Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letter: Bear fees’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Aug. 13 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

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?

Midvaliean
MIDVALE, UT

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.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

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!

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

@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 money...

John Charity Spring
Back Home in Davis County, UT

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 entitlement ladder.

Mister J
Salt Lake City, UT

Want to see more Bears? Put out more picnic baskets.

Wally West
SLC, UT

to John Charity Spring

You neglected to mention that TR was a progressive and environmentalist? Or, did you?

ECR
Burke, VA

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.

LDS Tree-Hugger
Farmington, UT

John Charity Spring
Back Home in Davis County, UT
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 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?!

2 bits
Cottonwood 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...

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?

ugottabkidn
Sandy, UT

Mr Springs and 2bit, Please.......

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

@2 bits
Cottonwood 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,

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA
had 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.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

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.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

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.

one old man
Ogden, UT

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 easy.

jjjdsd
CENTERVILLE, UT

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."

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

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

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

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.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

@ 2 bites

I'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.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

If you want to pay a fee to see bears... go to the Zoo.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments