Recent comments

I was assigned to two presidential visits: President Nixon to Grand Teton and President Carter, to Yellowstone and the Tetons. My sense of it was that people were thrilled to see their Presidents in a national park and did not mind the inconvenience of slower traffic and swarms of Secret Service personnel and lots of rangers. I remember President Carter watching Old Faithful along with the crowds of people that normally congregate for an eruption. He shook a lot of hands. The security just is a sign of the times.

Rick

Kurt,

No doubt I am partisan but not on this issue. The point is that the President - any president- has plenty of opportunities to visit the Park when he is not President and when it won't result in major sections of the Park being closed. Any such visit, expecially by one who has otherwise shown no interest in the Park, is pure political grandstanding - no matter the party. Such grandstanding which blocks access is far more annoying to me than commercial activities that may draw thousands of extra visitors.

Oh, and being dragged to a Park by your grandmother at age 11 as part of a tour of the west and never returning doesn't count as "interest".

Gee that sure verifies his long love for the Parks.

As to the President visiting the park. To the best of my knowledge he had never been to Yellowstone before and I am guessing he is unlikely to go again. In fact that may be true for any major Park that involves more than a drive through. He will be President for 8 years. He has had/will have 70+ years when he isn't President to visit. Presidential visits to Parks are pure political grandstanding, especially by those that have done nothing for them, and are even less appropriate than commercial activities.

We pay $80 a year for our annual parks pass. My husband laughs every time he gets to use it - he thinks its the greatest thing since sliced bread. It expired today so we have to go to Shenandoah NP to get it renewed next weekend. I'm not going to complain...

There's still a 50% federal recreation amenities discount with the pass, and I don't see why it couldn't continue. I remember going on a cave tour with my mom, and she got half off. She won't go camping with us, so we can't get her to come along to save some bucks.

As we pointed out in March, there are many avenues that should be explored to improve the Park Service's fiscal health, and tinkering with the senior pass is just one of them (one we support, too!).

It would seem that calling for higher fees -- whether they be higher entrance fees, per-person fees, fees in parks that don't charge entrance fees -- is a quick, easy solution in that it can be done without congressional approval. Going down the road towards better federal funding for the National Park System, in part by rooting out wasteful or unnecessary spending across the federal government, is much tougher when you need Congress to act.

Rather than simply asking for the Park Service director to raise fees, it would seem wholly appropriate to ask/pressure Congress to be more fiscally responsible.

Of course they do. It's not as if they actually want people to visit or enjoy our national parks unless they have money. Keep poor people out because they're, well, poor, and might trash these places. Yup.

And I do agree with one of the comments that maybe the $10 lifetime pass for seniors should be reconsidered to at least a yearly pass. I've gone with my folks, and actually paid for their passes. Seemed like a tremendous deal, but I always felt like we were getting away with something when tagging along with them.

I think a nominal fee is appropriate. There is no fee to enter the park and they do charge fees for campgrounds. A small backcountry fee is a good idea, since it will help fund any SAR efforts and help maintain trails and campsites.

WOW. Your headline just does not accurately reflect our proposal. Glad you at least included the full submission so that your readers can see that for themselves. Where is a reference to pricing designed to move visitation away from peak periods? Where is a reference to reducing fee collection costs -- now 20+% of revenues? Where is a reference to making fees fairer -- so that a family coming for an afternoon doesn't pay the same as a couple coming and staying for a week? Where is a reference to use of new technology to collect fees conveniently and efficiently at some parks which now have no fees because of too many entry sites?

But -- thanks for at least raising the opportunity to discuss the role of fees when park operating budgets are in deep trouble ... and getting worse.

S. 486, to authorize pedestrian and motorized vehicular access in Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area, and for other purposes.

The description of this bill is misleading. This bill is about establishing ORVs as the primary means of access to CHNS. The bill was written by the local congressman with the help of local pro ORV politicians.

If the bill passes it would:

* eliminate the new ORV vehicle safety regulations formed under the current ORV rule

* increase ORV and pedestrian recreational conflicts in CHNS

* reduce the amount of vehicle free beach that can be reasonably accessed by foot now available under the current rule

* increase the seasonal amount of ORV access in front of the villages, creating a safety issue for pedestrians

* leave the Park without a written defensible ORV management plan

Before the final rule CHNS did not have an ORV plan and park mangers were inconsistent in how ORVs were managed. There were no designated year round designated vehicle free areas in the Park. Vehicle free areas were available for visitors only at the discretion of local Park mangers, not permanently designated and subject to change. ORV organizations continue to lobby for less vehicle free areas and more ORV areas in the Park. S. 486 would revert the management of ORVs in the Park to the Interim Protected Species Management Plan, referred to as the "Interim Plan" in the bill. This plan is not an ORV plan, was formed with minimal public input and designed to temporarily addresses ORV management with respect to the Park's protected species until the final ORV rule could be established. It does not in any way manage recreational conflicts or safety concerns between ORVs and pedestrians or address the profound changes the Seashore has undergone in the last 40 years. .

S. 486 disregards the testimony gathered from public comments under strict NEPA guidelines that were submitted, considered and implemented by the NPS for the current ORV rule concerning pedestrian issues as they pertain to ORV management.

If the authors of S. 486 were interested in improving access for all they would have written a bill that addressed just that and let the Park's final rule deal with other issues. Unfortunately this poorly written bill which is still in National Parks Subcommittee has a good chance of making it to the Senate floor.

Lee, absolutely. It isn't just for teenagers anymore.