Printable View
Zion National Park News Release
December 15 , 2006
Zion National Park Announces Fee Increases for 2007
New Interagency Recreation Passes also Available
Zion National Park Superintendent Jock Whitworth has announced that the park is increasing its entrance fees effective January 1, 2007 . On that date, Zion National Park will also begin selling the
So my National Parks Pass to going from $50 to $80. That sucks, but if you live out west it's still a great deal!!!
I believe the National Parks Pass will be $60. And the new interagency pass will be $80..... but I could be wrong.
I don't see how paying to enjoy land that we already own is a good deal.
:cool2:
guess that means you wont be buying a pass this year either, eh shane?
I just got a pass and they told me the old parks pass is going away. That's what I was told, but can anyone confirm?Quote:
I believe the National Parks Pass will be $60. And the new interagency pass will be $80..... but I could be wrong.
Much of our hard earned tax money is going to Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11. We have to pay for the parks somehow.Quote:
I don't see how paying to enjoy land that we already own is a good deal.
I'm old enough to have the $10.00 lifetime pass but I'll still buy the $80.00
because I think the N.P.s do a great job of maintaining the parks. In Zion there is a lot of the park that's not in a fee area and I i use that area all the time.
Kind of like the same reason I sent in to Circle of Friends, this is free but I think it helps to contribute.
Win
Oh geez... :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Patterson
Increase fuel prices, inflation, and increased use couldn't possibly have anything to do with the price increase.
Are the new postal rates also because of the war?
I've been paying $65 for the park pass plus the Golden Eagle sticker that gets you into all the Forest Service fee areas. If the new price is $80, then I'll gladly pay it.
I didn't say because of the war, but it is a factor. It is also a fact that if so much money wasn't going to the war than much more would be left over for other things. This is a fact, but an entirely different topic and not the theme of this thread.Quote:
because of the war?
The increase in rates began in the Clinton administration. Yah GW hasn't done anything to fix it, but he's not the one who vacationed in Jackson, WY every year until he got re-elected and then never went back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Patterson
Whoever started it doesn't matter. That wasn't my point.
I would much rather see our tax money go to things that benifit the US taxpayers (such as national parks), that's all.
How about keeping terrorists busy trying to attack our Army in Iraq so they don't have as much time and resources to come over here and kill us? That's a pretty good thing to spend money on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Patterson
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The terroist that attacked the US came there after the fact and Al Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq before the invasion. :eek2:Quote:
How about keeping terrorists busy trying to attack our Army in Iraq so they don't have as much time and resources to come over here and kill us? That's a pretty good thing to spend money on.
Also, most of the curent fighting in Iraq is not the terrorist cells that are a threat to us. Less than 5% is. Most of it is between the Sunni and Shiites and most is now done by the Iraqis themselves. It really wasn't about liberating Iraq either as only 2% of Iraqi's consider the US a liberator.
I agree with the War on Terror, but do not believe the Iraq War is the same thing or even was related at the time.
Also, meanwhile the USA is sending billions of weapons to terrorist countries that are horrible human right violaters and worse than Iraq. Perhaps you already know that it was the US whom both armed and supported Saddam and the Taliban as well.
When is the last time you have either visited the Middle East as a civilian or have been involved in terrorism first hand? Do you know any over seas Iraqi's? I can tell you that the often rosy picture painted by the media or either side of dems or reps is not the case. I am a patriotic American I can also tell you that everything the US military has done is not good and sometimes we have supported the wrong side, often in hindsight.
Still this isn't an appropriate topic for the hiking board. Maybe someone should move this part to the general.
No one ever said 9/11 was connected with Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Patterson
BULLSHITQuote:
Originally Posted by scoutabout
Holy crap, chill out dude. I'm pretty sure that he meant nobody in this thread said that 9/11 was connected with Iraq. Not nobody ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by stefan
Oh, and to keep this post on-topic, I agree with what Shane said. I don't really like paying to enjoy the land, and I disagree with some NPS policies, so I avoid NPS-administered land altogether. I'll stick to the Swell and other areas that don't require fees and/or permits.
Misunderstanding on Sefan's part perhaps, but I thought the same thing. Bush administration definately did use it as the main reason to invade Iraq, but no one on this thread. :popcorn:Quote:
Holy crap, chill out dude. I'm pretty sure that he meant nobody in this thread said that 9/11 was connected with Iraq. Not nobody ever.
Wihout getting into a debate, which ones by chance since national parks is on topic? Zion or other permit system? Definately a sore point among some. Same with closing areas to all travel such has happened in Canyonlands and Zion. Some definately don't agree with that.Quote:
I disagree with some NPS policies
Particularly, the ban on geocaching and the ban against carrying loaded firearms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Patterson
I can at least understand their reasoning for banning geocaching, even if I don't agree--new foot trails will definitely be created after dozens or hundreds of visits to a cache. However, I don't see that as being any worse than carving steps into the sandstone or installing metal poles and chains for a handline.
The firearms ban keeps me away from NPS land more than the fees, though. Leaving my concealed handgun at home or unloading it and locking it up in the trunk just aren't an option for me.
but the things you listed are authorized by the national park ...perhaps placing bolts may be a better comparison. but geocaching could easily be considered littering ... couldn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Udink
if you don't mind my asking, why is that? i am seriously interested.Quote:
The firearms ban keeps me away from NPS land more than the fees, though. Leaving my concealed handgun at home or unloading it and locking it up in the trunk just aren't an option for me.
You're correct, but my point is that the NPS sometimes does things that are worse for the landscape than geocaching. And yes, it could easily be considered littering depending on how you define it, though I think intent has a lot to do with it. Hopefully people don't really look upon a placed cache as litter.Quote:
Originally Posted by stefan
Well, I really meant that it's not an option that I'd consider. You just never know where and when you might need to defend yourself. Instead of choosing to go unarmed, I choose not to go places where I have to disarm (unless that place also ensures that nobody else is armed as well).Quote:
Originally Posted by stefan
It's most frustrating considering how much money the concessionaires make in comparison to the tiny amount of money they give back to the NPS for the contracts. The NPS should take over the operations and run them as a private entity that gives money back to the park service.Quote:
Originally Posted by Udink