So what do you want Robert? . . . The government to let you see
bears for free?That's socialism.Is there no limit
to all the FREE STUFF people want?
So Yellowstone is now $41 more expensive? Surely I can see how the money COULD
be well spent. But is it?Yellowstone is really popular, so much so that
it has a endless stream of cars visiting. One thing I know is many are unaware
of their impact on the site.
Yellowstone should have still charged you that amount. But they should have put
it in very small fine print. Why not? The airlines get to do it!
@GaryO,Just how is the government letting you see bears for free
"Socialism"??Bears don't only exist in National Parks
you know.And even if you limit it to seeing bears in National
Parks... how is seeing them for free "Socialism"?I'm
pretty sure I can see bears with or without the National Park System. Or the
Government for that matter.I love the National Park System... but
let's not pretend that bears only exist in our National Parks, or that not
getting charged and extra fee to see more of them is Socialism. That's not
the topic, and it's nonsense. =========I think
the comment that pointed out "how are they going to insure that we see more
bears from the highway" had a good point. Even if they increase the bear
population... that doesn't guarantee you will see more of them.=========IMO the bear population in Yellowstone is pretty healthy
already. Nature determines the bear population (not the Federal Budget). The
land will support the population the area is able to support (not what the
Federal budget will allow).Bears go where there is food... not
Yellowstone only exists as a national park because of the efforts of Theodore
Roosevelt. He was a man who believed in hard work, sacrifice, and
determination. He would be appalled to see how the current left-wing
administration is attempting to turn Yellowstone into just another rung on the
Want to see more Bears? Put out more picnic baskets.
to John Charity SpringYou neglected to mention that TR was a
progressive and environmentalist? Or, did you?
I see this is the usual case of someone misinterpreting a situation, making it
sound worse than it is and then arguing against it. The classic straw man
argument. So let's look at the facts. The government
isn't "wanting to charge an extra $41 on top of the $25 entrance fees
for bear support so visitors to Yellowstone can see more bear." The story
is about how surprised the Yellowstone management was that a survey of 663 park
visitors said they would be willing to pay as much as $41 for the privilege of
getting closer look at the bears. The park has no intention of doing that
anytime soon.If Yellowstone no longer allowed grizzly bears to use
roadside habitat — and instead chased, moved or killed them — the
regional economy would lose more than $10 million a year and 155 job according
to the paper "The Economics of Roadside Bear Viewing." So the park is
looking for ways to offset those costs. That's all. And apparently people
are willing to pay the extra fees. The world isn't coming to an end and
the bears aren't becoming part of the entitlement class.
John Charity SpringBack Home in Davis County, UTYellowstone only
exists as a national park because of the efforts of Theodore Roosevelt. He was a
man who believed in hard work, sacrifice, and determination. He would be
appalled to see how the current left-wing administration is attempting to turn
Yellowstone into just another rung on the entitlement ladder.8:19
a.m. Aug. 13, 2014========= Teddy Roovesvelt was a
Progressive/Liberal...As were the other 3 men carved into Mount
Rushmore.Imagine signing an Executive Order, skirting the will
of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana, and creating Yellowstone National Park!And the same guys cheering Teddy Roosevelt, show such disdain for
Clinton and Obama for protecting America the same way?!
@Wally West,Why is it important to point out that TR was a
"Progressive"?Are we going to have an ideological war today?
I thought this was about bears... not ideologies...How does
everything get immediately turned into politics now days?Seems like
we get one or two comments on the topic before somebody turns it into a Liberal
VS Conservative ideology debate, or Progressive VS Conservative bashing the rest
of the day...This is about bears, not Progressives beating their
chests and politics... isn't it?
Mr Springs and 2bit, Please.......
@2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UT@Wally West,Why is it important
to point out that TR was a "Progressive"?Are we going to
have an ideological war today? I thought this was about bears... not
ideologies...This is about bears, not Progressives beating their
chests and politics... isn't it?9:47 a.m. Aug. 13, 2014========== OK then 2bits,GaryOVirginia
Beach, VAhad it right with the very first comment!Conservatives say -- If YOU want to see the Bears, YOU should be the only
one's paying for it.If you don't want to see the bears, you should not be forced to pay taxes for all to see them.Liberals
tend to say -- This is America, everyone pays a few pennies a year to keep
YellowStone a precious Pearl of Nature for ALL Americans to see and enjoy.I'm a little torn myself about the fee -- because 50% of the
toursits I run into at America's National Parks are foreigners...Sad that foreigners enjoy what American's ignore and take for granted.
I am surprised the environmentalists are not screaming out against this?However, I do have to say that this program is the specialty of
liberals. They are taxing those that have to give to and grow a dependent class
of people. The government will now charge you more to get into Yellowstone at
the same time they destroy the bears' ability to get food naturally.
Hey 2 bits -“Just how is the government letting you see bears
for free ‘Socialism’??”It’s socialism the
same way that low-income housing, food stamps, and Medicaid are socialism. I was
using the term loosely . . . the way I’ve seen it used in this forum so
often.The Government provides too much FREE STUFF . . . Just ask
Rush Limbaugh. That competes with the private sector.If people
really want to see bears, than they should be able to pony up there money and
give it to private sector bear wranglers who can make it happen . . . Right?And yes, like it or not TR was a proud PROGRESSIVE .He had
much more in common with today’s Liberals than with today’s
“Conservatives.”That’s why our wonderful national
park system was saved from being plundered, denuded, and wasted.Not too
far from Yellowstone in Idaho there a vast stretches of land where hydraulic
mining was done in the 19th century, with vast open cuts into the earth all
around. It hasn’t healed after more than century.That could
have been Yellowstone if not for the TR, the Environmentalist, who saved it.
This letter is so far away from facts that it's laughable.The
government is not, repeat NOT, proposing this. It came from some rinky-dink
survey outfit. The National Park Service was laughing so hard it hurts.By the way -- Teddy Roosevelt had nothing to do with the establishment
of Yellowstone. It became the first national park in the world well before his
time in office. He visited the park to dedicate the Roosevelt Arch, which he
funded.It has been amusing to read the comments here so filled with
complete ignorance of the facts.I'd be terribly embarrassed to
post that kind of stuff. Try checking facts. It works and it's very, very
The First National Park, not only in the United States but anywhere in the
world, was Yellowstone, which the US Congress and President Ulysses S. Grant
designated in 1872. The law establishing Yellowstone as the first National
Park declared the area would be preserved "for the benefit and enjoyment of
the people." All "timber, mineral deposits, natural curiosities, or
wonders" would be kept "in their natural condition."
Hey One Old Man –Thanks for the correction.Although TR had a hand in creating the antiquities act, several national
monuments ,and several national parks ,Yellowstone was not among them.I was wrong about Yellowstone. But contrary to your hopes, I’m not
really all that embarrassed. Although I was wrong about that one
specific, I was correct in the point I was making.A whole lot of
commentary from “Conservatives” in this forum focuses on the idea
that takers, Liberals, are continually exploiting the noble makers,
Conservatives, and are always looking for handouts and free stuff from the
Federal Government.What “Conservatives” seem to miss is
that the government was created in part to promote the general welfare and
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. That’s what good governance does. It provides opportunities to the
benefit of everybody.Millions of Americans will never visit
Yellowstone, but their taxes pay for its existence, and that’s a good
thing . . . . . . And so are many other benefits accessible to
American citizens courtesy of the Federal Government
I appreciate the National Parks as much as anyone, so don't paint me as
wanting them "plundered, denuded, and wasted". However... I question
the people who say if TR hadn't saved Yellowstone it would not be here
today.Just look at the areas AROUND Yellowstone. There's some
pretty country that's OUTSIDE the National Park boundaries too... and
it's still there (Amazing). Still beautiful. Still almost as pristine as
the land INSIDE the National Park boundaries. So obviously it would still be
there, and it would still be appreciated, even IF TR hadn't performed his
miracle. BTW... If he didn't save it.... I'm pretty sure
somebody else would have. And if even if it weren't a National Park... it
would still be pretty special.I vacation in Island Park or Jackson
Hole every year, and I've seen more bears OUTSIDE the National Park than I
have inside. The land outside the parks is just as beautiful as the land
inside the boundaries. Nope... not plundered, denuded, OR wasted. Take a
raft trip down the Snake River Gorge (not a National Park). It's just as
beautiful as anything INSIDE Yellowstone NP.
@ 2 bitesI'm continuously surprised at how poorly maintained
state parks are compared to federal (National) parks. Every week I visit a state
park and am appalled at how dry the grass is, the fire pits poorly kept, trails
overgrown, tables dirty, and restrooms terrible. But when I visit national
parks? They're clean, well maintained, and beautiful. If
anything, we should be absorbing state parks into national parks. Utah
doesn't even fund education let alone state parks.
If you want to pay a fee to see bears... go to the Zoo.
If you want to visit a poorly run park with dirty restrooms, go to a state
park.If you want to visit beautiful well maintained parks that are
wonders of the world, go to a national park.
Is "Yellowstone" a "fort", a "magazine", or the land on
which a "federal building" has been erected? Is it part of the
"District" that is not more than 10 miles square?If not, it
is land that does not belong to the federal government. It is not
"community land" that the federal government has been given
authorization to oversee. It is land that Teddy Roosevelt took from the States
without the consent of the people (or did I miss that amendment to the
Constitution?).We are a nation of laws. The Supreme Law of the
land, pertaining to land "owned" and "operated" by the Federal
Government is found in Article 1, Section 8. "To exercise exclusive
Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles
square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress,
become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like
Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines,
Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"
It's great to see government adopting the principles of private industry.
Soon there shall be fees, riders, levies, surcharges, adjustments, modifiers,
taxes, charges, flow through expenditures, you name it. All tacked on to that
ever low initial cost, just like the airlines and so many other companies do.
Hey Mike Richards –NOTHING in the Constitution says the
Federal Government cannot own land.You keep citing the size of the
nation’s capitol, which is NOT a restriction on land ownership.It’s just silly.BTW, we the people of the United States own
a LOT of land in Utah. To paraphrase your senior senator, the State of Utah
better keep its mitts off of our federal lands.Hey 2bits –“Just look at the areas AROUND Yellowstone. There's some
pretty country that's OUTSIDE the National Park boundaries too...”Yes, and much of that country is national forest land . . . owned by
us, the people of the United States.
Mike: You are entertaining, if wrong. Here's a challenge.
Assuming you think you own your own home, look up the title history on your
property. It will go back to a patent issued by . . . wait for it . . . the
United States of America. If, as you argue, the federal government never had
title to that land, then your land title is defective; you don't really own
your own home. And neither do the thousands of other "landowners" whose
titles also are derived from a U.S. patent (that would be virtually everyone in
Utah, not to mention the other western states).
"Let the bears pay the bear tax. I pay the Homer Tax"
I saw this story is sill around and thought I'd revisit it. I don't
condone any sort of extra fee by government or industry. The worst I experienced
wasn't government or corporate, but a first nations tribe, at the grand
canyon west skybridge. When you go there, you park at what is an incredibly busy
and noisy heliport. They don't ding you for parking but there is the
ubiquitous gift shop to fleece you there. Then, in spite of the fact that you
can see where the skybridge is you have to pay to take a bus. No walking. Then,
in addition to the bus and skybridge fees, they charge you for a locker to store
your camera. You can't take it out there; you have to pay a guy there to
take a photo of you instead. And if you try to stop and catch a photo with your
camera of the canyon from the road as you leave, a van full of hired goons comes
and puts the run on you. This lot sure knows how to shake you down for all the