Poll: 2-27-05 User fees

[Ron Wenrich]

Expires 2-27-05

[tnlogger]

ron i voted yes on this because so many of our public parks and campgrounds have closed in recent years do to lack of funding. if a major portion of the reverue is used for upkeep and to inhance our public lands i'm all for it .
                              gene

[Furby]

I'm in the heavy use group.
I love to go to the public parks and other spaces, but can't afford to pay 10 - 20$ just to park my car for a couple hours while I take a short walk.
Now campgrounds and such should have a small fee, that is something different in my book.
Lots of places I've been have fees for county parks, seperate fees for state parks, and yet seperate fees for national parks. It eats a pretty big hole in my pocket to have to shell out a $100 a day to see some of these "public"spaces.

[farmerdoug]

Around here all of the metro parks, state parks and campgrounds charge a fee.  If the use is heavy enough I can see a fee for the increased service provided, but we pay more and more to the state and local governments and seem to be getting less for it.  So I would not see a reason for regular parks and areas to charge a fee.  Let our taxes do some work for us too.

[Bibbyman]

The Government shouldn't own any land anyway.  I'd vote for deeding the parks over to the States where they reside and selling off the rest.

[redpowerd]

state government or uncle sam owned land?

how much land does uncle sam own?
in ny you can rent a woodlot for sixty bucks and cut there for a month, harvesting hundreds of dollars of logs. all marked.

[DanG]

I voted "Heavy Use Only."   I see no reason the people who utilize these facilities shouldn't pay for them.  Unimproved areas should have free access, but some places have rather elaborate recreation facilities and lots of personnel to be paid for, and user fees are appropriate, IMHO.

[Frickman]

I'm with Bibbyman, the government shouldn't be owning vast tracts of land. They should sell it and put it back into production.

[Tobacco Plug]

I voted heavy use and immediately regretted it.  A few years ago the Superintendent of Gettysburg National Military Park told me that the entire National Park Service's budget amounted to about 1/1000 of 1% of the whole federal budget.  So, the Park Service cold easily have its budget doubled and the effect on our taxes would be negligible.  Don't get me wrong, I am not in favor of frivolous government spending, but taking care of our parks is not frivolous.  I would say that the spendthrift mindset in regard to care of the public trust is worse.

[pigman]

Great, I was able to vote and be counted. 8)
Bob

[Ralph_C]

I voted no on this poll.  I live in the west where the government owns most of the land.   Ralph

[Ron Wenrich]

This question comes up due to the squeezing of the federal budget.  They want to axe all the departments.  I've heard some squawking about having to charge user fees in order to keep the parks open.

In days gone by, the land at the end of town was considered community propoerty.  Often it was owned by the government or by some wealthy individual.  Townspeople used to hunt, trap, cut wood, and gather on that land.  

That eventually changed.  The lands become more and more private and access was denied.  Communities eventually pulled together and had some sort of park in the town.  But, it didn't take the place of the open space that used to be available on the outskirts of town.

A lot of the state's properties came from defaulted lands that were stripped of timber.  Same can be said of some federal lands.  Bureau of Land Mgmt. lands started from the old O&C Railroad going bust.

Government may be the best chance we have to keep large tracts of land in tact.  It is the only way we can protect some areas.  I wouldn't want to see the largest virgin timber stands in my state sold to the highest bidder.  They have more societal worth being preserved.

The problem with user fees is that only those that can afford it will take advantage of it.  It doesn't mean too much at the national level, but it does at the local level.  

It also lowers the number of visitors.  That's OK for the park, but kills the local economy.   Some local economies are very dependent on tourist and recreational user traffic.  

Of course, some of the heavier usages, such as camping and sightseeing has heavier costs.  A little donation can go a long way.

[GHRoberts]

The National Parks and most state parks are very reasonable compared to private facilities.

Grazing land and timber is dirt cheap.

But like everything else, users want it free.

My family goes to National Parks out west for about a week at a time. About a 3000 mile round trip - about $300 for gas. Perhaps $150 for food. Perhaps $500 for rooms.

The National Park permit costs $50 (as I recall).

Why should I pay more for gas or food or rooms than I pay for visiting the parks?

[Phorester]

I voted heavy use only.  Lots of good discussion here that shows this is not a simple question to vote on.

I agree with Ron though.  If the gov't now sold off these vast acreages, there'd be houses everywhere, because only the developers could afford to buy these large acreages.  They would outbid the smaller buyers who just wanted hunting or recreational land.

MeadWestvaco has sold 10's of thousands of acres of their company forestland in West Virginia, near their Luke Maryland mill.  (The first paper mill that started the entire Westvaco company in business in the late 1800's).  It's all being bought by developers.  I know of one transaction of about 10,000 acres.  The new owner, a former forester himself,  is dividing it into 50 to 200 acre tracts, putting in roads all over the place. Some of these new owners are further subdividing their 100-200 acres into smaller tracts and reselling.

Getting gov't out of the land owning business sounds good on the face of it.  Realistically, though, in this day and age such land would no longer be held in it's natural undeveloped state if gov't were to get shed of it.

[Furby]

I'm with Ron as well. If the goverment sold off the land we would have no access, as opposed to paid access, but I don't feel I need to shell out lots of cash to visit property owned by the goverment I help support.

A little over a week ago, I stopped to a new county park for the first time. Real nice little park on the lakeshore that just opened to help protect the dunes from the sand mining operation nextdoor. They had waived the user fees for 2004, but plan to start charging when it warms up. $20 yearly fee for non county residents for this one park. Duh, not going to get much use from anyone out of the county, and with the $10 fee for residents, I don't think many of them will use it either, when they can go a few miles North or South for free.

GHRoberts,
Did you look to see all the parks that are NOT covered with that pass, and the ones that still impose additional fees even with the pass?

[Corley5]

Michigan is toward the top if not at the top when it comes to the amount of land owned by the state.  This land is with a few exceptions opened for anyone to use be it hiking, skiing, hunting, mushroom picking, etc.  For years there have been rumors of an impending permit system that would require users of state land to purchase a permit but it has never happened.  I say why not ???  I'd pay $5.00 or $10.00 for such a permit if it could be proven that the money went back into the state forest system.  Snowmobilers have to pay $20.00 for a trail permit in addition to a registration fee.  I guess you know how I voted ;)

[crtreedude]

I voted yes - not only to fund taking care of it - but more importantly, to keep people out who are not there to enjoy and preserve it - but only want to trash the place.

There is nothing that burns me more than to be in a beautiful public place and find someone has left trash all over.  Usually beer cans, etc. If you had to pay to get in, then they would find a cheaper place to go and trash.

I really don't care how much, just make sure it is enough to stop people from ruining it for others.

Then the local people can get a free pass by a certain amount of volunteer work on trails, etc.

Not sure it makes sense, but it is very sad to see garbage in the parks.

[EZ]

I voted no, cause every time the goverment gets there hands on something they want to give it to Japan, or they just screw it up somehow.
EZ

[Ron Wenrich]

Actually, we never gave things to Japan, inside our borders.  We just let our dollar slip so they could buy things in this country, dirt cheap.  It comes from trade imbalances and deficit spending.  US property is very cheap to Europeans.  They own quite a bit.

I think our government gives more to business than they do to foreign countries.  Business can screw things up in short order. 

[sawguy21]

Only if the government maintains it. British Columbia has basic campsites on many of the out of the way lakes installed and formerly maintained by the provincial forest service. This program was to help discourage campers from setting up wherever they pleased and leaving the usual mess, not to mention the fire hazard.
Several years ago they introduced user fees and turned maintenance over to private contractors. The campsites they kept open went downhill in a hurry. The 4wd club I belonged to offered to maintain our favourite campsite if we would be allowed to keep it. They agreed but expected us to collect and forward fees from non club members! I don't think I need tell you our response. People are now camping outside the designated areas.

[Fabiola]

I vote as this question were make in here...
Here, in some national parks we need to pay to get in and I believe that it is not a metter if the goverment can supply, or not,  all the needs of the park, the fact is that not everybody can behave proprely inside of a public land. People confuse "public" with "no one"
Fabíola.

[Arthur]

User fees on public lands, like other public facilities is just another form of tax.

Here in the rural towns of Australia most public toilets are free and plentiful.  In the cities they are few and cost you to use them.  I can guarentee that the cost of use has nothing to do with the running costs.

In the rural towns most people use them in the cities most people just pee on the buildings.

You put an entrance fee on something and you will find the visiting numbers reduce and that thing gets used less and less.  It then gets closed because no one is using it!!!!!!.

Would you keep using the FF is you where charge every time you used it.  Hardcore members would but howmany visitors would bother if they had to pay first before browsing????

arthur

[Greg]

I'm with Bibbyman, the government shouldn't be owning vast tracts of land. They should sell it and put it back into production.

I agree the government is not the proper or even an effective manager of natural resources. Selling it to the highest bidder is not the answer though.

It should be ceded to a qualified body like the Nature Conservancy, where it can be managed by sound principles of biodiversity preservation first, then recreation, then "production" last.

My 2 cents, flame suit donned. ;)
Greg

[crtreedude]

The nasty problem with government ownership is that when one group of windbags are in power, certain priorities  are folloowed, to be overturned by the opposing windbags when they get into power.

When dealing with resources, this is a very bad thing to do. Regrowing a tree takes longer than 4 or 6 years. I am not sure the government can be involved - except in acquiiring land via our tax dollars.

Besides, is there anything more inefficient than the government?

But, having government oversight probably is even worse. Not sure - I think the problem is that the government's goals are not the best - staying in power - not preserving something that can not easily be replaced.

Just my dos colones

[Ianab]

Most NZ govt owned land is tied up in National Parks or other conservation areas. You are free to visit it and look. If you want to make use of extra facilities like huts or campgrounds, there is a small charge to help with the upkeep. Some of the more popular places you will have to book several months in advance, but actually you can probably find some place just as good 1/2 hour down the road. Any govt here that introduced fees just to visit parks that WE OWN.. well I think they would be looking for new jobs next election  ;)