Feds Consider Raising Rainier Entrance Fees to $15

Feds Consider Raising Rainier Entrance Fees to $15

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

October 31st, 2005, 5:32 am #1


The Seattle Times reports feds are considering raising the entrance fees at Rainier and in the Olympics from $10 to $15.

In addition Gifford-Pinchot National Forest is soliciting private operations to fund the visitor centers at Mount St. Helens. Ideas being floated include helicopter tours, overnight RV camping, boat rentals.

The article notes that Scott Silver has been warning about this for years on his website wildwilderness.org
http://americasroof.com/wp/archives/200 ... fees-to-15/
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 25th, 2000, 10:31 pm

November 1st, 2005, 6:18 pm #2

I thought national parks charged $20 at the toll gate. National Monuments cost less. (I get in free on my Golden Age Passport ).
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 26th, 2004, 7:02 pm

November 1st, 2005, 9:49 pm #3

Different Nat'l Parks charge different fees. At least one has no entrance fee at all.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 22nd, 2004, 5:48 am

November 1st, 2005, 10:03 pm #4


The Seattle Times reports feds are considering raising the entrance fees at Rainier and in the Olympics from $10 to $15.

In addition Gifford-Pinchot National Forest is soliciting private operations to fund the visitor centers at Mount St. Helens. Ideas being floated include helicopter tours, overnight RV camping, boat rentals.

The article notes that Scott Silver has been warning about this for years on his website wildwilderness.org
http://americasroof.com/wp/archives/200 ... fees-to-15/
I think all state and federal parks should charge an admission fee. In NC/Tn the Great Smoky Mts NP had 10 milleion wisitors in 2000. If each one were charged just one dollar that would be 10 million (advanced math) The park would not have to rely on the federal $ for finance when they don't have enough $ to even maintain what is there. The citizens who use all parks (federal, state) should
pay in order to have better parks.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

November 1st, 2005, 10:19 pm #5

NC and TN stipulated the Smokies always be free when they donated the land for the national park.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 20th, 2004, 9:07 pm

November 2nd, 2005, 3:04 am #6

I think all state and federal parks should charge an admission fee. In NC/Tn the Great Smoky Mts NP had 10 milleion wisitors in 2000. If each one were charged just one dollar that would be 10 million (advanced math) The park would not have to rely on the federal $ for finance when they don't have enough $ to even maintain what is there. The citizens who use all parks (federal, state) should
pay in order to have better parks.
So users should be paying for upkeep of the parks? Ok, that's fine with me. But also let's make sure only people who watch PBS pay for it. And let's charge a per-child fee for everyone who uses the public schools. Let's make all roads toll roads. And while we're at it, only people who use oil should pay a fee for subsidizing our current war.

This message brought to you by a symphony musician who unfortunately is getting NO federal or state tax dollars.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 22nd, 2004, 5:48 am

November 2nd, 2005, 4:57 am #7

NC and TN stipulated the Smokies always be free when they donated the land for the national park.
Roger,

You ruined my argument. I actually remembered that factum while typing the responce. Federal and state government have broken promises before, here is another one that needs to be broken! (I always thought it was the feds who prevented the park fees.)
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 22nd, 2004, 5:48 am

November 2nd, 2005, 5:12 am #8

So users should be paying for upkeep of the parks? Ok, that's fine with me. But also let's make sure only people who watch PBS pay for it. And let's charge a per-child fee for everyone who uses the public schools. Let's make all roads toll roads. And while we're at it, only people who use oil should pay a fee for subsidizing our current war.

This message brought to you by a symphony musician who unfortunately is getting NO federal or state tax dollars.
If people can afford to travel to publicly underfunded parks with their camping trailers(watching public tv), being pulled by cars(that use oil and public roads), who took their children out of public school(they pay for with their taxes) so they can go on a family vacation; then they can afford to shell out a few $ for the parks upkeep.

This message is brought to you by a ER physician who pays a shitload of taxes and multiple hundred(s) $ in individual state, federal, and professional fees so he can do what he spent 9 years in training. No animus intended by the above statements, lets agree to disagree.

By the way going to some county HP's this weekend. (This statement is so Roger hopefully won't delete my flaming response)
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 21st, 2002, 3:49 am

November 2nd, 2005, 8:47 pm #9

So users should be paying for upkeep of the parks? Ok, that's fine with me. But also let's make sure only people who watch PBS pay for it. And let's charge a per-child fee for everyone who uses the public schools. Let's make all roads toll roads. And while we're at it, only people who use oil should pay a fee for subsidizing our current war.

This message brought to you by a symphony musician who unfortunately is getting NO federal or state tax dollars.
I don't understand why every week there is at least one angry personal attack on this website. This could be a place to have a discussion about national/state park entry fees, but this isn't the best place. Even if it was, there really should be no room for anyone to personally attack another member and call them names. There seems to be such anger here. Why is it so easy to forget about discussing and sharing information about climbing/hiking/mountaineering and begin personal attacks? If you don't like the fees parks set, call your congressman and senators. Let's use this place to discuss peaks and trails and where the great places there are to go and see and how to get there and climb them safely. Please place your anger on another website that is used to political name calling.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 20th, 2004, 9:07 pm

November 2nd, 2005, 11:01 pm #10

I didn't notice any personal or angry attacks in this thread. Who attacked whom? Patrick and i just voiced the extreme end of the debate. He coming from his perspective, mine coming from my (way more than 9 years of studying to practice my craft, can't afford trailer homes, tends to hitchhike to the parks since after taxes, union dues, and expenses i basically end up at poverty level) perspective.

Thing is, the validity of both lines of reasoning points to some combination of all three sources of funding: tax-based, private, and user fees. We can and do constantly adjust and debate the proportion of those 3 sources. But i'm in a position of being especially sensitive to what happens when one source is eliminated entirely. With ONLY user fees and private funding, the parks cease to be EVERYone's parks. They then, by influence of where the $ comes from, evolve into something that caters specifically to a constituency. (I see that process happening in my own line of work. Why go to poor communities and give parks and ed concerts, when those people will never make donations or buy tickets?) When i'm old and invalid, i want the parks to be taken care of for the sake of the wildlife and the future. Not only for the sake of the users and private donors.

p.s. thanks Patrick for past route advice! i had a great time in the SE last spring.
Quote
Like
Share