Count the cost(and the intent)

[Donna D.]

Originally Posted by Raspy

I've personally been told by the rangers I could not go in and look closely at the stuff, and would have to look at it through the windows. It's as if they personally owned it. .....

I've seen the attitude before and it always rubs me the wrong way. The rangers don't own the property, but they sometimes act as if they do and as if the public is just a nuisance that must be managed. It's not that way everywhere.

The public servants at the "Ranger" level are at the bottom of the chain. You're complaining about the wrong people. They're doing the job they are paid to do. If you have issues, you need to take it up with those that make the rules. Remember, everyone has a boss. Talk to the boss.

[steve dunham]

Park Rangers don't make /set park policy but simply follow it . Policy is often set by some politically appointed beurocrat who has no idea of what he / she is doing but wants to feel important.
It's like blaming the poor gas station attendant for the high price of gasoline .
As Donna said , if you don't like the rules then talk to the person who makes the rules but be aware you may just end up where your at right now mad and frustrated .

[crowwing]

My wife and I have a goal of visiting every state park in MN. We have approximately 20 left. We are so appreciative of our state park system. Beautiful parks, great staff, clean, and family friendly. I feel our rates are fair and our system is strong for the future.
John

[Kai in Seattle]

We've considered doing something like that here in WA and OR. It's achievable, though not easy. A stellar goal regardless!


BEST
Kai

[slowpat]

Donna is right on. As one who retired from one of the big agencies in the woods, I can tell you that the people on the ground have no way to change any rules. I told people to contact their Congressional Reps. It does get tiring to listen to complaints about laws that are passed, but we usually manage to listen and remain calm. I've actually had people threatening to get me fired when I did not allow them to break the law--no fines or tickets, just a stop and a recommendation that they find another spot to cut firewood in. And I wasn't really in a position that contacted people all the time--I worked with those evil loggers you talk about.

Yes, many of the rules are stupid, but they are there until folks wise up and get the rules changed. Somebody somewhere did something that inspired our "leaders" to make a rule. The peons on the ground are not the people to talk to about change. Write to Congress about National Parks and Forests (do not confuse the two). Write to your state reps about state issues. Fill out the surveys that some state parks send out after you've camped there. Maybe it might make a difference.

[Raz]

.The peons on the ground are not the people to talk to about change. Write to Congress about National Parks and Forests (do not confuse the two)

Good advice.

I'm not a fan of the "just pay it" , just accept argument. Most park systems are run by bureaucrats that are there for a short time. No one ever climbed the ladder by maintaining the status quo. Nothing to put on the resume. I'm not interested in paying for there career advancement. A little heat from the top can keep things honest.

[floyd]

Back to the point...
Nit picking instead of honest pricing...
Today I heard that some airlines now advertise low fares and then charge a hundred dollars for a carry on and an extra fee for a place to sit during the flight!.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Public lands and state parks benefit everyone and not just those who visit.
Public funding for their preservation and up keep is a public responsibility.

There are those who wish to deny public access to federal lands, thereby condemning them to eventual destruction and loss of public funding.
Those who visit the parks vote to support their existence. Those who don't, will not support them politically.

This principle applies to state as well as federal lands.
If arcane pricing and fee structures continue to displace honest pricing and a fairly shared burden, the public will be hesitant to take their families to them, thus raising a generation without the memories or the support for public lands and parks. That lack of support will cause a further languishing into disrepair or even the private sale of a precious resource.

Where I live we pay taxes for fire and ambulance protection. On top of that support there is a $1200 fee attached for a ride as short as a single block.
Some user fees may be justified, but I really don't want to live in a world with toll sidewalks. (step on a crack and break the citizens back?)

[steve dunham]

There are 2 parks in Central Wisconsin, one county , one state.
They are approx 10 miles apart and both adjoin the same river
The County Park has water and electric sites , a dump station , boat ramp , new bathrooms / showers , upgraded electric, and sells firewood at a reasonable price .
The State Park has a few sites with electric , none with water , old run down restrooms and facilities, and expensive firewood.
The County Park charges $23 a night total ( NO entrance fee NO Park Sticker)
The State Park charges $27 a night plus you need to buy a $25 park sticker and pay State Sales tax

Guess which park is full all summer and which one is sitting half empty. Guess which one is making money and which one is loosing money ?
Raising prices in private industry to increase your revenues / profit often only works if there is no or little competition. The rules of economics do apply to government as well

[Raz]

Back to the point...
Nit picking instead of honest pricing...

Floyd, I don't see that we were off point. Complaining here might make you feel good but it will not solve your problem. Have you researched who you can write to or call that may be able to address your concerns?

[Mike Magee]

Originally Posted by Raspy

...The Bristlecone Forest in eastern CA is the opposite. No entrance fee. An amazing place with fantastic historical and scientific significance. A large beautiful campground with a "suggested" donation of only $5. per night. A visitor's center and trails worth spending several days to fully comprehend. Ranger guided walks with explanations that reveal wonders I never would have seen on my own. It's a real gem.

Interesting too, that I finally was able to build my home on five acres that backs up to BLM land in rural Nevada and the Pine Nut mountains. Now I find I have much less desire to "get away". We're also getting very good at avoiding the modern hassles that seem to often accompany camping trips that should really be about peace and quiet, such as lots of fees and lots of traffic.

Thanks for mentioning the Bristlecone Pine Forest and nearby CG. I wish I'd been aware of it previously on one of my two trips to Yosemite. I unwittingly passed by (on 168) within a few miles of this place on one of those camping trips. If there ever is a next time, now I know.

Your new home location sounds like a bit of paradise. I'm happy for you, that you found a nice, quiet spot adjoining BLM land.

[Raspy]

Mike,

Thanks for the nice comments.

A little teaser on the Bristlecone forest: These are the oldest living trees and can be up to 5,000 years old. The wood is very rot resistant and the dolomite soil offers a very harsh environment for them. Once a tree dies it can stand for another 3000 years before falling. Then once down, they can last for still more time.

So, core samples can be drawn from living trees and overlayed against dead tree cores which can be overlayed against the rings of down trees that have had sections cut out. This allows a direct measurement back to nearly twelve thousand years by counting tree rings as small as 100 per inch!

Using this direct measurement, it was determined that the carbon dating system, used for dating so many things, had an error. This error was corrected using tree rings from the Bristlecone Pines.

It's hard to comprehend the idea that those trees, right there in front of you, have been there for that long and are growing in a sedimentary sea bottom, at a high elevation.

This begins to tie in with the Grand Canyon and it's evolutionary rise and fall of so many sea beds over millions of years that made the various layers a mile thick.

Anyone who is skeptical about the age of things should visit this place and actually count some tree rings. You can look at a living tree that may have been alive when the pyramids were built. You are right there in the Sierras at 10,000 feet and standing on an ancient sea bed.

When the trees are young, they are beautiful and symetrical, like Christmas trees. But over time, with ice storms, wind, etc, they become battered and the bark torn off in areas. Eventually there will only be a narrow bark strip running up the trunk to maybe one viable branch. The ground can erode away at around a meter every thousand years exposing the root structure. This kind of terrible environment, combined with the poor dolomite soil is why these trees last so long. In better areas they might only last several hundred or a thousand years and grow much faster.

At the end of the day, you can return to your trailer at the camp site, have a campfire and ponder the day's discoveries. I've never seen it crowded at all with about 50 campsites and maybe 10 campers. All for $5. per night and no entrance fee.

[floyd]

Originally Posted by Raz

Floyd, I don't see that we were off point. Complaining here might make you feel good but it will not solve your problem. Have you researched who you can write to or call that may be able to address your concerns?

I don't really have a problem,Wisconsin does.
I simply don't visit Wisconsin State Parks, unless I want to attend a ScampCamp with friends who have chosen one of these parks as a rally site.
I did call Pollyanna,and she sounded pessimistic about affecting any change.

Bringing this discussion here was my point, and all the responses made me feel all warm inside. Thank you for your response, which shows that I am reaching my intended audience.
Public awareness often gets more results than a dismissive conversation with a politician, especially if he knows I can't vote for him.

[stude]

Originally Posted by crowwing

My wife and I have a goal of visiting every state park in MN. We have approximately 20 left. We are so appreciative of our state park system. Beautiful parks, great staff, clean, and family friendly. I feel our rates are fair and our system is strong for the future.
John

:Zion national park just out of site plus Arches, Monument Valley, Dead Horse Canyon, the News Paper Park, South Grand Canyon, there are quite a few others but cannot recall them off the top of my head right now.
Yellowstone is another, Crazy Horse was a good one.
Stude

[Kai in Seattle]

Stude, Crowwing--all:


Arches was wonderful, though we didn't camp there. We also didn't hike. But we did get lost out in the desert in Paul's 4WD Jeep for many hours and for a while thought we were going to be Coyote food.


Yellowstone--wonderful, again, we didn't camp there. We did get held up by a herd of bison--which are a lot bigger up close...with enormous eyes and huge nostrils! (They blocked our jeep and walked alongside it for a long, ambling while). Wolf and Bear Haven was fab.


Zion is on a bucket list, as are many others mentioned. Adding Bristlecone Pine, too.


BEST
Kai

[Alf S.]

Hi: floyd... Canada's National Pk's have free entry for 2017 in honour of our 150th B-day. What that means is you don't have to pay to get in the park so you can stop to pay to camp.
Peeling away the thin veneer of beau rock racy, one layer at a time!!!
Alf S. North shore of Lake Erie

[Deborah S]

I'm thinking you folks are all missing the point on Federal, State or Provincial parks (US/Canada). They were largely set up to set aside wilderness for future generations and wildlife. The camping was added - sometimes with a fight - to help justify the expense. Private parks are set up only to provide camping. Me, I'm a socialist and an environmentalist so I'm okay with my tax dollars supporting the environment. And camping - frankly I think the lower rate should go to those with kids, not the seniors. Here's a good reference to Environmental Deficit going on in our kids. PS being in an old growth forest promotes focus, lowers blood pressure, reduces asthma incidents and other respiratory issues in addition to helping diabetics maintain better blood sugar - current research is looking into how fungus and bacterias present in these forest help with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_deficit_disorder.

[Jon in AZ]

I agree that preservation is primary in federal national parks, monuments, and wilderness areas, evidenced by the very restrictive rules regarding recreational use. Other land designations are less centered on preservation- forests, BLM, and recreation areas. They emphasize "mixed use," recreation being one.

But state parks (the subject of this thread) evolved later and many (not all) were developed with recreational use as the primary goal, with preservation important but secondary.

While preservation arguably benefits all, recreation mainly benefits those who actually use the park. Of course, everyone is a potential user, which is why I argue that land acquisition and capital development should be a shared expense through taxes, while operations should be funded by users through access fees.

Some states clearly operate more efficiently than others. That data needs to be studied and brought to the attention of voters and politicians in states that are operating inefficiently. Bureaucracies tend to grow and become less efficient over time. That is not to say the people working in those bureaucracies are bad people; 'tis the nature of the beast. State legislatures are the place where change happens. They can set user fees based on efficient operation and demand that state parks operate within those efficiencies.

Many state parks have public "Friends of ... " groups. That might be a ground-level place to get involved and work for changes if you feel your state is losing its state park treasures.

[slowpat]

Bureaucracies in my part of the country--have been constantly downsizing. This makes it even harder to provide the services that "the public" wants.

For example, our local Forest Service used to employ 100+ people in the summer--mid 1980s. They were combined with another district that hired the same and now the combined, larger land based office hires half that many folks.

I have heard the our state parks--note the word state, have emphasized hiring law enforcement folks which is spendier than non-gun carrying employees. That, plus the legislature's mandate of our parks being self sufficient has raised our prices.

My own beef is having to make reservations to get a spot in quite a few of our parks. I am a spontaneous person and like to just take off. I can't do that and have a spot at our more popular areas.

Because I live in a place where people come to camp, and have tromped around in the woods for years, I kind of like to camp near towns. That seems kind of strange, but I guess we like to go to different kinds of places than where we live?

[steve dunham]

I too believe in the use of tax dollars to support , preserve and maintain our National Parks , State Parks and wilderness areas but I am neither a socialist or a enviromentalist. I support these things because I was taught and believe it is the right thing to do.
I claim no moral superiority for my stance on this issue
.
I also read / interpret the original mission statements for our National Parks and wilderness area differently than some.
National Parks were never intended to be shrines to be worshipped from a far. The notion that you can lock up our natural treasures like a painting in a vault , where no one can ever view or experience it makes no sense to me


Lower fees for seniors were instituted for a practical / financial reasons. Many of our parks sat empty outside of the summer / tourist season or on weekends. Seniors are normally not tied down by work or the school year as the younger generation so they can be more flexible in their travel plans. Trying to alleviate over crowding in our parks seems like a reasonable goal to me.
When camping at the State Parks in my area , I pay the same fee as everyone , I get no SPECIAL privilege.

Preserving every tree in the forest because it is old, does not benefit the forest , wildlife or make economic sense . There are environmental and economic gains when forests are subject to proper selective harvesting. Many parks & wilderness area would be closed or no longer exist , if not for the revenue they receive from logging.

My concern is that politicians who pander to the "NO TAX" or the "What's in it for me " crowd would sell off our National & State Parks for a one time gain for the few but with a long term loss for the many. No state has successfully funded its' park system through user fees alone. We need a compromise funding mechanism , which is impossible in today's political climate . Raising State Park camping / visitor fees to such an exorbitant level as Wisconsin has done , does little to preserve or keep the parks open and is only hastening their demise.

MERRY CHRISTMAS







.

[Kai in Seattle]

At 3 AM I got an e-mail for this thread from Raz...but it has never shown up IN the thread. What happened?


Kai