Government Shutdown - impacted areas

This may have been answered already, but my brain function is low this morning. Are the shelf road campgrounds open????

J. Albers wrote: Hmm. I actually don't think that this is the case. I will admit that I was mostly speculating, but I don't think that my assumption is either far fetched or as it turns out inaccurate. A simple cursory glance through a Google search reveals the following two articles (no I have not vetted the first source, though the second source, which is legit, seems to support the first). hcn.org/blogs/range/the-mos… I didn't read the article particularly carefully, but there is a table that shows what it would cost per person per day in user fees for each NP to be self sufficient. If you add it up, you will notice that the weekly user fees at neither Yellowstone nor Yosemite cover the the cost of self sufficiency. For example, a weekly pass for Yellowstone would cost $79.52 instead of the current $25.

Nice article - appreciate the info. I'll let you and Mike fight your own battles, but here is my point of view:
I read: "The graph above (provided by Holly Fretwell via Environmental Trends) shows the daily fee that would be required to make the most visited parks operationally self sufficient. Each of the 35 parks listed receives over 2 million visitors per year. With daily per-person fees between $0.17 and $11.36, these parks could cover their entire operating budget."
So I guess it comes down to how many people buy a day pass and how many buy a week pass... because day passes are profitable.
My info came from an article that showed popular park collections Vs expenditures that were all in the +. This was in the time where they changed the revenue stream to mix with the general fund as opposed to staying with the parks.
I also note that all but 3 of the parks are < $5 per day, making a week pass, presuming it was used 5/7 days is profitable for all but 3 parks... if the week pass is $25. And the day passes wildly profitable.

I also wonder what makes Yellowstone so crazy expensive compared to pretty much everywhere else? We're talking 30% more than #2 and roughly double #3 & #4, not to mention triple or even quintuple the median of non urban parks such as Zion (yeah, I totally ignore the Washington monuments, as we both should, as they are anomalously cheap for 'National Parks') I've been there and I don't understand the cost. Maybe upkeep on all the boardwalks?!?!? Nah... Maybe winter programs. I dunno. But those are charged as special fees and so self-sustaining, not covered in entrance fees. Anyway, it makes me curious.
Anyway- cheers for the good link. I'll have to do some more reading.

Edit to add:
And I tired to get into park budgets, but as you know... the sites are all shut down. (forehead slap).

Tony B wrote: Nice article - appreciate the info. I read: "The graph above (provided by Holly Fretwell via Environmental Trends) shows the daily fee that would be required to make the most visited parks operationally self sufficient. Each of the 35 parks listed receives over 2 million visitors per year. With daily per-person fees between $0.17 and $11.36, these parks could cover their entire operating budget." So I guess it comes down to how many people buy a day pass and how many buy a week pass... because day passes are profitable. My info came from an article that showed popular park collections Vs expenditures that were all in the +. This was in the time where they changed the revenue stream to mix with the general fund as opposed to staying with the parks. Anyway- cheers for the good link. I'll have to do some more reading.

Likewise I need to understand your previous post about the reasons for the steep rise in park fees a decade ago.

...and to Mike,

I am certainly not trying to suggest that there is a movement to sell the NP system to private enterprise (your false dilemma). The original point that I was trying to make was addressing an earlier poster that more or less stated "the government run NPs are bad because they are not private free enterprises". Thus I was simply trying to point out to this gentleman that the alternative to government ownership is not a good situation, historically or otherwise.

And hey J: I don't want to get in a pissing match about semantics either, I basically understood what you were trying to say. But, once again the way Land Trusts work is that they have cast-iron clad charters when assigned. To me, it seems like you'd be able to apply even better protections to the land that way as they would inscribed in stone and not open for debate. The park then relies on its own devices for managing revenue and we do not have a potential hostage for Chicago thugs to blackmail us with. Or Texan. Or whatever else rolls down the road at us the next 10-20 years before the revolution finally happens.

Nullify

Sigh....statements like this are so tiring to read. Guess what happens to beautiful places like Yosemite that aren't federally protected? (i.e. lands that are open to "free enterprise corporations"). Go watch the National Parks documentary by Ken Burns. We were a hair away from losing it to "enterprising" folks who would have sold that area to the highest bidder. Guess who isn't the highest bidder? The public. Guess who is? Loggers and miners. Get a fricking clue.

Why don't you get a fricking clue! The land is in wilderness, which is why you get a massive fine for sing a hammer drill. The National Park aspect is there to increase traffic (their stated goal) and is only useful for boomer driving $100k RVs.

The "feds" are not some elusive entity. They are "us". Namely, public servants (people like you and me) that are doing the best they can with limited resources.

No, they're not. The feds are no more 'us' than any other group of people taking money by force and dictating rules to us. Many 'public servants' low on the totem pole (G-scale pay grade) may be getting the shaft, but the LEOs and revenue people aren't, let alone paper-pushing bureaucrats who create rules without any democratic oversight whatsoever.

J. Albers wrote: Do you really think that those NP employees enjoy enforcing a total shut down? For crying out loud, they aren't even getting paid to do it. If things were run by a corporation with shareholders, I can guarantee that the park would be more regulated and more expensive to enter. Is the NP service perfect? No, of course not. But they do a pretty damn good job as far as I am concerned. And I get pretty tired of arm chair bitching about how much better it would be without so much government involvement with our public lands. I for one appreciate them and shudder at the thought of the day that the NP system is run by a private company.

What is this talk about a 'job'? Job doing what, closing primitive sites, harassing campers, and tazering base jumpers? Oh, but I guess they're 'us', so we only have ourselves to blame. What a bunch of horse shit. I've never asked a ranger to do anything except kindly leave me alone.

Has anyone tried to walk into Colorado National Monument? I know the park is officially closed, but can you still access the trail into Otto's, etc.? Thanks.

mattp wrote:Has anyone tried to walk into Colorado National Monument? I know the park is officially closed, but can you still access the trail into Otto's, etc.? Thanks.

Apparently, yes. Here is the GJ Sentinel article

GJ Sentinel CO NM Closure

Wall Street Journal article about states and towns offering to pay for opening resources near them.

m.us.wsj.com/articles/a/SB1…

So far the Obama administration has denied these offers.

Get a load of THIS: The Fascists are trying to close THE OCEAN!

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/05/Feds-Try-to-Close-the-OCEAN-Because-of-Shutdown

Eastvillage wrote:Get a load of THIS: The Fascists are trying to close THE OCEAN! breitbart.com/Big-Governmen…

My guess is that you are being facetious with whole fascists thing, but considering some of the other posts here, perhaps not? (I mean, do they even let republicans into the Village...its illegal to be anything but a liberal there, right? Sort of like the requirement that you be a hipster if you want to live in Williamsburg, yes?)

What part of "the government is closed" don't you people understand? Closed means you don't get to use it....any of it. And no, just because you think that you are self sufficient enough that the government should just leave you along means nothing. Guess what happens all the time on NP land? People use the roads, boat ramps, bathrooms, fire/police/rescue services, the list goes on and on. I don't understand why it is so hard to understand that you have to pay for that stuff. When you don't pay for it, you don't get to use it. Yes, yes, I know what you folks like to "But this is my land and I don't want the government telling me what to do!!" That kind of thinking makes you sound like a spoiled child.

Personally I am glad that they shut it down, because hopefully it will get people to stop taking all of the amazing things that this country offers it citizens for granted.

If you ask me its the government acting like a spoiled child. Open air, non-staffed monuments are now equipped with barrycades and guards. I too am glad that they've closed it all down as we will see just how much the spirit of freedom still exists out there and hopefully folks will realize we can start restoring this country out from under Federal dominance. There are alternatives to Statism folks.
Restore the 10th Amendment for starters.

Resist

J. Albers wrote: My guess is that you are being facetious with whole fascists thing, but considering some of the other posts here, perhaps not? (I mean, do they even let republicans into the Village...its illegal to be anything but a liberal there, right? Sort of like the requirement that you be a hipster if you want to live in Williamsburg, yes?) What part of "the government is closed" don't you people understand? Closed means you don't get to use it....any of it. And no, just because you think that you are self sufficient enough that the government should just leave you along means nothing. Guess what happens all the time on NP land? People use the roads, boat ramps, bathrooms, fire/police/rescue services, the list goes on and on. I don't understand why it is so hard to understand that you have to pay for that stuff. When you don't pay for it, you don't get to use it. Yes, yes, I know what you folks like to "But this is my land and I don't want the government telling me what to do!!" That kind of thinking makes you sound like a spoiled child. Personally I am glad that they shut it down, because hopefully it will get people to stop taking all of the amazing things that this country offers it citizens for granted.

At least this will put an end to the myth that it's public land.

So let me get this straight. Without government building roads (which all started as logging and mining roads), they wouldn't exist. Gee, I guess without government climbing routes with bomber anchors, those wouldn't exist, either.

What a crock

J. Albers wrote: What part of "the government is closed" don't you people understand?

Well, in this case, the fact that the government isn't closed. But the 2 parties are in a contest to see who they can make you blame when you suffer... and of course that only works when you suffer.

I don't endorse most of what EV said. While he raises some interesting points, I don't really agree with how they are presented or the conclusions on the whole.

HOWEVER, in this matter, he raises the point that they have a thousand square miles of ocean closed... which is normally open... and, you know, that it is un-called-for. If the government was closed, they wouldn't have people out there patroling to be sure that you didn't sail through some corner on a map.

Not to mention closing/barricading pull-offs along a highway from which you can see Rushmore, but is NOT part of the park.

I think you can "get" (Oh, I get it...) the "closing" (which it isn't) just fine without for one moment accepting the 2 above problems, by way of example. Same with the open air monuments in DC. If you are staffing them at normal to higher levels, you can leave them open. And the "view-shed" of Rushmore? That's an over-reach.

Luckly I don't belong to either of the major political petties... uhhh, I mean parties.

Ball wrote: At least this will put an end to the myth that it's public land. So let me get this straight. Without government building roads (which all started as logging and mining roads), they wouldn't exist. Gee, I guess without government climbing routes with bomber anchors, those wouldn't exist, either. What a crock

That made no sense. Anyway...onward to coherent concerns.

Tony B wrote: Well, in this case, the fact that the government isn't closed. But the 2 parties are in a contest to see who they can make you blame when you suffer... and of course that only works when you suffer. I don't endorse most of what EV said. While he raises some interesting points, I don't really agree with how they are presented or the conclusions on the whole. HOWEVER, in this matter, he raises the point that they have a thousand square miles of ocean closed... which is normally open... and, you know, that it is un-called-for. If the government was closed, they wouldn't have people out there patroling to be sure that you didn't sail through some corner on a map. Not to mention closing/barricading pull-offs along a highway from which you can see Rushmore, but is NOT part of the park. I think you can "get" (Oh, I get it...) the "closing" (which it isn't) just fine without for one moment accepting the 2 above problems, by way of example. Same with the open air monuments in DC. If you are staffing them at normal to higher levels, you can leave them open. And the "view-shed" of Rushmore? That's an over-reach. Luckly I don't belong to either of the major political petties... uhhh, I mean parties.

I hear what you are saying, and yes, on the surface some of the closings do seem to be sort of absurd. Still, I don't think it is far fetched to say that most people in this country have absolutely no idea how much it costs to maintain and run the infrastructure in the US. In particular, I think that rural folks grossly overestimate how self sufficient they are (e.g. getting mail delivered to you in some obscure corner of Idaho is quite expensive and is most certainly not paid for by local taxes). So if we assume that most people are underestimating how much of their daily lives (driving on roads, local commerce, etc.) are predicated on the government collecting taxes and providing services, then I don't mind that a bunch of people are being inconvenienced at NPs and sailing the ocean if it means they will be forced to come to terms with what they take for granted. And all of this is coming from someone who IS being directly impacted by all of this because I can't even get into my office to work (you know it Tony, its that big building next to NIST on Broadway with the wave pattern for a logo.)

It isn't paid for by paying taxes, it's paid for by accumulating debts that will never be paid off. This will lead to the REAL shut-down at which point you'll learn that every government (not 'public') asset has been used as collateral for said loans.

Only the beginning folks. Better get used to bucking the system before it bucks you.

Ball wrote:It isn't paid for by paying taxes, it's paid for by accumulating debts that will never be paid off. This will lead to the REAL shut-down at which point you'll learn that every government (not 'public') asset has been used as collateral for said loans. Only the beginning folks. Better get used to bucking the system before it bucks you.

All governments have debts and there is a difference between sustainable and unsustainable debt. Our near term outlook is just fine. The long term is more problematic and our fiscal health will be predicated on some combination of our future economic growth and our ability to get healthcare, SS, and defense spending under control (everything else in the budget are just single percentage point contributions...not exactly runaway discretionary spending as some would have you believe). Your vague, simplistic, and incorrect version of how economics works makes it impossible to have a discussion with someone like you. But that won't stop you from spouting off about the impending economic apocalypse now will it?

Anyone know about New River Gorge ? Waterstone's FB page says open.

Claude Peon wrote:Does anyone know if red river gorge is accessible? I haven't been but I was planning on going in the next couple weeks. It's in the Daniel Boone National Forrest but as far as I know there aren't gates to some of the climbing areas.

A lot of the roads in the northern areas are closed. You can climb, but many of the northern crags will require a long hike or mountain bike to access them. Most of those are the mainly trad areas, and the southern areas, like Muir Valley and the PMRP, will be unaffected.

JCM wrote: Canada has a functioning government

Not exactly.
The Prime Minister has prorogued parliament in order to avoid uncomfortable questions about some senators whom he appointed taking home a bit of money that they weren't entitled to.