Raising Shenandoah Entrance Fee to $70?

[namfos]

Trump Administration Proposes Raising Shenandoah Entrance Fee to $70

http://bit.ly/2yQSosE

[Gregg DiSalvo]

Many visitors are willing to pay slightly more for season passes etc as I did this year with the price hike, but surely the administration can find other ways of raising money or investing in the parks that won't drive away visitors or supporters.  IMO we cannot foster love and admiration for our natural world (and in turn, conservation efforts) by reserving the right of entrance to those who have a more disposable income.  I just think the administration should look to make budget cuts elsewhere as they clearly see the necessity to have a functional budget for the NPS, but shouldn't put it on a small group of citizens and price out a huge chunk of others.  

Thanks for sharing Mark!

There is a comment period so I encourage all to express their views (whatever they may be) 

https://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?documentID=83652

[Dalton Terrell]

Mark,

Thanks for sharing this. I'd encourage any visitors or potential visitors of Shenandoah National Park to consider leaving a comment on the proposed fee increase here: https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=442&projectID=75576&documentID=83652

The comment period closes November 23, 2017.

The NPS website has more information regarding the fee increase here: https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1207/10-24-2017-fee-changes-proposal.htm

This would make the entrance fee $70 for a vehicle, up from $25, and $75 for an annual pass, up from $50. The nationwide national park pass should stay at $80. With these new fees, it might become impractical to visit Shenandoah for one brook trout fishing trip but it would still be sensible if you're visiting multiple national parks or Shenandoah on a regular basis.

Dalton

[Charlie Church]

Wow, that's an absurd price hike. 

Comment has been left.

[Yambag Nelson]

They are such scum.

[Casey Peltier]

And this is to make up for the inevitable budget cuts...someone has to pay for all those trips in private jets.

---

From: tidal-potoma...@googlegroups.com <tidal-potoma...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Yambag Nelson <northstreet...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 11:49 AM
To: Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders
Subject: {Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders} Re: Raising Shenandoah Entrance Fee to $70?

 

They are such scum.

--
http://www.tpfr.org

Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders www.tpfr.org We fish the Potomac River. We use single and two-handed fly rods. We teach all who are interested how to do the same. From Great Falls to the Chesapeake Bay, the ...

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tidal-potomac-fly-...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tidal-potoma...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tidal-potomac-fly-rodders/528531bd-6ca3-4329-8713-96f0ad9c7711%40googlegroups.com.

Google Groups groups.google.com Google Groups allows you to create and participate in online forums and email-based groups with a rich experience for community conversations.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Google Groups groups.google.com Google Groups allows you to create and participate in online forums and email-based groups with a rich experience for community conversations.

[Andrew Sarcinello]

I agree with Gregg.  The government has no problem spending extra billions on defense every year and we continually add trillions to the national debt, but when the national parks need a little money, somehow they can't seem to find any and pass it on to us average people.  That criticism is not limited to the current administration either, NPS is an afterthought (or doesn't register as a thought at all) for today's politicians.

A lot of people would choose not to spend that much money, so instead of SNP getting $10 (or $40 for a year pass), now they'd get zero...part of me thinks that might be the intended effect, drive people away with price hikes, starve the NPS of cash, then declare them a failure and privatize the parks system.  It's the Republican way, sabotage and then blame the victim (just look what they're doing to the EPA).  And if that's their intent I'd spend whatever it takes to keep the parks open.

On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 10:07:14 AM UTC-4, namfos wrote:

[Yambag Nelson]

That is the whole point. They want to price people out so they can say no one is visiting the parks.

[ALarge]

Skyline Drive is a glorified safari park. Most visitors stop once or twice to take a picture at scenic overlooks and never set foot on a trail, leaving behind tons of garbage and road wear with little to no actual interaction with nature. 

I see this is as no more than an excise tax, same as your trout stamp (not needed in SNP BTW).  Excise taxes both protect and fund high-demand public operations like the National Parks System. Granted, I agree it's a pretty aggressive increase and should probably be dialed back a bit. 

I also used to live within earshot of the Great Smoky Mountain National Park, which is the only National Park that has NO entry fee and also boasts the highest visitation rate of any National Park. It also gets trashed by visitors more than any other park in the system. I've picked too many beer cans and dirty diapers out of trout water to believe that providing unrestrained access to a park promotes communion with nature. As much as that is a romantic thought -it simply isn't a reality. 

[Miles]

"A lot of people would choose not to spend that much money, so instead of SNP getting $10 (or $40 for a year pass), now they'd get zero...part of me thinks that might be the intended effect, drive people away with price hikes, starve the NPS of cash, then declare them a failure and privatize the parks system."

That would be the part of you that is... absolutely right! It's their MO in pretty much every domain: take a public asset, neglect it to ruins, then declare "Government has failed" and sell it off.

Miles

[October Caddis]

One may dislike one party or another, but these assertions that there's some secret plot to drive down attendance in order sell the system aren't rooted in reality. 

The NPS is facing a $12 billion backlog of deferred maintenance across the system. At current visitation and entrance fees, the gap between revenue and need will simply never be be met. That's the problem. It's real. 

Feel like nerding out a bit? there's an excellent GAO report on the funding challenge here: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-136

Incidentally, the Land & water Conservation Fund, which is the primary means of funding federal public land acquisition, is supported entirely by offshore oil and gas leases in federal waters. 

Guess what decreased under the previous administration? If you said oil and gas revenues leases in federal waters, you're right. 

All that said, I do not support the proposed fee increases, and I'd rather see Congress direct more funding to NPS. 

If you oppose the fee hikes, submit a comment (I did). 

If you think Congress should just appropriate more funding to NPS, send your representative an email or letter (I did). 

If you have a preference as to how that new funding should be made available (cut military, tax the rich, mine the Moon for lunar gold, whatever floats your boat), express that to your member of Congress (I did). 

But this "Republicans are closing parks and selling our land" business just prevents people from recognizing that there's an actual problem, and it certainly doesn't help solve it. 

[Miles Townes]

I agree about the 'secret plot' not being real, insofar as it's not at all secret.

"Zinke told members of the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association last week that "as the secretary, I don't want to be in the business of running campgrounds. My folks will never be as good as you are." The proposal to privatize campgrounds is part of Zinke's goal to alleviate an $11 billion backlog of maintenance projects" https://theweek.com/speedreads/705425/interior-secretary-proposes-privatizing-campgrounds

Here's an article from the Hill about the fairly public lobbying effort to do exactly that: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/340181-hospitality-industry-pushes-trump-for-bigger-role-in-national-parks

GAO reports don't always give you the bigger picture, and it's telling that this report barely mentions concessioners operating in the parks. Here's another piece of the picture: those concessioners pay $85 million to the NPS for use of the park, compared to $186 million in user fees and $94 million in philanthropy. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-166

What do concessioners get for their $85 million? Gross of more than a billion dollars. As for the backlog: "A closer look at the projects that make up the backlog, however, reveals that the NPS itself should not be responsible for many of these costs and that some of the projects are higher priority than others." https://www.adventure-journal.com/2017/03/opinion-trump-privatize-national-parks/

So the problem isn't that the backlog is huge or the money isn't there to fix it - it's just not being collected from the concessioners. And the fact that it isn't being collected is being used by our government - in public, not in secret - to justify fee rate hikes and further privatization of park assets.

I had not heard of the LWCF, but I spent a little while reading up on it. Specifically, I was looking at how much money is collected and how much is spent on parks. It turns out a does not equal b: 

"Although the LWCF is authorized up to $900 million annually, since 1999, appropriations for Federal land acquisition and State grants have ranged from $149 million to $573 million. Fully funding the program would comprise only 11.5% of all oil and gas revenues." https://www.nps.gov/subjects/lwcf/congressionalacts.htm

Check me on this, but the math on that works out to 7.8 billion dollars of offshore drilling revenues. That is rough fit for  the 2014 figure of 7.4 billion dollars here: http://ocsgovernors.org/ocs101/#7 -- but last year saw only 2.78 billion in revenues. So a range of 11.5% to 33%.

And even the $900 million authorization is rarely appropriated (twice, since 1977, when the $900 million peg was set). Since the GOP took over Congress appropriations have been fairly flat, at less than $400 million - which, granted, in the face of declining revenues can be seen as a positive. Still, at most 14% of OCS gas revenues are actually making to the LWCF. Most of the money just goes into the U.S. Treasury, as far as I can tell, for Congress to do whatever.

Concerning the decline in revenues, we should be clear about why that occurred: most of it is likely due to President Obama's ban on new drilling after the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010. (Some portion is likely due to OPEC's push to lower crude oil prices, which is beyond our scope here.) If Congress gives the Trump administration the authority to reverse that ban, and he uses that power, there is zero guarantee that the LWCF will see any more money appropriated. And that's assuming the LWCF is reauthorized at all - it's due to expire in 2018, and some (specifically GOP) members of Congress want to get rid of it.

Again: the money is there. It's just not being collected or appropriated. We should be asking our Congressors to 1) make the LWCF permanent, 2) raise the authorization to 2.5 billion, and 3) appropriate the full amount.

Miles

--
http://www.tpfr.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/tidal-potomac-fly-rodders/FLj_e9t_0rU/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to tidal-potomac-fly-...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to tidal-potoma...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tidal-potomac-fly-rodders/4db58c86-6a63-40dc-9059-9f7e4e770480%40googlegroups.com.

[October Caddis]

Miles, quite a few great points there, and I do want to be clear that my comment was direct less at you than at my frustration that the real problems of public land management are being overlooked in the manufactured debate over selling/acquiring public lands. 

When it comes to "privatizing campgrounds", I hate to break it you, but a vast portion of NPS campgrounds and facilities are already operated by concessionaires. Sometimes this results in ludicrous and, at least in my eyes, morally offensive scenarios like this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/21/a-private-company-trademarked-the-phrase-yosemite-national-park-should-the-u-s-pay-to-get-it-back/

However, that's the situation. Private entities already operate many, many facilities in National Park. Are there advantages? For the taxpayer, sure: the federal government isn't saddled with benefits and pension obligations for these workers. That might not be great for the workers, and it might not be good for sustaining rural economies near parks, but it does save the federal government money. Should concessionaires pay more to NPS? Sure as hell seems to me they should. I'd also agree that they should probably be responsible for maintaining their own facilities, as that article in Adventure Journal suggests. 

I'd urge you to read any headline with a critical eye. The article in The Week, for example, is pretty darn breathlessly reporting something that is already the status quo (right or wrong) as a brand-new nefarious plan hatched by the Trump admin. 

This is what frustrates me the most about the public lands debate. It's the fringes that want to either sell every acre, or acquire every acre. The real debate, and the effort to address real problems, starts and ends in the middle. The rest is just  irresponsible noise from those who know better, and is used to drum up memberships, subscriptions, contributions, etc.. 

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[October Caddis]

Oh, and of your three points, I fully agree with 1 & 3, not so sure about #2. Allowing more LWCF funding to help maintain parks, instead of just expand them, that might get me on board with #2. 

[Miles Townes]

Thanks. I was focused on the publicity (or secrecy) of the plan, rather than whether it was new or not. Stipulated that The Week, in its breathless, implied that Zinke was talking about all Federal campgrounds, and not just the national parks. I missed that his speech was apparently limited to National parks. That said, everything I have seen about Zinke suggests his main interest in public lands is to extract as much money for private interests (concessioners, ranchers, loggers, miners) as possible.

And Zinke does seem to be saying that he will expand the use of concessions in National Parks. So that is some kind of a change from the status quo. The Hill article is less breathless, but more inside baseball, but it makes clear that the lobbyists see lots of opportunity that has not been exploited.

Miles

On Friday, October 27, 2017, 3:18:08 PM EDT, October Caddis <kjea...@gmail.com> wrote:

Miles, quite a few great points there, and I do want to be clear that my comment was direct less at you than at my frustration that the real problems of public land management are being overlooked in the manufactured debate over selling/acquiring public lands. 

When it comes to "privatizing campgrounds", I hate to break it you, but a vast portion of NPS campgrounds and facilities are already operated by concessionaires. Sometimes this results in ludicrous and, at least in my eyes, morally offensive scenarios like this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/21/a-private-company-trademarked-the-phrase-yosemite-national-park-should-the-u-s-pay-to-get-it-back/

However, that's the situation. Private entities already operate many, many facilities in National Park. Are there advantages? For the taxpayer, sure: the federal government isn't saddled with benefits and pension obligations for these workers. That might not be great for the workers, and it might not be good for sustaining rural economies near parks, but it does save the federal government money. Should concessionaires pay more to NPS? Sure as hell seems to me they should. I'd also agree that they should probably be responsible for maintaining their own facilities, as that article in Adventure Journal suggests. 

I'd urge you to read any headline with a critical eye. The article in The Week, for example, is pretty darn breathlessly reporting something that is already the status quo (right or wrong) as a brand-new nefarious plan hatched by the Trump admin. 

This is what frustrates me the most about the public lands debate. It's the fringes that want to either sell every acre, or acquire every acre. The real debate, and the effort to address real problems, starts and ends in the middle. The rest is just  irresponsible noise from those who know better, and is used to drum up memberships, subscriptions, contributions, etc.. 

On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 1:40:30 PM UTC-4, Miles wrote:

I agree about the 'secret plot' not being real, insofar as it's not at all secret.

"Zinke told members of the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association last week that "as the secretary, I don't want to be in the business of running campgrounds. My folks will never be as good as you are." The proposal to privatize campgrounds is part of Zinke's goal to alleviate an $11 billion backlog of maintenance projects" https://theweek.com/ speedreads/705425/interior- secretary-proposes- privatizing-campgrounds

Here's an article from the Hill about the fairly public lobbying effort to do exactly that: http://thehill.com/policy/ energy-environment/340181- hospitality-industry-pushes- trump-for-bigger-role-in- national-parks

GAO reports don't always give you the bigger picture, and it's telling that this report barely mentions concessioners operating in the parks. Here's another piece of the picture: those concessioners pay $85 million to the NPS for use of the park, compared to $186 million in user fees and $94 million in philanthropy. http://www.gao.gov/products/ GAO-16-166

What do concessioners get for their $85 million? Gross of more than a billion dollars. As for the backlog: "A closer look at the projects that make up the backlog, however, reveals that the NPS itself should not be responsible for many of these costs and that some of the projects are higher priority than others." https://www.adventure-journal. com/2017/03/opinion-trump- privatize-national-parks/

So the problem isn't that the backlog is huge or the money isn't there to fix it - it's just not being collected from the concessioners. And the fact that it isn't being collected is being used by our government - in public, not in secret - to justify fee rate hikes and further privatization of park assets.

I had not heard of the LWCF, but I spent a little while reading up on it. Specifically, I was looking at how much money is collected and how much is spent on parks. It turns out a does not equal b: 

"Although the LWCF is authorized up to $900 million annually, since 1999, appropriations for Federal land acquisition and State grants have ranged from $149 million to $573 million. Fully funding the program would comprise only 11.5% of all oil and gas revenues." https://www.nps.gov/subjects/ lwcf/congressionalacts.htm

Check me on this, but the math on that works out to 7.8 billion dollars of offshore drilling revenues. That is rough fit for  the 2014 figure of 7.4 billion dollars here: http://ocsgovernors.org/ ocs101/#7 -- but last year saw only 2.78 billion in revenues. So a range of 11.5% to 33%.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to tidal-potomac-fly-...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to tidal-potoma...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tidal-potomac-fly-rodders/abb882d0-0a04-49ad-aa80-8fedd2f94736%40googlegroups.com.

[Ashley Frohwein]

Maybe the revenue from these increased fees will be wisely invested in protecting our national parks for future generations. Or a pointless wall.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Andrew Sarcinello]

Don't worry Ashley, parts of the wall won't be an actual wall, because you have to see what's coming on the other side. They're throwing 60-lb bags of drugs over the wall, if that hits you on the head it's game over.

(Trump actually said that)

[Ashley Frohwein]

Yeah, I'm worried.

[hershe...@ymail.com]

I get it that sucks but how many of us pay out of pocket every month to keep what little nature we do have cleaned and taken care of? Probably not many so at the same time as long as the money is going towards the park I wouldn’t mind a slight price raise. But for those who don’t live close enough to get their money’s worth I completely understand.

[Aden]

From the Village Voice of all places

But that additional $70 million would be a pretty poor offset to President Donald Trump’s $300 million cuts to NPS announced in his 2018 budget plan earlier this year. And it would be an even feebler response to the Park Service’s reported $12 billion maintenance backlog.


Apparently a big portion of that backlog is the concessionaires needing to update their hot dog stands.

Full article:

http://flip.it/oFqHWR

[Yambag Nelson]

I would just love to know how the determination was made to do this.  Did they actually do some sort of analysis on the elasticity of demand for visiting national parks or was this completely arbitrary/more sinister in nature?  

[Brian McGough]

So, apparantly they just used the same numbers as last year and increased the revenue from those parks to meet the need. They said we are short x amount of money. How much would we need to raise the money coming in from the highest visited parks in order to meet the gap, using the numbers from last year. They didnt account for less visits from what I have heard.

Brian McGough

--
http://www.tpfr.org
---

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tidal-potomac-fly-rodders/c221b987-daa2-4cf5-b159-77b0adcff315%40googlegroups.com.

[Jeff Cook]

The determination seems to me that the $70 entrance fee is as high as they could go before hitting the the $80 annual fee for entrance to all parks. Why didn’t they raise the annual fee also? Can’t imagine why they’d want to push people to annual fees, but there might be something there.

https://www.nps.gov/planyourvisit/passes.htm

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tidal-potomac-fly-...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tidal-potoma...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tidal-potomac-fly-rodders/CAKSiXHfoeVmW68sgbnYqNrwj_8m%3DFcurvbaJXRHkPuMe8Mnt5Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[ALarge]

Update and add'l info on SNP fee increase:

Border wall... smh

Shenandoah National Park

April 13 at 12:37pm · 

Shenandoah National Park Changes Entrance Fee to Address Infrastructure Needs & Improve Visitor Experience

Luray, Virginia: The National Park Service (NPS) announced today that Shenandoah National Park will modify its entrance fees beginning June 1, 2018 to provide additional funding for infrastructure and maintenance needs that enhance the visitor experience. Effective June 1, 2018 the park entrance fee will be $30 per vehicle, $25 per motorcycle and $15 per person. These fees are good for 7 days. An annual park pass will cost $55.

In October 2017, the NPS proposed a plan to adopt seasonal pricing at Shenandoah and 16 other national parks to raise additional revenue for infrastructure and maintenance needs. The fee structure announced today addresses many concerns and ideas provided by the public on how best to address fee revenue for parks.

Revenue from entrance fees remains in the National Park Service and helps ensure a quality experience for all who visit. Here in Shenandoah National Park, 80 percent of entrance fees stay in the park and are devoted to spending that supports the visitor. We share the other 20 percent of entry fee income with other national parks for their projects.

The additional revenue from entrance fees at Shenandoah National Park will allow us to address deferred maintenance projects such as rebuilding deteriorating rock walls on Skyline Drive, replacing picnic tables and fire rings in campgrounds and picnic areas, repairing masonry structures and drainage culverts along Skyline Drive, repaving and repainting the lines on Skyline Drive and other park roads, clearing vistas at overlooks, maintaining hiking and horse trails, preserving historic buildings, improving signs and exhibits, providing upgrades to our public water and wastewater systems and providing accessibility modifications.

Superintendent Jennifer Flynn stated “The additional fees will enhance all aspects of the visitor experience in Shenandoah. Visitors will directly see improvements at our contact stations, on Skyline Drive, on trails, in our campgrounds and picnic areas and at our visitor centers. We are committed to providing a safe and rewarding experience for all visitors.”

National parks have experienced record breaking visitation, with more than 1.5 billion visitors in the last five years. Throughout the country, the combination of aging infrastructure and increased visitation affects park roads, bridges, buildings, campgrounds, water systems, bathrooms, and other facilities. Maintenance deferred on these facilities amounts to an $11.6 billion nationwide backlog.

Entrance fees collected by the National Park Service totaled $199.9 million in Fiscal Year 2016. The NPS estimates that once fully implemented, the new fee structure will increase annual entrance fee revenue by about $60 million.

Shenandoah National Park has had an entrance fee since 1939. The current rate of $25 per vehicle, $20 per motorcycle and $10 per person has been in effect since 2017. The park is one of 117 in the National Park System that charges an entrance fee. The remaining 300 sites are free to enter.

The price of the annual America the Beautiful National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Annual Pass and Lifetime Senior Pass will remain $80.

The National Park Service has a standardized entrance fee structure, composed of four groups based on park size and type. Shenandoah National Park is one of the sites in group 3. A complete list of park entrance fees may be found here.

The complete fee schedule will change according to the following:

Shenandoah National Park

Per Vehicle
Per Motorcycle
Per Person
Park Specific Annual Pass
Current
$25
$20
$10
$50
June 1, 2018
$30
$25
$15
$55

On Saturday, November 4, 2017 at 11:58:55 AM UTC-4, Jeff Cook wrote:

The determination seems to me that the $70 entrance fee is as high as they could go before hitting the the $80 annual fee for entrance to all parks. Why didn’t they raise the annual fee also? Can’t imagine why they’d want to push people to annual fees, but there might be something there.

https://www.nps.gov/planyourvisit/passes.htm

On Nov 4, 2017, at 10:46 AM, Brian McGough <brian.kel...@gmail.com> wrote:

So, apparantly they just used the same numbers as last year and increased the revenue from those parks to meet the need. They said we are short x amount of money. How much would we need to raise the money coming in from the highest visited parks in order to meet the gap, using the numbers from last year. They didnt account for less visits from what I have heard.

Brian McGough

On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Yambag Nelson <northstreet...@gmail.com> wrote:

I would just love to know how the determination was made to do this.  Did they actually do some sort of analysis on the elasticity of demand for visiting national parks or was this completely arbitrary/more sinister in nature?  

On Saturday, November 4, 2017 at 9:36:44 AM UTC-4, Aden wrote:

From the Village Voice of all places

But that additional $70 million would be a pretty poor offset to President Donald Trump’s $300 million cuts to NPS announced in his 2018 budget plan earlier this year. And it would be an even feebler response to the Park Service’s reported $12 billion maintenance backlog.


Apparently a big portion of that backlog is the concessionaires needing to update their hot dog stands.

Full article:

http://flip.it/oFqHWR

--
http://www.tpfr.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to tidal-potoma...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tidal-potomac-fly-rodders/c221b987-daa2-4cf5-b159-77b0adcff315%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
http://www.tpfr.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Tim Donaldson]

Agreed.  We used to backpack in SNP every summer and given all the car traffic the trails were pretty empty, except near parking lots.  

[Danny Barrett]

If you hike up from the bottom, are these fees still applied? Like hiking up along the Rapidan, you technically park in the WMA.

Thanks,

Dan Barrett

dannyt...@gmail.com

(540)-222-8064

--

http://www.tpfr.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tidal-potomac-fly-rodders/5f60a191-8084-49c7-b2ad-7d46c725a8a7%40googlegroups.com.

[Lane Thurgood]

Yes.  I have asked as I hike in from the bottom at least half the time and the answer was yes--you still need a pass/permit when walking in.  I have only been checked a couple of times over the years.  Now I get the annual America the Beautiful pass.  I make several National Park visits over the course of a year and I'll bet most of us here do.  In addition to hitting the SNP half a dozen times or so, I am regularly taking visiting family members and friends to Great Falls and Harpers Ferry--also covered by the America the Beautiful Pass.  And it covers everybody in your car.

Free for military members, by the way, but a pretty good deal for everybody. In addition to SNP trips, I use it another few times a year on work trips or family vacations.

Just a thought.

On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 10:53:23 AM UTC-4, Danny Barrett wrote:

If you hike up from the bottom, are these fees still applied? Like hiking up along the Rapidan, you technically park in the WMA.

Thanks,

Dan Barrett

dannyt...@gmail.com

(540)-222-8064

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Tim Donaldson <timdon...@gmail.com> wrote:

Agreed.  We used to backpack in SNP every summer and given all the car traffic the trails were pretty empty, except near parking lots.  

On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 3:05:13 PM UTC-4, ALarge wrote:

Skyline Drive is a glorified safari park. Most visitors stop once or twice to take a picture at scenic overlooks and never set foot on a trail, leaving behind tons of garbage and road wear with little to no actual interaction with nature. 

I see this is as no more than an excise tax, same as your trout stamp (not needed in SNP BTW).  Excise taxes both protect and fund high-demand public operations like the National Parks System. Granted, I agree it's a pretty aggressive increase and should probably be dialed back a bit. 

I also used to live within earshot of the Great Smoky Mountain National Park, which is the only National Park that has NO entry fee and also boasts the highest visitation rate of any National Park. It also gets trashed by visitors more than any other park in the system. I've picked too many beer cans and dirty diapers out of trout water to believe that providing unrestrained access to a park promotes communion with nature. As much as that is a romantic thought -it simply isn't a reality. 

On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 6:45:47 PM UTC-4, Yambag Nelson wrote:

That is the whole point.  They want to price people out so they can say no one is visiting the parks.  

--
http://www.tpfr.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to tidal-potoma...@googlegroups.com.