Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Doug Buchanan
Mountain climber
Fairbanks Alaska
|
|
I note that the Fairbanks Daily News Miner is well known for parroting the government line, especially on Park Service issues, and does not balance its articles with the citizen viewpoint.
Notice that the News Miner and Park Service ASSUME the position that the government MUST KEEP GETTING MORE AND MORE MONEY, WITHOUT QUESTION. And the climbers are an ideal minority group to attack with more taxation, since their American Alpine Club and Access Fund are cronies of the Park Service chaps.
But climbers should notice that the results are apparent in the general citizen response that the climbers are bad people who do not meet their responsibilities, because the Park Service keeps portraying them as wasting tax money. Notice that the public does not complain about the Park Service wasting tax money on climbers. The public complains about the climbers not paying the Park Service enough.
That is what climber support for the Park Service, Access Fund and American Alpine Club is doing to the image of climbers. "Climbers are irresponsible, and should be controlled and taxed more." By design of the human mind, that will inescapably create nasty, long-lasting animosity between the actual climbers and the American Alpine Club ego-groupies who support the government against the climbers. Taxing the climbers for their RIGHT to walk on their own public land was a greedy fool's quest supported by fools, that was doomed from the get-go.
Enjoy the show.
Doug Buchanan
Alaskan Alpine Club chief rabble rouser
|
|
kurthicks
climber
Washington
|
|
Only two US National Parks charge climbers explicitly...Denali and Rainier.
This is a bad precedent, given that it could easily expand other Parks that are climbing destinations like Yosemite, Tetons, Black Canyon, North Cascades, Rocky Mountain, Zion, and many more.
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
sorry, just posting out loud.
|
|
am I reading that right? They are saying that rescue costs are not part of the 1.3M, that they estimate needs to be recovered for the "program" yet it subtletly in the same article insinuates that climber rescue costs are not something that can say simply 'let die' because of some expectation?
what is the 'program'?
shitters and trash removal?
Med services?
stand by, going to ping someone on this. wtf?
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
The day of the free rescue lunch is over. It's been over in Europe for yonks.
Go long on Prudential (The Rock).
|
|
ms55401
Trad climber
minneapolis, mn
|
|
less red tape in Kyrgyzstan. peaks are more or less virgin, like my current girlfriend (but one truly never knows for sure)
|
|
hollyclimber
Big Wall climber
Yosemite, CA
|
|
Pretty twisted commentary by the former Chief Ranger! I went to the comment meetings on this and wrote my own letter. I didn't get any special access to any government officials, but I was certainly opposed to the proposed cost increase. The program could be greatly reduced if they wanted to do that and there are a lot of arguments for funding a program like this, even if the direct users don't pay every penny.
And yes, you are reading it right. The "program" does not include rescue costs.
|
|
adam d
climber
Los Osos, CA
|
|
at the end:
Pete Armington recently retired after serving eight years as the chief park ranger of Denali National Park and Preserve.
He waited til he was out to speak his mind?
|
|
JohnGalt
Social climber
Galt's Gulch, CO
|
|
Or they could cut services like good 'lil Alaskan Republicans...
Seriously, let the climbers fend for themselves. How many of the accidents on Denali this year were due to ill-prepared climbers consciously or unconsciously relying on others (their guides/Park service) to get them out of any problems they got into?
(Oh wait how is it possible to be in the GOP when your state only survives because of Federal Pork and Social Spending? That's a topic for another debate )
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
The park service provides a great many unecessary services on Denali.
For example patrolling the mountain to make sure no one puts trash or feces in crevasses.
The crevasses up there (excluding(17-2) are pretty much the greatest landfill option that has ever existed at least for the small amount climbers require. Much better than Talkeetnas garbage disposal system for the environment.
--------
Will post more later regarding rescue costs and alternatives. The gobldgook paragraph above confused me but seemed to indicate that rescue costs are about 200k anually but come from a general NPS fund not the Denali park fund.
|
|
Seamstress
Trad climber
Yacolt, WA
|
|
There was extensive material available even though all FOIA requests were not provided.
I attended meetings for the Denali fee increase and the Rainier fee increase. It was quite clear that Mr. Armitage was biased to run the mountain the way he wanted it, and that he would extract more money from the 7 Summits Club. The fact that this is a US National Park, and that US citizens should be able to enjoy their park seemed quite lost on him. His mantra was "Denali is a bargain" among the 7 Summits. He seemed to think that this is a playground for the rich, and thus these rich pigeons can be plucked. Somehow the frame of reference became skewed. It wasn't enough to be a premier American National Park.
I would rather see the National Park system provided for a very nominal entrance fee and fee for legitmate facilities - hotel. The user fee craze is nothing more than a regressive tax. As the common man gets priced out, the playground becomes exclusive to the well off.
It is always informative to read between the lines and search for the ommitted facts. No one who visits Denali pays 100% of the costs of the park. Denali is heavily subsidized by the Feds. According to the Park, it collects $10 per visitor in entrance fees and provides $37 in services to those visitors . That is a 27% ratio of contribution for services. Today the Park receives 30% services provided from fees paid by climbers when factoring in the contribution of entrance fees, MUF, guiding concession fees, and air taxi fees.
The math that Mr. Armitage uses for allocating costs is not quite right. The Talkeetna facility is lovely and hosts 31,000 visitors annually. 1,200 are climbers. Yet 71% of the cost of the facility is included in the climbing program. I could go on and on picking apart their budget.
The staffing choices are interesting. The NPS should enter the moderm world. In person briefings by appointment is a very labor intensive way of delivering information. Create one on line video and be done with it. The Park seems to think that they must supply all information about climbing the mountain. By perusing the sites of all the guide services, you can easily find gear lists, sample schedules, info about the route, etc. Many books have been published. You don't need access to a ranger to get that information. The mountaineering program was originlaly funded for 2 rangers and publishing a brochure. The current staffing is far beyond that.
When you look hard at the budget, staffing is the primary cost:
McKinley-Foraker
Personal Services $706,410.00
Travel $17,520.00
Utilities $28,980.00
Services $338,760.00
Materials and Supplies $68,630.00
Total: $1,160,300.00
They justify the staffing and the escalating costs of the program with providing a rescue readiness infrastructure and preventing accidents. They expect the mountaineers to pay for 100% of that. However this capability is a benefits to all users of the Park - and nearby wilderness areas - and don't ask those users to pay for it. They are precluded for charging for rescue. It is a creative way to get climbers to pay for the costs of maintaining a staff trained and acclimatized for rescue.
The Park could simply charge all users of the Park $1 more. That would more than cover the shortfall that Mr. Armitage calculates from climbers. That is a different and very slow process. No wonder why Mr. Srmitage preferred to raise the special use fee instead.
Go read the record of comments regarding the proposed fee increases. Let Mr. Armitage go run an exclusive adventure resort. That isn't what he was paid to do in Alaska.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Thanks, Seamstress. I found his accounting rather puzzling also.
Unfortunately, as others have pointed out, some people see climbers as among the "rich" whose pockets need picking. Those of us familiar with the typical dirtbag climber can scoff at that thinking [sic], but it's out there, and we need to deal with it.
John
|
|
cleo
Social climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
are they including road-building and maintaining in the park costs? climbers aren't using the roads and facilities...
|
|
Seamstress
Trad climber
Yacolt, WA
|
|
The road building and maintenance aren't in the climber costs. The costs charged tothe climbing program include:
$119,550 of the $189,100 for South District Admin (63%)
$244,450 of the $259,300 for South District Helo - basic contract, excluding time and ops for rescue (94%)
$411,460 of the $601,100 for South District Operations (68%)
$45,600 of the $64,350 of the South Disctrict Building and Utilities (71% of Talkeetna station costs)
$207,500 for climbing rangers on the West Buttress; $118k is for salaries, $41K is for avvy training, Rigging for Rescue training, and flights, $50K for food, gear, Incident Mngt Training, EMT Recert. (100%)
$49,060 for establishing camp (100%)
$9,800 for human waste management - cleaning the CMCs (100%)
$38,500 for managing illegal guiding (100%)
$10,300 for Volunteers in the Park (100%)
$24,080 of $34,400 for collecting fees (70%)
To put it in basic units, each climber pays:
$100 for South District Admin
$204 to have a helo available
$343 for South District Admin on the ground
$38 for the Talkeetna Visitor Center
$173 for trained climbing rangers on the West Buttress
$41 for the ranger camps to be set up
$8 to have a clean CMC
$32 to ferret out illegal guiding on the mountain
$9 for Volunteers in the Park
$20 to collect fees
This math totals $967 with major portions wrapped up in overhead.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
$38,500 for managing illegal guiding (100%)
Damn, Ranger Clouseau works cheap!
Oh, and do tell how 'illegal' guiding hurts anyone more than the herds of incompetents.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
Seems like they could knock out about $450k to me (at least)
Helicopter, all but a couple rangers, Camp, Latrine
|
|
Seamstress
Trad climber
Yacolt, WA
|
|
Remember that many mountains managed by the USFS charge.
It is funny to me how Mr. Armitage is upset that climbers would speak to their elected representatives against the fee proposal. We have such nerve. Add to that indignity, there are former NPS folks who oppose the fee increase. Excuse me - he has a right to speak out for the increase, but he thinks it is inappropriate for others similary situated to speak out against it?
I applaud the efforts by the climbing community to reign in fees. Yes, I wish they would disappear. Since that isn't going to happen, the sensible approach of delaying increases, demanding justification, opposing them, and attempting to have the increases as small as possible are fair tactics. Opposition to an increase from $200 to $500 should be expected.
|
|
Gagner
climber
Boulder
|
|
Some of you may remember that Pete was a LEO ranger in the Valley in the early '80s. And was lovingly known as Worm-ington, amongst other names....he was not a climbers best friend then either...
|
|
Doug Buchanan
Mountain climber
Fairbanks Alaska
|
|
The Park Service thrives on "public hearings" and propaganda to keep the gullible climbers bickering about the details. And indeed I enjoy the details because they consistently illuminate the lying of the Park Service sops, when questioned adequately.
No end of details about the Park Service lying about climbing are available among the rhetoric on AlaskanAlpineClub.org.
But two concepts prevail:
1. The non-Park mountains illuminate the lying of the Park Service swine.
2. The insatiably greedy government that has reached the plateau of charging the common people a tax ("user fee") for their RIGHT to walk on their own public land has doomed the US National Park system. Fools would suggest otherwise.
The mental midget Park Service sops can read the above, and they will remain as clueless as the Soviet Union bureaucrats, the Roman Emperors and their ilk throughout human history. That is the damage that "power" does to any human mind which falls victim to using institutional power above individual reasoning.
For their paltry salaries the Park Service pigs have sold the RIGHT of their own children to walk on their own public land. Amusingly, their children are discovering that fact on the internet, and some, recognizing the value of human rights in lives lost to gain and defend human RIGHTS, have privately expressed contempt for their Park Service patents. More will.
Respectfully, Doug Buchanan Alaskan Alpine Club paperwork guy
|
|
Simmeron
Trad climber
Reno, NV
|
|
User fees are a fair way for the guvment to charge the appropriate user groups. I've never climbed Denali and never will, so why should my taxpayer dollars go to pay for a bunch of adventure seekers climbing an inherently dangerous mountain?
"It shouldn't" is the correct answer. Mountain climbers don't contribute to my life as an American the same way that the military or highway funds do. I'm not denigrating mountaineers because most are pretty hardcore, but if you want to climb a mountain and get flown off by a helicopter, then do it on your own dime, not mine.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
I have to agree with Doug, to a point.
Most of the expenses being pinned on the climbers were created by the Park Service. If they are spending too much, they should scale back their operations.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!