fees into Yosemite National Park won't be raised

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 00:36:47 -0700, Peter Lawrence
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 04:51:38 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

"sharx35" wrote in message
news:WX0fi.8806$tB5.7721@edtnps90...

Doubling fees to enter National Parks would make them more enjoyable for
the rest of us--smaller crowds, line-ups, etc..

Make it so the poor people can not visit. Sounds like a plan. Conceited
poof.

Get real. if these poor people can get to Yosemite, a trip that
will cost them a fair chunk of cash, a $25 fee won't be enough to
stop them in their tracks. Of course, I've got a senior pass, $8
when I got it, and it's good for the rest of my life and for
every one in the car.

Before the entrance fee was raised from $7 to $20, there were a lot more
lower-income working class people who used to visit Yosemite for a day.
They used to bring in their own food and picnic at the designated
picnic sites located throughout the valley. It was a nice way for them
to spend a day in the park.

That's not $20 per person, you know. And four visits will pay for
an annual pass, assuming no one is old enough for a $10 lifetime
senior pass.

A lot of low-income people (in the hundred of thousands) live within an
easy 2-hour drive from Yosemite Valley, and even now, with gasoline
costing $3.50/gallon, they probably wouldn't have to spend more than $30
in gas for the round-trip to and from Yosemite.

Sheesh. Ain't Yosemite crowded enough in the valley?

Once Yosemite's entrance fee was raised to $20, the number of them
visiting the park dropped substantially.

It's not a l$20 entrance fee; it's $20 per car.

Even though the price increase didn't affect me personally in a major
way (I always bought the annual National Park Pass), I think the Park
Service did a major disservice to the American people by raising the
entrance fee so high.

I dunno about that. it eliminated some of the locals, but it's a
*national* park.

The National Parks are for all of us, and not just for those of us, like
myself, who are well-off enough to easily afford the higher fees.

"All of us" includes those of us who don't live an hour away.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 09:40:46 -0400, (RJ)
wrote:

sharx35 wrote:

"Peter Lawrence" wrote in message
et...

The National Parks are for all of us, and not just for those of us, like
myself, who are well-off enough to easily afford the higher fees.

Oh, bull****. What kind of Parks experience can ANYONE have with millions of
people crawling over every square inch. Time for quotas and advance
reservations ONLY, even for day use.

I guess you've never left the main highway in a National Park, then.

According to you, your poor people aren't leaving the main
highway, so what sort of park experience are they having?

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 07:19:42 -0700, "
wrote:


Oh, bull****. What kind of Parks experience can ANYONE have with millions of
people crawling over every square inch. Time for quotas and advance
reservations ONLY, even for day use.- Hide quoted text -


we were at yellowstone at the peak of capacity.....walk 100 yards
from any road and you are in a world of your own.....

reservations? Sheesh......love to go on a heavily planned vacation
with you......half the fun of state and national parks is dropping in
if time allows and having no destination in mind and ending up
somewhere amazing.....

But there are some parks where reservations are a pretty good
idea at certain times of years. For instance, you canpretty much
forget about a lot of the California state parks and beaches if
you don't have a reservation.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 09:40:45 -0400, (RJ)
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 04:51:38 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"sharx35" wrote in message
news:WX0fi.8806$tB5.7721@edtnps90...

Doubling fees to enter National Parks would make them more enjoyable for
the rest of us--smaller crowds, line-ups, etc..

Make it so the poor people can not visit. Sounds like a plan. Conceited
poof.

Get real. if these poor people an get to Yosemite, a trip that
will cost them a fair chunk of cash, a $25 fee won't be enough to
stop them in their tracks.

The drop in Yosemite attendance belies this claim.

Not necessarily. It could be the increasing cost of gasoline, for
instance. Be careful of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

wrote in message
ups.com...

Oh, bull****. What kind of Parks experience can ANYONE have with millions
of
people crawling over every square inch. Time for quotas and advance
reservations ONLY, even for day use.- Hide quoted text -


we were at yellowstone at the peak of capacity.....walk 100 yards
from any road and you are in a world of your own.....

reservations? Sheesh......love to go on a heavily planned vacation
with you......half the fun of state and national parks is dropping in
if time allows and having no destination in mind and ending up
somewhere amazing.....


Chuck

Typical DEMONreats...expect that space will always be there for THEM,
without any advance planning.

On Jun 23, 2:05 pm, Hatunen wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 07:19:42 -0700, "

wrote:

Oh, bull****. What kind of Parks experience can ANYONE have with millions of
people crawling over every square inch. Time for quotas and advance
reservations ONLY, even for day use.- Hide quoted text -

we were at yellowstone at the peak of capacity.....walk 100 yards
from any road and you are in a world of your own.....

reservations? Sheesh......love to go on a heavily planned vacation
with you......half the fun of state and national parks is dropping in
if time allows and having no destination in mind and ending up
somewhere amazing.....

But there are some parks where reservations are a pretty good
idea at certain times of years. For instance, you canpretty much
forget about a lot of the California state parks and beaches if
you don't have a reservation.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *


Are we talking about reservations to get INTO the park or reservations
for camping?

I can understand camping reservations, makes perfect sense, but to
require a reservation to get into the park, shoot, that would make us
russia in the 1960's.....

Chuck

Hatunen wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 09:40:46 -0400, (RJ)
wrote:

sharx35 wrote:

"Peter Lawrence" wrote in message
et...

The National Parks are for all of us, and not just for those of us,
like myself, who are well-off enough to easily afford the higher
fees.

Oh, bull****. What kind of Parks experience can ANYONE have with
millions of people crawling over every square inch. Time for quotas and
advance reservations ONLY, even for day use.

I guess you've never left the main highway in a National Park, then.

According to you, your poor people aren't leaving the main
highway, so what sort of park experience are they having?

The vast majority of park visitors, rich or poor, never leave the main
roads and big attractions.

Hatunen wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 09:40:45 -0400, (RJ)
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 04:51:38 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"sharx35" wrote in message
news:WX0fi.8806$tB5.7721@edtnps90...

Doubling fees to enter National Parks would make them more enjoyable for
the rest of us--smaller crowds, line-ups, etc..

Make it so the poor people can not visit. Sounds like a plan. Conceited
poof.

Get real. if these poor people an get to Yosemite, a trip that
will cost them a fair chunk of cash, a $25 fee won't be enough to
stop them in their tracks.

The drop in Yosemite attendance belies this claim.

Not necessarily. It could be the increasing cost of gasoline, for
instance. Be careful of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Sure.

Hatunen wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 00:36:47 -0700, Peter Lawrence
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 04:51:38 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

"sharx35" wrote in message
news:WX0fi.8806$tB5.7721@edtnps90...
Doubling fees to enter National Parks would make them more enjoyable for
the rest of us--smaller crowds, line-ups, etc..

Make it so the poor people can not visit. Sounds like a plan. Conceited
poof.
Get real. if these poor people can get to Yosemite, a trip that
will cost them a fair chunk of cash, a $25 fee won't be enough to
stop them in their tracks. Of course, I've got a senior pass, $8
when I got it, and it's good for the rest of my life and for
every one in the car.
Before the entrance fee was raised from $7 to $20, there were a lot more
lower-income working class people who used to visit Yosemite for a day.
They used to bring in their own food and picnic at the designated
picnic sites located throughout the valley. It was a nice way for them
to spend a day in the park.

That's not $20 per person, you know. And four visits will pay for
an annual pass, assuming no one is old enough for a $10 lifetime
senior pass.

Yet, the number of them visiting the park dropped substantially after
the fee increase went into effect.

A lot of low-income people (in the hundred of thousands) live within an
easy 2-hour drive from Yosemite Valley, and even now, with gasoline
costing $3.50/gallon, they probably wouldn't have to spend more than $30
in gas for the round-trip to and from Yosemite.

Sheesh. Ain't Yosemite crowded enough in the valley?

Except the picnic sites they use tend to be underutilized by the other
park visitors. Most other park visitors tend to eat their meals at
their campsites or at the park concessionaire's facilities.

Once Yosemite's entrance fee was raised to $20, the number of them
visiting the park dropped substantially.

It's not a l$20 entrance fee; it's $20 per car.

I wasn't implying otherwise.

Even though the price increase didn't affect me personally in a major
way (I always bought the annual National Park Pass), I think the Park
Service did a major disservice to the American people by raising the
entrance fee so high.

I dunno about that. it eliminated some of the locals, but it's a
*national* park.

But it shouldn't eliminate the locals that happen to be less well off
than many of us.

The National Parks are for all of us, and not just for those of us, like
myself, who are well-off enough to easily afford the higher fees.

"All of us" includes those of us who don't live an hour away.

Of course, but it shouldn't exclude those that do live nearby, but
aren't rich.

- Peter

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 19:32:17 GMT, "sharx35"
wrote:

Typical DEMONreats...expect that space will always be there for THEM,
without any advance planning.

By coincidence we seem to be on the same side of a debate. I
will attempt, as I'm sure you will, that that unfortunate
situation does not occur again.

Regards.

Cheers, Alan, Australia
--
http://loraltraveloz.blogspot.com/
latest: Up to Kuranda by train
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Slovenia
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
latest: Jennifer's Story