this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
428 points (93.9% liked)
Greentext
4409 readers
1261 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yup, for Yellowstone, that's 3 entrances, so three sets of booths. It's largely to cut down on traffic (traffic gets really bad as-is) and maintain the infrastructure.
The only reason you'd go to any of the entrances is to visit the park, there are no through roads or anything, and it's like an hour or two from the major highways, and several hours from a city larger than 10k people (aside from the tourism towns just outside the park). And the traffic to get into the park is backed up for an hour in the morning for people looking to get lucky with extra passes (there's a maximum capacity).
You can hike in if you like, the passes are only required for cars IIRC.
It's genuinely hard to imagine how large America is.
And Finland isn't one of the tiny Central-European countries.
Driving from Fresno to Yellowstone is pretty much the distance it is to drive from where I live (Southern end of Finland) to the Northern end of Finland.
But yeah at the Northern end in Lapland it starts getting more like that, only a few roads going to the larger national parks. Here in the South you can just go around anything really, there's backroads and footpaths everywhere. Like no matter how deep in the woods I go, I'd feel awkward taking a shit, since there's always some dogwalkers to be met.
This makes me want to go hiking up North.
There are areas like that here too. I live next to a few mountains where there see dozens of interconnected trails all largely accessible from an intercity arterial bike path, with free parking near the more popular entrances to the trail network. Much of it is federal land (part of a national forest), but none of it is designated as a national park.
Maybe there's a two terminology difference here. Here's the terms we use:
Most of the trails I'm talking about are in the last 3 groups, and they're all free. Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, and Glacier are all in the first group and all have entrance fees. If you're "going hiking," you'll go on the last four, and the first two are for vacations unless you happen to live right next to one.
Oh. I think for us the first three would be hiking and the last four would just be walking.
But yeah, there's definitely a difference of terminology, seeing as there's two completely different languages. But I do take your point.
I don't know about any trails that have bike paths leading up to them though. I mean, unless you count a road as a bike path. It's just very much more organic here, you've made it into a whole thing that can be used for profit, it seems like. The infrastructure to ours, like duckboards and whatnot are paid for by taxes, but our taxation policies are quite different so we won't get into that, lol.
There's no profit here, it's just a different form of taxation where the users of a service pay more for its upkeep than those who don't use it. The only time a private org gets involved is if you make a reservation (and even then, many sites use a government agency) or arrange for a guided tour or something.
Everything here is publicly owned, except maybe the handful of hotels that are operated inside Yellowstone (not sure how those work). So whether you're paying with income tax or park fees isn't particularly relevant since it's all federal or state land.
I meant "profit" in the sense of that profit being the taxation. As in, people walking around the park don't actually cost anything to anyone, so it is profit when you charge people to walk around, but the people wouldn't be able to come there in the first place were there not the infrastructure which is upheld by said profit.
Well, they do. They leave litter, destroy trails, vandalize formations, etc. Keeping things nice takes a lot of work, especially with how much foot traffic these parks get. Yellowstone gets over 4 million visitors every year, and that's with the park fees, quotas, etc. Glacier is a bit less popular and still gets around 3 million visitors every year.
National and State parks are funded with both income taxes and park fees. Park fees keep the number of visitors down to a manageable level to preserve the natural beauty.
And walk-ins generally don't need to pay, though some of the larger parks also have walk-in rates.
OK yeah I'll admit cleaning up after shitheads does cost, and probably a fair amount because of how famous those places are. (So it's very much non-locals most of the time, I'd wager.)
Yup. The annual visitors to Yellowstone and Glacier is like 4x higher than the total populations of their respective states. I would be surprised if even 5% of yearly visitors come from the state they're in, and I bet more than half are from outside the country.