Utah state parks pass increase

[Kent]

I can't find a confirmation that the Utah State parks pass is increasing to $150 (with no senior discount) on July 1st, but some are stating that to be the case.  There is a link where this was referred to in a board meeting:

https://www.utah.gov/pmn/files/601605.pd...qkWo7XlGmI

Even though your state parks pass doesn't expire by June 30th, you may want to give serious consideration to getting a new pass this month.

[albinotrout]

Wait, what?

[fish_fear_me2]

Mine is due in June I guess I need to jump on it. Thank you for yhe headsup. I do have to say Utah is one of the worst in the western states as far as charges to seniors. Many western states have much lower costs foe licences and state owned parks.

[Kent]

Like I said, I couldn't find confirmation and I just read that it is being discussed and no final decision has been made. I tried calling but couldn't get anyone to answer.

[wiperhunter2]

I can't find a confirmation that the Utah State parks pass is increasing to $150 (with no senior discount) on July 1st, but some are stating that to be the case.  There is a link where this was referred to in a board meeting:

https://www.utah.gov/pmn/files/601605.pd...qkWo7XlGmI

Even though your state parks pass doesn't expire by June 30th, you may want to give serious consideration to getting a new pass this month.

I know one of the members on that board and I just sent him an email to find out what is going on. As soon as I hear back from him I'll post that info here. I sure hope this is not true but I already heard it from another member, so the increase is likely going to happen, I just hope the part about there not being a senior parks pass is wrong.

[Bduck]

Makes me wonder what's going to happen with the family fun tag. This was brought when the special entrance to Willard came about.

[lovetofish]

I'm a senior and just renewed mine for $35.00.

[RonPaulFan]

My thoughts: Keyword: "PROPOSED" (NRAEQ Proposed Fee Changes) I suspect that it follows this sequence with first it's proposed, then a legislative committee hears it (generally with public comments and input) then, if the committee passes it, it goes to the Legislature. Then, if passed in the House and Senate in a bill, it goes onto the governor to sign into law. If the people don't like it, there are many opportunities to get it stopped. Talk to your State Representative and State Senator.

Looking into the resources below, I see a list of fees are eliminated and it might be a consolidation of fees and individual parks might be offering their local park pass at a reduced fee, but that is just discussion.

Audio Recording of Meeting:
(Skip to 43:33)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vco9Eh7...yzjv4/view

See page three of this: NRAEQ Proposed Fee Changes
https://le.utah.gov/interim/2020/pdf/00000351.pdf
(copy and paste of text follows, but there is a fee chart to see at the PDF)
"The operating structure has changed from a typical government service to a
business-like model where we try to generate enough income through gate
sales to pay for our expenses. Changing this fee will better align with that
legislative directive. We note that 100 percent of revenues collected are used
to support, maintain, and operate our State Parks.
For the past 25 years the annual day-use pass has been $75. That same $75
would be equal to $120 today due to inflation. We have added amenities,
developed and enhanced facilities, and improved experiences at our parks
during that same period of time. Because of this, it is evident the annual day
pass is now under priced.
In addition to lining up the price with value and using the revenues generated
from pass sales to run parks, we will be offering more local or individual park
passes. Currently the Division's annual pass allows up to seven people per
vehicle to enter any of our 44 fabulous State Parks.
The individual park day-use pass would be sold by each State Park and would
have a price point of less than the annual day-use pass. By offering a park
specific pass, the Division would offer visitors that are price-sensitive more
options for buying an annual day-use pass.
Lastly, over the past several years State Parks have been struggling to keep
up with visitation demands. As visitation grows there is a point when too many
people in a park is simply too many people. Overcrowded parks diminishes the
overall experience of our park visitors. Using price to help manage supply and
demand while using weekday promotions and local passes will help disperse
visitation to time periods when supply is higher and demand may be lower."

[wiperhunter2]

I hope you are right Ronald, jumping it from $75 to $150 at one time seems extreme, especially if there is no discount for seniors.

[RonPaulFan]

My thinking on our public lands is it is already ours and ours to use. Combine that with the understanding that the power to tax is the power to destroy. Essentially the "fees" are taxing us for what we already own as if government owns what is public land and is "selling us" the use of what is already ours by means of abuse of power. Listen to the audio file where they tell us how good a deal it is for $150 to use the parks. Sure, our parks are an amazing wonder of our Creator's creation, but government didn't create them. The parks are already ours! We own them. A theme is pervasive throughout: "The operating structure has changed from a typical government service to a business-like model ..." (first sentence of their "Agency Explanation" as quoted from the full text above). It is NOT business! A business would own something and charge us to use it or charge us to buy it. State Parks are already ours. Their "business model" is raising taxes to pay for more services and more government (businesses expand) as if they are selling us something. But, we aren't going there because of their services. Instead, we are tolerating fees to use what is already ours and we go to our parks to get away and not to have even more government in our lives. Once they have a high price "service" they prohibit alternatives to force paying for their monopoly by forcing concentration of camping into a small area and closing the rest. I commented similarly in this article (click comments to open and see two from me using my name, Ronald Levine): https://www.ksl.com/article/46764153/cam...is-it-safe
Further, they intend to compete with free enterprise saying "it takes money to make money (audio file linked in my above post)," but that money comes from us. Listening to the audio file, they are sounding like salespeople selling us a product. Regarding business, our State Parks and our recreation using them is huge boon business and our Utah economy, but consider the power to tax is the power to destroy. Sure, government might technically "make money" competing with private business with us paying them to do that with increased fees, but the real cost is multiplied by the harm to this sector of Utah economy by creating a disincentive to use our State Parks by creating a drain on the very thing that supports a robust recreational economy. That would reduce our very much larger private economy with less use of our public lands all so government can "profit" to support it's growth and intrusion into what is already ours with use as a monopoly as if they own public lands. If these government bureaucrats want to "make money" in business, they should quit their jobs working for us as public servants and invest their own money into their own private businesses.

Related posts with our discussions on cost:

(In these I comment on the high cost of camping at Sand Hollow and the monopolistic and punitive ways they use to force us to use their high-cost crowded camping when primitive camping away from things and without fees of nearly the price of motel in a city is more desirable. It interferes with the real camping experience I and many others want.)

https://bigfishtackle.com/forum/showthre...+hollow%22

https://bigfishtackle.com/forum/showthre...+hollow%22

https://bigfishtackle.com/forum/showthre...+hollow%22

https://bigfishtackle.com/forum/showthre...ght=hollow

[RockyRaab2]

Yes, the parks are ours. Which implies that we are responsible for maintenance and upkeep. In lieu of requiring a certain number of work hours spent doing that, your alternative is to chip in to pay somebody else to do it. What part of that do people not understand?

[doitall5000]

You to own your home, don't you have expenses to maintain your home. Life is not free.

[Kent]

Wow RonPaulFan. Where do you expect the funds to come from to pay for the needed expenses to run the state parks? I own my boat, but that doesn't mean I don't have to pay to own and to use it.

[RonPaulFan]

Wow RonPaulFan.  Where do you expect the funds to come from to pay for the needed expenses to run the state parks?  I own my boat, but that doesn't mean I don't have to pay to own and to use it.

Listen to the audio file that is linked. They say: "It takes money to make money." That's going FAR BEYOND running the state parks! That is running us as a cash cow. The state parks are run now. They want to do more -- a lot more -- listen to the audio file and hear it for yourself.

A lady once exclaimed to me regarding, "needed" tax increases, that government waters the trees in the forest.  Really, that is the example she gave me!  She loves trees.  I said there is no sprinkler system and no watering of trees in the forest except for rain which has been occurring thousands of years before our government existed.  She seemed surprised that the government doesn't do everything.  I asked her how there were trees before we even discovered the continent?  She looked bewildered as if she had never thought of that.

Did you read the context of my opposition to more services and more fees to pay for it?  The links are to conversations we had right here in Big Fish Tackle and remain just a click away for your reading. Sand Hollow cost so much for a spot in the sand that it is almost as much as a motel in the city with lots of amenities.

It's also not just about the cost.  The cost will deter the recreational use of our lands for a lot of people even if it isn't you.  That brings in to the Utah economy a lot of money that is much more than the government collects.  The sporting goods stores, outdoor clothing, boats, fishing gear, motels, tourism ... (long list).  It kills the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Raise fees and that reduces revenue.  It's the classic politics of the day.

We can't tax ourselves into prosperity.  I know a lot of people believe that.  It's the same issue on a much broader scale.  You might get a better sense of my perspective by reading my comment on to a news article at this link: (open comments and find the one with my name) (another reason to read my comment there is it would be humorous IF it weren't so very true)
https://www.ksl.com/article/46764317/bid...ice-others

The other (current news) article is about crowding people into a small open campground and the thousands of acres of our land are closed to us.  Ironically, this crowding is due to the dangers of the spread of the virus, but spreading out in the outdoors would be a much better idea.  Just how much do you want the government to manage YOU at our State Parks?  That's the main expense -- managing what doesn't need to be managed and for the purpose of more fees.  Without increasing management and creating government-run business competition with free enterprise (yep, that's in the audio file and worth listening to it), I guarantee the water in the reservoirs will still be wet and enjoyable.

Without their fancy campgrounds, I would have much better places that I could camp and would camp where I fish.  They find ways to prevent that enjoyment, so they can force us to pay their overpriced camping fees in crowded campgrounds.  To me, that doesn't even fit the definition of camping nor is it the desired outdoor recreational camping and fishing experience.

Read some of the links to conversations right here in Big Fish Tackle to get the context.  You can also reply to old posts. 

Ronald   

---

Yes, the parks are ours. Which implies that we are responsible for maintenance and upkeep. In lieu of requiring a certain number of work hours spent doing that, your alternative is to chip in to pay somebody else to do it. What part of that do people not understand?

Great, Rocky!  Accepting your premise that higher fees and more "maintenance and upkeep" is good, where do you draw the line?

If you listen to the audio file, you will hear that they are intending to do a lot more than maintenance and upkeep.  They already do that, they are going into business with a "takes money to make money" concept to compete with business.

Perhaps you didn't get that part.

Perhaps you did and you like it.  But, where do you draw the line?  They are proposing double the fees.  If that's so good wouldn't ten times the fees be better?  Just think how much they can do with $1500 a year for the annual pass.

Also, consider the unintended consequences of it collapsing revenue from taxing the now billions of dollars of profits of the Utah recreational economy which will drop off substantially when fewer people use our parks due to greater fees.  It's not as simplistic as more fees mean more money.

[Anglinarcher]

I have often believed that to become a politician you should be forced to pass an IQ test with at least a 95 (100 is normal so that is below normal). I suspect we would have very few of our current politicians if such a law was passed.

[RonPaulFan]

I have often believed that to become a politician you should be forced to pass an IQ test with at least a 95 (100 is normal so that is below normal).  I suspect we would have very few of our current politicians if such a law was passed.

You must have seen my comment on the KSL article.  We don't have that IQ requirement, but a lot of bad candidates should be eliminated by our votes.  That means it is our fault as the voters that we vote them in.  Ultimately, we are fully responsible because we (voters) voted for them.  The good news is we can take our jobs as the ones who hire and fire our elected public servants more seriously by dedicating the time to learn and vote wisely.  I don't blame those elected for wanting to "fundamentally change" our EXCEPTIONAL Nation.  Instead, I blame the voters for that choice.

[Joe_Hill]

My thinking on our public lands is it is already ours and ours to use. 

(In these I comment on the high cost of camping at Sand Hollow and the monopolistic and punitive ways they use to force us to use their high-cost crowded camping when primitive camping away from things and without fees of nearly the price of motel in a city is more desirable.  It interferes with the real camping experience I and many others want.)

https://bigfishtackle.com/forum/showthre...+hollow%22

https://bigfishtackle.com/forum/showthre...+hollow%22

https://bigfishtackle.com/forum/showthre...+hollow%22

https://bigfishtackle.com/forum/showthre...ght=hollow

FYI, Sand Hollow cost nearly $40 million to build and millions a year to maintain. You do know that Bernie Sanders isn't in the next Presidential election. But here you are laying claim to all kinds of benefits and wanting other to cover your expenses. Don't go to the State Parks if you don't want to cover your share. I personally don't want to be a mooch even if others are fine with it. Now I agree with you about irrationally funneling people into tighter spots camping. However it isn't related to the cost of a State Parks Pass so I'd suggest making another post. It doesn't support anything here but sideways thinking.

[dubob]

RPF,

Public land refers to the public domain, unappropriated land belonging to the Federal government that is subject to sale or other disposal under general laws and is not reserved for any particular governmental or public purpose.

Much of this land was acquired early in the history of the United States as a result of purchases, wars, or treaties made with foreign countries. The Federal government used this land to encourage growth, settlement, and economic development. Land that was not developed, homesteaded, or sold remained in Federal ownership as public land. Today, the Federal government employs principles of land use planning and environmental protection to preserve the natural resources and scenic beauty found on public land.

Each western state also received federal "public land" as trust lands designated for specific beneficiaries, which the States are to manage as a condition to acceptance into the union. Those trust lands cannot any longer be considered public lands as allowing any benefits to the "public" would be in breach of loyalty to the specific beneficiaries. The trust lands (two sections, or about 1,280 acres (5.2 km2) per township) are usually managed extractively (grazing or mining), to provide revenue for public schools

Most, if not all, Utah State Parks facilities are located on Federal government owned property.  Willard, Echo, East Canyon, Rockport are a few of these.  Utah has negotiated a contract with the Federal government agencies (Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, et al) and pays a fee to the Federal Government to develop and mange the site as a State Park.  There are other expenses associated with development & management such as building and maintaining the camping sites (primitive with no amenities & and better sites with different combinations of amenities), launch ramps & parking lots, restrooms with & without water/showers, cabins for non-RV owners, beaches with parking areas, etc, etc, etc.  ALL of this costs money and I’m 100% certain that most folks will agree the improved facilities increase almost everybody’s enjoyment of the facility.

And just where does the money for all of this come from?  From the Federal government?  Not a chance.  From wealthy philanthropists?  Yeah, right.  How about from state tax revenues?  Bingo!  Been that way from almost day one.  Except now, inflation is causing the revenue to lag way behind the real costs of running the state and ALL of it's agency's.  And John Q Public does NOT want his tax bill to increase so that all of these inflation increases can be covered.  ESPECIALLY, if he doesn’t give a tinker’s damn about outdoor activities like hunting, fishing, camping, etc.  So how is the State government going to keep covering the cost to develop and maintain our State Parks?

The State government is already doing it.  They are requiring the State Parks to become self sufficient and to pay their own way.  Day use fees HAVE to increase to cover the cost of running our State Parks at a level of use that is acceptable to the majority of the users.  Contrary to your political leanings, there ain’t no free lunch and there never will be.  State Parks are a creation of man, not a natural occurrence.  And as such, there is a real dollar cost to their creation and continued existence.  Nobody is forcing you to use any State Park or any of the amenities afforded patrons who do.  If you don’t like the State Parks fee system, then don’t use any of the State Parks.  If it's cheaper for you to stay in a motel to use Sand Hollow State Park, then by all means rent the motel room.  See how easy that was?

Utah has an abundance of recreational opportunities that don’t have ANY fees associated with them.  Use them instead of the State Parks.  The state isn’t forcing anybody to purchase an annual day-use pass to use any of the 44 State Parks they will work in.  You can pay as you go and if you only go a couple times a year, you are getting by a lot cheaper.  I visit State Parks probably 40 to 50 time a year, so for folks like me, the annual pass makes a lot of sense and is a real bargain.

Go ahead and complain all you want; your reasoning is very weak at best.  Self sufficiency is the way of the future.  Nobody wants the alternative – tax increases that cover lots of things you (the average Joe Citizen) don’t have a need for or interest in.  Deal with it.

[Tin-Can]

Proposed, not proposed, Public Lands, Federal Lands, State Lands.....................it's all way to much of a head ache for me to even think of, let alone read and listen to all the links provided by RPF.   

I just purchased my new Senior  Utah State Parks day use pass.  Cost: $35.00.  So for another year I should be free of any 300% price increase.  When and if that happens, I'll either pay by the visit, or go elsewhere. 
IMHO, if a very large, very sudden, all at once price increase as mentioned in this thread was to actually happen, then I think the State will have shot itself in the foot.  A 100% increase will quite likely cause the opposite result. A large reduction in day use pass holders, and a reduction of funds to the state. 
But it does no one any good to get too agitated about all this. It has not happened, and it may not.

[catchinon]

Ron and Bob, et al, just a friendly reminder that the rules of the forum prohibit political comments and discussions, especially those that are heated or rancorous. Some of us feel very strongly about things that affect our outdoor recreation, and other things, but this isn't really the forum for discussing it. I, for one, appreciate the right and tradition of speaking out about the things our government does, but please find somewhere else to do it.

Now my say. I agree that we all need to pitch in our fair share for the things we enjoy. But a 100% increase? If gas jumped to over $4 a gallon I'm sure we would all get upset and want to know why. Also, I didn't hear anything about the proposal passing out of committee so it probably died aborning. I think we would have heard a lot of flap if it had gone anywhere. It is amazing all the crazy things that get introduced at the Legislature that are totally ridiculous and even unconstitutional. Most are shot down without any fanfare.