slolom, and an all atheist bicycle ride. This will introduce a lot more people to the M/P which necessarily means we will see even more support for the area because mass visits always guarantee awareness and awakening. With any luck they will also put some serious thought into supporting their new found treasure with full veto support so we can keep things in such perfect harmonious balance. See u at the races/demonstrations/exhibitions soon! Bring your support and veto quills!
Do you have to make a reservation at Fire Island - or can you not pay the fee and take the chance the site might be full? If you can't do that, then its not a "reservation" fee but a camping fee and should be named as such.
This is just a guess, could it be more and more parks are turning to "reservation" fees to off-set a lack of federal dollars? After all, it does cost to staff backcountry offices, sort through and approval reservations, and maintain backcountry trails, campsites, and latrines.
As for the $20 vs $4, the $20 fee is for processing your permit application. There is no daily/nightly fee once you're out in Fire Island's backcountry. At the Smokies, there is no general reservation fee per se, and the fees are capped at $20 per person whether you stay out five nights or seven (treks of more than 7 nights would require an additional permit, however).
$20?? Why would it cost $20 at Fire Islands and only $4 at GSMNP? Won't they be using the same system? Sounds like they are using the term "Reservation Fee" to back door something else.
I don't have a clue what that is suppossed to mean.
Showing your ignorance once again Lee. Our Mayor is an avowed socialists, there isn't a conservative bone in his body and most the rest of council is not far behind.
And I will say again. If the cost to the NPS wasn't covered by the race organizers or sponsors, then I would be against it. I haven't seen anyone involved in the process indicate that is the case. That isn't in the list of reasons given for turning it down.
Oh and BTW, I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim that I have asked for entitlements. More empy claims and accusations.