Canada Fleeces Visitors

[G-spotter]

fleecy

 

I paid $3 in park fees in the last year you're just a sucker tourist and you should pay through the nose to subsidize ppl like me. and YOU WILL. haha!!

[fig8]

Can't afford it can you poor boy. That's what happens when your president wrecks your economy. A couple years ago this would have cost you about 50% less

Generally, I would argue that our President doesn't have that much control over our economy (that Adam Smith stuff you referred to previously is a little closer to the mark). But it is possible that our President's choices have indeed, impacted our economy negatively. It would be interesting to hear from our economics pointy heads about this.

I agree that he doesn't have a lot of control over the economy, but he does have control of the strength of the dollar. The fact that he is spending more than he is taking in ($ for war combined with tax cuts), is causing our national debt to grow, which in turn causes the dollar to weaken relative to other currencies, such as the canadian dollar and the euro.

 

And I agree with those that say... KK, if you don't like it, don't go there. You seem to like the east side a lot anyway, why do you need a vacation from it?

 

[olyclimber]

95-40 or FIGHT!

[cj001f]

Millions of visitors come from around the world to Yellowstone and we don't charge them those kind of prices. You suck.

 

banff campgrounds >> NPS campgrounds. For one thing, free showers.

 

the visitors come from overseas poach are game, pollute our waters and pay less than we do....

 

[Fairweather]

 

 

And I'm sorry, but forcing people to pay an extra $8 PER NIGHT to light a goddamn campfire is totally ridiculous.

 

PLEASE tell me you didn't show them how to use fire!

[Fairweather]

Somebody's gotta pay for their healthcare!

 

 

Don't be ridiculous, Sky! Their health care is FREE

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Millions of visitors come from around the world to Yellowstone and we don't charge them those kind of prices. You suck.

 

banff campgrounds >> NPS campgrounds. For one thing, free showers.

 

the visitors come from overseas poach are game, pollute our waters and pay less than we do....

 

 

1) the showers aren't free - you pay for them with the inflated camping fee

2) what kind of fucking pussy are you that you need to shower when camping for a few days, you fucking wanker bitch!

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

 

And I'm sorry, but forcing people to pay an extra $8 PER NIGHT to light a goddamn campfire is totally ridiculous.

 

PLEASE tell me you didn't show them how to use fire!

 

so simple a cave man could do it... but not a Canuck

[KaskadskyjKozak]

And I agree with those that say... KK, if you don't like it, don't go there. You seem to like the east side a lot anyway, why do you need a vacation from it?

 

Fuck you asshole. my point is valid. I want to go there and pay reasonable fees, not bail entirely. If Canucks want to make their national parks into a haven for rich tourists, that's their loss - and very sad. And I'll be the first pointing it out - especially considering the hypocrisy of smug fuckhead Canucks on this forun in particular and in the Canada in general, talking about their wonderful paradise with all its 'free' perks. It's a bunch of bullshit. Bad enough to socialize your health care and tax the fuck out of people to pay for it along with the rest of your socialist utopia, but to make your national parks into a profit-earning business is even more disgraceful. And If you don't like my speaking up about that "inconvenient truth", well, tough shit.

 

[sammy]

How typically American to bitch about what other countries do with their own resources and lands. And how amazingly progressive of Canada to charge people who use more resources and cause more pollution higher fees than someone who does not.

 

Perhaps it is time for us Americans to actually start paying for the upkeep of our own national parks, rather than pissing away what our grandparents and great-grandparents created for us.

Edited July 24, 2007 by sammy

[KaskadskyjKozak]

How typically American to bitch about what other countries do with their own resources and lands. And how amazingly progressive of Canada to charge people who use more resources and cause more pollution higher fees than someone who does not.

 

Perhaps it is time for Americans to actually start paying for the upkeep of our national parks, rather than pissing away what our grandparents and great-grandparents created for us.

 

You charge your own citizens the same fee... as I have ALREADY pointed out, you dumb ass.

 

And this is not about "sticking it to the Americans". You've got plenty of tourists visiting there from Europe and Asia.

 

[cj001f]

Fuck you asshole. my point is valid. I want to go there and pay reasonable fees, not bail entirely. If Canucks want to make their national parks into a haven for rich tourists, that's their loss - and very sad. And I'll be the first pointing it out - especially considering the hypocrisy of smug fuckhead Canucks on this forun in particular and in the Canada in general, talking about their wonderful paradise with all its 'free' perks. It's a bunch of bullshit. Bad enough to socialize your health care and tax the fuck out of people to pay for it along with the rest of your socialist utopia, but to make your national parks into a profit-earning business is even more disgraceful. And If you don't like my speaking up about that "inconvenient truth", well, tough shit.

 

I believe it's called "strategic marketing position". Banff gets tons of tourists, many of them rich foreigners. why not up the entrance fee some $$$ if the demand curve doesn't tail off substantially?

 

Stick to the BC side of the rockies, they are better.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I believe it's called "strategic marketing position". Banff gets tons of tourists, many of them rich foreigners. why not up the entrance fee some $$$ if the demand curve doesn't tail off substantially?

 

It's not just the entrance fee - it's fees all around. They can make plenty of $$ off the tourists at the upscale resorts (and associated taxes on lodging, food, etc). But on families sleeping in tents? Lame.

 

[rob]

I suppose the high costs offset the damage that the hordes are doing to the land. I wonder if our fees are lower because our parks receive a greater proportion of federal money? Who knows.

 

Who cares. I avoid places like this anyway -- Campgrounds like that are despoiled by the hordes of pink mammals that drive through them in giant RVs.

 

Tourists and wilderness seem like an offensive combination to me. Fleece 'em.

[cj001f]

I suppose the high costs offset the damage that the hordes are doing to the land. I wonder if our fees are lower because our parks receive a greater proportion of federal money? Who knows.

 

Who cares. I avoid places like this anyway -- Campgrounds like that are despoiled by the hordes of pink mammals that drive through them in giant RVs.

 

Tourists and wilderness seem like an offensive combination to me. Fleece 'em.

 

Did you know eating meat improves brain function?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Who cares. I avoid places like this anyway -- Campgrounds like that are despoiled by the hordes of pink mammals that drive through them in giant RVs.

 

Tourists and wilderness seem like an offensive combination to me. Fleece 'em.

 

There's nothing that annoys me more than tourons - HOWEVER, one must only wander off the beaten path to enjoy these places. I don't go to a place like Jasper/Banff to ride around in an RV and stuff my face with burgers at the cheap park concession stand. I drive a normal car there and spend most days doing longish day hikes, and only return to the campground (to a small backpacking tent) to eat and sleep.

 

[murraysovereign]

It didn't used to be that way. You can thank that Reagan-butt-licker, "Lyin' Brian" Mulroney and his conservative government for those fees, KK. Prior to his "rationalising" of the national parks, the fees were more in line with what you currently pay in the US. But having failed in his first policy initiative (which was to reopen the parks for resource extraction in order to pay for their operating costs), he was reduced to "Plan B", which was to cut the parks service off from the funds previously taken from general revenues, and forcing them to become more self-financing, if not entirely so. Now, national parks have only a few sources of revenue available to them, short of reopening the coal mines in Banff, or logging Gwaii Hanas. Mainly they have visitors, who use park services, so guess who gets to pay? So if you're unhappy about it, you can blame, not statism, but rather a conservative government that wanted the parks to run more as businesses than as public amenities. You got a problem with that?

 

As for charging you for campfires, there's a simple reason for that. They want to discourage campfires, pure and simple. Campfires represent nothing but an expense to the parks service, one that poses not only increased risks of wildfires, but also produces thick palls of campfire smoke blighting the air quality and the visual esthetics of the area. So they charge a fee so that people will think twice about lighting a fire. Use a stove instead - I can't remember the last time I lit a campfire, in or out of a national park. And if you absolutely insist on getting back in touch with your inner Cro Magnon in some sort of "New Age Male" drum circling, smoke-eating fire ritual, well, fine, go right ahead. But all the fire wood has to be hauled in from outside of the parks, and the ash has to be hauled out. That costs money. Why should the Canadian tax payer be forced to subsidize your pyromania?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

So if you're unhappy about it, you can blame, not statism, but rather a conservative government that wanted the parks to run more as businesses than as public amenities. You got a problem with that?

 

Uh-huh. And I'll bet those fees for "running the park" also pad the bank accounts of quite a few state employees and provincial administrators. Indeed, I'll bet there's a whole huge bureaucracy, whose existence if funded by these fees. Sorry, but I don't by your claims to "the Right did it" from a gov't that was in power in the 1980's. Since then, those horrible right-wing programs could have been rolled back, but, mysteriously the lefties in power now have not done so.

 

As for charging you for campfires, there's a simple reason for that. They want to discourage campfires, pure and simple.

 

More social engineering from the left.

 

Campfires represent nothing but an expense to the parks service, one that poses not only increased risks of wildfires, but also produces thick palls of campfire smoke blighting...

 

Blah blah blah. In the US, fires would be just as much of an expense and our parks don't charge $8 a night for them. Canada does - Canada sucks. As for pyromania, piss off. I light a fire because its warm, cozy and fun for the kids.

 

 

[murraysovereign]

There was a large bureaucracy at one time, but that got trimmed down pretty aggressively over the years, beginning with the Mulroney government but continuing under the subsequent Liberal governments. Nowadays, Parks Canada is pretty lean - certainly compared to mid-80s staffing levels. As for "padding the accounts of ... state employees and provincial administrators" well, yes, payroll is probably the single largest expense that Parks has to cover. I would hope that Parks employees are well compensated for their work, but I doubt many of them are getting rich or "padding their accounts", as you seem to imply.

 

And you "don't buy" that this goes back to a conservative government in the 80s, but that doesn't change the fact that this goes back to a conservative government in the 80s. And yes, "those horrible right-wing programs" are still in place, mainly because they work. Parks is happy because they now have some security of funding, rather than waiting to see each year how much money the federal government would grant them, they can actually plan several years in advance because they have more certainty on the revenue side. The federal government is happy because they no longer have to take the flack for every spending decision or every program cut or every fee increase. And judging by the steady growth in annual park visitation levels over the past 20 years, the market still seems to feel they're getting value for their money.

 

And in case you haven't noticed, the "lefties in power now" aren't actually lefties. In fact, the "lefties in power now" are the direct ideological descendants of... Brian Mulroney.

 

And... charging people for campfires is "social engineering from the left." But charging people for basic health care is... free market capitalism at its finest. Maybe charging people for campfires is capitalism, too? Or maybe charging people for health care is social engineering from the right? Or maybe charging you for anything is social engineering, and charging anyone else for anything is capitalism? Which is it?

 

In one breath you decry us as a bunch of socialists, and in the next you bitch and piss and moan because we're not socialist enough. Make up your mind.

[G-spotter]

what mind?

[AlpineK]

All I know is there are plenty of rad places to go in BC that are just as cool as a park in either country and there are no fees to use them.

[archenemy]

 

 

And I'm sorry, but forcing people to pay an extra $8 PER NIGHT to light a goddamn campfire is totally ridiculous.

 

PLEASE tell me you didn't show them how to use fire!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

In one breath you decry us as a bunch of socialists, and in the next you bitch and piss and moan because we're not socialist enough. Make up your mind.

 

1) In the United States we have millions of foreigners visit our national parks along with our citizens and we don't fleece them with exorbitant fees. Sure, the parks are subsidized by taxes, and I don't mind that at all - even if it pays for us to haul ash from fire pits for visiting Canucks.

 

2) I believe in limited government, but if anything that limit includes taking care of national resources, including the national parks.

 

3) Parks should be managed, but singling out fires as some kind of "blight" or practice to be eliminated is ridiculous. I don't buy that that is the case anyways. It's just a way to fleece visitors. Take fishing instead if you will. The fee is $10/day for a fishing permit. Is that a blight too? Do you need to haul in wood and haul out ash (which should be covered by the price of the campsite in the first place, BTW). No, the fact is lots of folks who visit love to fish, and they want to fish in a place like Banff, surrounded by beauty. Not my cup of tea but hey. The park charges $10/day because they can - to make money. Well, not everything should be a maximize-profit for business. The fact that Parks in Canada is such a business is sad.

 

 

 

 

[archenemy]

Canadian fish tastes funny.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Canadian fish tastes funny.

 

???