|
josephgdawson
Aug 29, 2006, 3:31 AM
Post #51 of 63
(6233 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 20, 2004
Posts: 303
|
In reply to: I believe that tax payers should subsidize parks because it is important to preserve certain places. I think this earth would be a sadder place if there were neighborhoods everywhere.
This is just fantastic. Those of us who produce should have a good chunk of our paychecks confiscated so the world is not a sadder place. Why? Cuz ubotch is saddened by the prospect of people living in neighborhoods.
Anyone who does not like neighborhoods should go check out some projects. What kind of elitist can possibly think that neighborhoods are a place of sadness? People all over the world would give anything for the chance to live in a neighborhood.
|
|
|
|
|
josephgdawson
Aug 29, 2006, 3:48 AM
Post #52 of 63
(6233 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 20, 2004
Posts: 303
|
In reply to: A couple of people have hit the nail on the head. This is not about commercializing the Park. It is about the fact that Congress fails (year after year) to adequately fund all of our Parks. Joshua Tree is severely underfunded (as are many Parks) and maintenance and hiring of staff has to be constantly deferred. l
Come on man, everyone thinks everything is underfunded. Congress is not a fucking wishing well. Can you define "adequate funding"? Thank god Congress does not "adequately fund our national parks." I would hate to see the remains of my paycheck if they did.
How is the park underfunded? Are the rocks, dirt, and shrubs not getting enough earmarks? I cant quite remember what kind of cars the rangers at Jtree drive. Can anyone help me out? Are they 45+ grand SUVs? They have enough funding to put up those worthless signs on the trails, one of which ripped climbers for no reason.
To add a little constructive criticism to my post I propose that to help make up for the shortfall of funds from which Joshua Tree is suffering, they should make the toilet paper harder to spin off of the bars in the toilet pits. This will serve the dual purpose of increasing the amount of funds available to hire more rangers while saving mother earth at the same time!!!
|
|
|
|
|
ubotch
Aug 29, 2006, 3:52 AM
Post #53 of 63
(6233 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2002
Posts: 191
|
Maybe I wasn't clear in my opinion. I don't think neighborhoods are sad, I think it would be sad if there weren't places set aside for public use that you don't have to look around and see houses (I thought that was what I was saying, but obviously it wasn't clear). If someone could come along and buy all of the land in Yosemite for development then we all would be missing out on a great place. This was my point.
I reread my post and can't really get how you think I am being elitist. I am just saying that I am happy for part of my paycheck to help preserve our parks. I love my mobile home park but I also am glad that there are places I can go to get away from the city and experience nature.
|
|
|
|
|
chossmonkey
Aug 29, 2006, 2:05 PM
Post #54 of 63
(6233 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
Randy
I have a huge amount of respect for you and what you have done for the climbing community. I also realize you would know as well as anyone what is ailing Joshua Tree. But I have to disagree with you somewhat.
In reply to: This is not about commercializing the Park. It is about the fact that Congress fails (year after year) to adequately fund all of our Parks. Joshua Tree is severely underfunded (as are many Parks) and maintenance and hiring of staff has to be constantly deferred.
It shouldn't be about commercialization but it is.
If a park is supposed to support itself how does it do it?
It sells itself.
If you are selling something how do you sell a lot of what you are selling?
Appeal to the public.
How do you appeal to the public?
Increase services and comercialize.
If a Park starts showing Congress that it can partially support itself what will Congress do?
Perhaps continue cutting funding since the Park is becoming self-supporting?
I have NO doubt that the park is underfunded. But have they ever had all the money they thought they needed?
I can't speak for J-Tree, but I do know of another Park that is TERRIBLY mismanaged. Times are tough for most everyone, is it too much to ask of the Park Service to tighten its belt as well? How much money would be freed up if they got rid of one person in administration?
Is it really any surprise that the parks with the highest visitor rates also have the most services and the highest entrance fees?
In reply to: If some of you took the time to educate yourselves about the finances of the Park, you may still not like proposed fee increases, but maybe you would understand why they are being proposed. Personally, I don't like the idea of fees being charged at all. However, Congress believes that user fees -- as opposed to direct funding -- is the way to fight "big" government.
Maybe you could educate us? How about some links?
I think many people do understand why the fees are being proposed or at least have seen how the Government works and are afraid of the road that things look like they are headed down.
In reply to: Feel free to voice an opinion against increases, but do so for legitimate reasons (eg: limits access for people/climbers on limited budgets, etc.) And if you do oppose the increase, don't just whine about it, but make your Congressional Representative know how you feel about funding for our National Parks.
Great advice.
People need to realize that even if they do write and voice their opinion on the fee increases it is only one small battle in a very large war. Washington is where this war will be won or lost. Voicing your opinion locally is just a small part.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Aug 29, 2006, 3:06 PM
Post #55 of 63
(6233 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: I believe that tax payers should subsidize parks because it is important to preserve certain places.
So... you want other people to pay the money so a national park can stay just the way you want it to be, rather than making it accessible and available to everyone? OK.
(There are people, for example, that can't sleep in a tent, carry 5 gallons of water, and shit in a hole. Don't they deserve to visit J-Tree, too?)
|
|
|
|
|
mcfoley
Aug 29, 2006, 3:11 PM
Post #56 of 63
(6233 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 15, 2002
Posts: 644
|
GOOD!!!
It'l keep all the bastards holding 2 and 3 campsited for their friends...If you don't have a ticket/receipt then get the hell off this campsite I'm paying for it since your broke ass can't...
|
|
|
|
|
chossmonkey
Aug 29, 2006, 3:21 PM
Post #57 of 63
(6233 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
In reply to: In reply to: I believe that tax payers should subsidize parks because it is important to preserve certain places. So... you want other people to pay the money so a national park can stay just the way you want it to be, rather than making it accessible and available to everyone? OK. (There are people, for example, that can't sleep in a tent, carry 5 gallons of water, and s--- in a hole. Don't they deserve to visit J-Tree, too?)
If it is because they are too fat to get out of their RV then no they don't. :twisted:
|
|
|
|
|
fredbob
Aug 29, 2006, 9:29 PM
Post #58 of 63
(6233 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2003
Posts: 455
|
In reply to: Come on man, everyone thinks everything is underfunded...... not worth repeating the rest of the drivel
You are right! To simply preserve the area, little funding is really needed. However, you will need to gate the Park and not allow access to people who like to camp and recreate and do all the cool and stupid stuff people do.
To maintain toilets and other such improvements, trash collection, emergency service, protecting the rocks, plants and animals from a steadily increasing number of users, etc., it costs money. The few pennies of your paycheck allocated to National Parks is one of the few things I would think someone who actually climbs would think is a sound investment. Or do you think we should sink that pittance into more worthwhile projects, like funding another 63 seconds of the Iraq war?
But if you think we allocate too much for National Parks, then be consistent and advocate for even higher entrance and user fees.
And to address chossmonkey's comments, I don't agree with everything the Park does, but nobody needs to sell Joshua Tree NP. Visitor numbers continue to significantly increase each year. It is very close to one of the world's largest metropolitan areas and suffers from encroachments, pollution and abuse. Joshua Tree NP is one of the least commercialized Parks in the Country and "services" (except trash collection, toilets, picnic tables and fire grates) are essentially non-existent.
Personally, I'm not in favor of increased fees, but I'm not sure of the solution.
|
|
|
|
|
jabtocrag
Aug 29, 2006, 9:58 PM
Post #59 of 63
(6233 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2003
Posts: 476
|
^^^ Well said Randy!!
|
|
|
|
|
jmeizis
Aug 28, 2008, 4:16 AM
Post #60 of 63
(2570 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2006
Posts: 635
|
I sincerely hope you're joking. The whole reason that fees increase is for more services and more protection for parks is because they make it so accessible. First we had to grade the roads where once there were only paths to make it accessible to vehicles, then we had to pave the roads to make it accessible to more comfy vehicles, then we had to expand the campsites for those comfy vehicles, then we had to put in electricity and waste disposal. Later we pave the paths because of the weak kneed and then add interpretive signs and fences for entertainment.
Rip it all out and make it a dirt road and a small dirt spot with maybe a composting toilet. If you can't get there then that's too bad. Not everyone can have everything. If you can't walk there, sorry, that's too bad. Less impact requires less services. Less services require less money and fewer employees to operate. So the short answer is no, if you can't carry water, sleep on the ground or shit in a hole then no, you shouldn't go to J-Tree or any other park for that matter.
(This post was edited by jmeizis on Aug 28, 2008, 4:18 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Aug 28, 2008, 5:00 AM
Post #61 of 63
(2553 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
It took you 2 years to come up with that reply?
|
|
|
|
|
jmeizis
Aug 28, 2008, 5:02 AM
Post #62 of 63
(2549 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2006
Posts: 635
|
Wow, you're right, how the hell did that end up on the front page.
|
|
|
|
|
getsomeethics
Aug 28, 2008, 8:03 AM
Post #63 of 63
(2525 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 2, 2002
Posts: 313
|
all NP should be run the way Edward Abbey said in desert solitaire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
