What next?

[Erik M]

Well, there's no such thing as a tax cut, only a services cut, because cutting taxes results in cutting services. If the money isn't there and you want the same level of service (and the required funding for that level of service) fees are the only way to go if the population wants fewer and fewer taxes.

Right now the 5 dollar a day (30 dollar per year) parking fee in the Angeles National forest goes for paying the rangers to pick up trash and small maintenance. The Dept. of Agriculture apparently doesn't have enough money to pay for this themselves.

I'm not for or against tax cuts. But if the money isn't there in the public coffers, private fees will be used to make up the difference. It's a public policy choice.

[Ralph M. Wagner]

But the parks already charge for day use. How does a "professional" photographer differ from an ordinary day use visitor? Surely they don't put any more burden on the facilities than an ordinary visitor taken pictures of the family,etc., or whatever.

[Ralph M. Wagner]

Excerpt from a news article on Wisconsin State Parks new fees proposal. The last paragraph is of particular interest.


"......... and a new $3-$5 extra a night fee for 300 "water view" campsites, the proposal also raises the regular fee at Blue Mounds and a dozen other campgrounds a dollar. This would make the first night stay $27 - $30 a night and $18 - $20 for subsequent nights.

Anyone using the parks to make money, through say photography, would also pay, $30 a year."

RW  :angry:

[chrisso]

$30 a year for a professional photgrapher doesn't seem too steep.