B-1 83 said:

---

Bradley.Kohr.II said:

---

Does your job involve meeting with regulators, regularly/getting permits?

---

No. Never did. About the closest thing to permits we ever dealt with was getting landowners to call DIGTESS before putting construction projects in.

---

schmellba99 said:

---

BSD said:

---

hopeandrealchange said:

---

AllTheFishes said:

---

BenderRodriguez said:

---

AllTheFishes said:

---

But it's not the bureaucrats that's are going to suffer. They are still ensconced in DC. However, I would advise not planning a summer trip to a national park this year.

---

This reminds of the petty stuff Obama pulled during the govt shutdown, like barricading off monuments on the national mall.

But honestly, whatever. Shut down the natl parks for a summer.

Still need to make cuts.

---

I'm not arguing that cuts shouldn't be made, but where they are made is what matters.
I'm a hunter and fisherman and generally enjoy our national public lands. There is a big difference between cutting bad spending and not having a government at all. That's called anarchy and I don't think anybody wants that.

This isn't going to cause the national parks or forest to be shut down. It's just going to mean fewer people working at them. So when the drunk guy at the campsite next to you won't shut up there won't be a ranger to come take them to sleep it off and your families has to put up with it. Longer lines at entrances. Not stopping the idiots spray painting or defacing our parks. I could go on and on about the little things and it all adds up.

If you really want to burn it all down and start from scratch, understand that the scope of damage that will be done in the process likely will not be recoverable. I don't that that's an over the top statement full of internet hyperbole I truly believe it.

---

If our debt is not brought under control there will be nothing left to burn down. We are bankrupt and drastic actions are the only hope. Parks should be the least of our worries at this point.

---

I'm all for bringing down bureaucracy because you're right, our debt is way out of control. But two things can be true at the same time. The parks should absolutely be taken care of.

Here's the thing, we're the United States of ****ing America. We have enough money for the parks. Even if you don't want tax dollars going to it, here's one way to do it: double the admission price. It's been way under market relative to other vacation type prices for way too long. Taking a 7 day pass to Yosemite from $35 to $70 will still be 85% cheaper than one day admittance for a family of four to Disney. Boom. Revenue is doubled with no drop off on attendance. And for folks that complain about not being "fair" from their $900 cell phones…well they aren't the people that typically go to parks anyways.

---

Technically amigo, we don't. Last I checked I think we were in the $37 TRILLION in debt range.

Debt. As in "we owe this money to somebody else because we borrowed it because we have had a century of unabetted and unfettered spending without anybody actually doing anything close to a real live budget (not the made up crap from the Clinton years)"

But you are right, two things can be true - problem is that the second you start making exceptions as to why this program or that spending or this money should be spared the axe, you perpetuate the current situation. And we, frankly speaking, cannot perpetuate it any more. And like Trump or not, he was elected and one of the platforms he ran on was doing exactly what he is doing. I suppose most people may have thought it was just campaign promises, but apparently he is at least trying.

I doubt seriously that the USDA is going to be put in the grave. Nor will the national parks service be killed off completely. They may have to learn to run leaner and more efficient though, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that in any capacity whatsoever.

Signed,

A taxpayer
A hunter
A fisherman
A person that likes having national parks and forests and uses them
A person that likes clean water and clean air
A person that is beyond tired of his taxes continually increasing with zero actual accountability on where those taxes go

---

schmellba99 said:

---

BSD said:

---

hopeandrealchange said:

---

AllTheFishes said:

---

BenderRodriguez said:

---

AllTheFishes said:

---

But it's not the bureaucrats that's are going to suffer. They are still ensconced in DC. However, I would advise not planning a summer trip to a national park this year.

---

This reminds of the petty stuff Obama pulled during the govt shutdown, like barricading off monuments on the national mall.

But honestly, whatever. Shut down the natl parks for a summer.

Still need to make cuts.

---

I'm not arguing that cuts shouldn't be made, but where they are made is what matters.
I'm a hunter and fisherman and generally enjoy our national public lands. There is a big difference between cutting bad spending and not having a government at all. That's called anarchy and I don't think anybody wants that.

This isn't going to cause the national parks or forest to be shut down. It's just going to mean fewer people working at them. So when the drunk guy at the campsite next to you won't shut up there won't be a ranger to come take them to sleep it off and your families has to put up with it. Longer lines at entrances. Not stopping the idiots spray painting or defacing our parks. I could go on and on about the little things and it all adds up.

If you really want to burn it all down and start from scratch, understand that the scope of damage that will be done in the process likely will not be recoverable. I don't that that's an over the top statement full of internet hyperbole I truly believe it.

---

If our debt is not brought under control there will be nothing left to burn down. We are bankrupt and drastic actions are the only hope. Parks should be the least of our worries at this point.

---

I'm all for bringing down bureaucracy because you're right, our debt is way out of control. But two things can be true at the same time. The parks should absolutely be taken care of.

Here's the thing, we're the United States of ****ing America. We have enough money for the parks. Even if you don't want tax dollars going to it, here's one way to do it: double the admission price. It's been way under market relative to other vacation type prices for way too long. Taking a 7 day pass to Yosemite from $35 to $70 will still be 85% cheaper than one day admittance for a family of four to Disney. Boom. Revenue is doubled with no drop off on attendance. And for folks that complain about not being "fair" from their $900 cell phones…well they aren't the people that typically go to parks anyways.

---

I doubt seriously that the USDA is going to be put in the grave. Nor will the national parks service be killed off completely. They may have to learn to run leaner and more efficient though, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that in any capacity whatsoever.

Signed,

A taxpayer
A hunter
A fisherman
A person that likes having national parks and forests and uses them
A person that likes clean water and clean air
A person that is beyond tired of his taxes continually increasing with zero actual accountability on where those taxes go

---

BSD said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

BSD said:

---

hopeandrealchange said:

---

AllTheFishes said:

---

BenderRodriguez said:

---

AllTheFishes said:

---

But it's not the bureaucrats that's are going to suffer. They are still ensconced in DC. However, I would advise not planning a summer trip to a national park this year.

---

This reminds of the petty stuff Obama pulled during the govt shutdown, like barricading off monuments on the national mall.

But honestly, whatever. Shut down the natl parks for a summer.

Still need to make cuts.

---

I'm not arguing that cuts shouldn't be made, but where they are made is what matters.
I'm a hunter and fisherman and generally enjoy our national public lands. There is a big difference between cutting bad spending and not having a government at all. That's called anarchy and I don't think anybody wants that.

This isn't going to cause the national parks or forest to be shut down. It's just going to mean fewer people working at them. So when the drunk guy at the campsite next to you won't shut up there won't be a ranger to come take them to sleep it off and your families has to put up with it. Longer lines at entrances. Not stopping the idiots spray painting or defacing our parks. I could go on and on about the little things and it all adds up.

If you really want to burn it all down and start from scratch, understand that the scope of damage that will be done in the process likely will not be recoverable. I don't that that's an over the top statement full of internet hyperbole I truly believe it.

---

If our debt is not brought under control there will be nothing left to burn down. We are bankrupt and drastic actions are the only hope. Parks should be the least of our worries at this point.

---

I'm all for bringing down bureaucracy because you're right, our debt is way out of control. But two things can be true at the same time. The parks should absolutely be taken care of.

Here's the thing, we're the United States of ****ing America. We have enough money for the parks. Even if you don't want tax dollars going to it, here's one way to do it: double the admission price. It's been way under market relative to other vacation type prices for way too long. Taking a 7 day pass to Yosemite from $35 to $70 will still be 85% cheaper than one day admittance for a family of four to Disney. Boom. Revenue is doubled with no drop off on attendance. And for folks that complain about not being "fair" from their $900 cell phones…well they aren't the people that typically go to parks anyways.

---

Technically amigo, we don't. Last I checked I think we were in the $37 TRILLION in debt range.

Debt. As in "we owe this money to somebody else because we borrowed it because we have had a century of unabetted and unfettered spending without anybody actually doing anything close to a real live budget (not the made up crap from the Clinton years)"

But you are right, two things can be true - problem is that the second you start making exceptions as to why this program or that spending or this money should be spared the axe, you perpetuate the current situation. And we, frankly speaking, cannot perpetuate it any more. And like Trump or not, he was elected and one of the platforms he ran on was doing exactly what he is doing. I suppose most people may have thought it was just campaign promises, but apparently he is at least trying.

I doubt seriously that the USDA is going to be put in the grave. Nor will the national parks service be killed off completely. They may have to learn to run leaner and more efficient though, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that in any capacity whatsoever.

Signed,

A taxpayer
A hunter
A fisherman
A person that likes having national parks and forests and uses them
A person that likes clean water and clean air
A person that is beyond tired of his taxes continually increasing with zero actual accountability on where those taxes go

---

Hola, amigo. I'm totally with you. We agree that parks should be taken care of. But I think you missed what I was trying to say. If you read my whole post, you would get the full scope of a way to start getting the parks for the parks in the black. Stopping at sentence two for a sound bite (or text bite) dismissed the fact that the population that utilizes the parks can pay for the parks. Raise the prices on the parks so that they are self funding. That was my point.

Other than that, you hit the nail on the head.

---

Hoyt Ag said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

BSD said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

BSD said:

---

hopeandrealchange said:

---

AllTheFishes said:

---

BenderRodriguez said:

---

AllTheFishes said:

---

But it's not the bureaucrats that's are going to suffer. They are still ensconced in DC. However, I would advise not planning a summer trip to a national park this year.

---

This reminds of the petty stuff Obama pulled during the govt shutdown, like barricading off monuments on the national mall.

But honestly, whatever. Shut down the natl parks for a summer.

Still need to make cuts.

---

I'm not arguing that cuts shouldn't be made, but where they are made is what matters.
I'm a hunter and fisherman and generally enjoy our national public lands. There is a big difference between cutting bad spending and not having a government at all. That's called anarchy and I don't think anybody wants that.

This isn't going to cause the national parks or forest to be shut down. It's just going to mean fewer people working at them. So when the drunk guy at the campsite next to you won't shut up there won't be a ranger to come take them to sleep it off and your families has to put up with it. Longer lines at entrances. Not stopping the idiots spray painting or defacing our parks. I could go on and on about the little things and it all adds up.

If you really want to burn it all down and start from scratch, understand that the scope of damage that will be done in the process likely will not be recoverable. I don't that that's an over the top statement full of internet hyperbole I truly believe it.

---

If our debt is not brought under control there will be nothing left to burn down. We are bankrupt and drastic actions are the only hope. Parks should be the least of our worries at this point.

---

I'm all for bringing down bureaucracy because you're right, our debt is way out of control. But two things can be true at the same time. The parks should absolutely be taken care of.

Here's the thing, we're the United States of ****ing America. We have enough money for the parks. Even if you don't want tax dollars going to it, here's one way to do it: double the admission price. It's been way under market relative to other vacation type prices for way too long. Taking a 7 day pass to Yosemite from $35 to $70 will still be 85% cheaper than one day admittance for a family of four to Disney. Boom. Revenue is doubled with no drop off on attendance. And for folks that complain about not being "fair" from their $900 cell phones…well they aren't the people that typically go to parks anyways.

---

Technically amigo, we don't. Last I checked I think we were in the $37 TRILLION in debt range.

Debt. As in "we owe this money to somebody else because we borrowed it because we have had a century of unabetted and unfettered spending without anybody actually doing anything close to a real live budget (not the made up crap from the Clinton years)"

But you are right, two things can be true - problem is that the second you start making exceptions as to why this program or that spending or this money should be spared the axe, you perpetuate the current situation. And we, frankly speaking, cannot perpetuate it any more. And like Trump or not, he was elected and one of the platforms he ran on was doing exactly what he is doing. I suppose most people may have thought it was just campaign promises, but apparently he is at least trying.

I doubt seriously that the USDA is going to be put in the grave. Nor will the national parks service be killed off completely. They may have to learn to run leaner and more efficient though, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that in any capacity whatsoever.

Signed,

A taxpayer
A hunter
A fisherman
A person that likes having national parks and forests and uses them
A person that likes clean water and clean air
A person that is beyond tired of his taxes continually increasing with zero actual accountability on where those taxes go

---

Hola, amigo. I'm totally with you. We agree that parks should be taken care of. But I think you missed what I was trying to say. If you read my whole post, you would get the full scope of a way to start getting the parks for the parks in the black. Stopping at sentence two for a sound bite (or text bite) dismissed the fact that the population that utilizes the parks can pay for the parks. Raise the prices on the parks so that they are self funding. That was my point.

Other than that, you hit the nail on the head.

---

The parks will never pay for themselves.

The cost per person to visit the parks in order for them to be self sustaining would be prohibitively high.

Let's take the most popular NP - Yellowstone.

Currently it takes about $44MM per year to maintain it, and that is with a whole lot of deferred maintenance or projects that just aren't done.

Number of annual visitors is about 4.3-4.5 million, so we'll shoot for the middle at 4.4 million. Sounds reasonable, right? $10 a head pays for the park. Except it doesn't, because right now there is about $625 to $630 million in deferred maintenance that simply isn't done because there isn't the funding to do so. That changes the equation significantly and puts what would be self funding costs per person sky high.

I did read the whole post, BTW.

---

I would love to see the list of deferred projects. I bet I could DOGE it down to half that.

-Former NPS Employee

---

Quote:

---

You know all that bellyaching at Yosemite? How they can no longer actually manage the park due to the cuts, etc? The number of NPS employees was cut from 461 to 450. They took a 2.4% cut in the number of NPS employees. I agree...nobody is trying to "kill off" the NPS, and anybody who pretends that they are trying is a hysteric detached from reality.

---

bqce said:

---

Quote:

---

You know all that bellyaching at Yosemite? How they can no longer actually manage the park due to the cuts, etc? The number of NPS employees was cut from 461 to 450. They took a 2.4% cut in the number of NPS employees. I agree...nobody is trying to "kill off" the NPS, and anybody who pretends that they are trying is a hysteric detached from reality.

---

Could I trouble you to give me a source for those numbers? I'm not questioning it - I'm just curious where they came from. Thanks.

---

BenderRodriguez said:

---

Its interesting to watch the exact same things play out any time cuts are discussed at any level of govt, ever.

When the city is broke, they cry about cutting police and fire, not the mayors office.

When schools are, they threaten teachers jobs and not admin spending.

Etc, etc.

Thats why we are in the situation we are now.

---

schmellba99 said:

---

BSD said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

BSD said:

---

hopeandrealchange said:

---

AllTheFishes said:

---

BenderRodriguez said:

---

AllTheFishes said:

---

But it's not the bureaucrats that's are going to suffer. They are still ensconced in DC. However, I would advise not planning a summer trip to a national park this year.

---

This reminds of the petty stuff Obama pulled during the govt shutdown, like barricading off monuments on the national mall.

But honestly, whatever. Shut down the natl parks for a summer.

Still need to make cuts.

---

I'm not arguing that cuts shouldn't be made, but where they are made is what matters.
I'm a hunter and fisherman and generally enjoy our national public lands. There is a big difference between cutting bad spending and not having a government at all. That's called anarchy and I don't think anybody wants that.

This isn't going to cause the national parks or forest to be shut down. It's just going to mean fewer people working at them. So when the drunk guy at the campsite next to you won't shut up there won't be a ranger to come take them to sleep it off and your families has to put up with it. Longer lines at entrances. Not stopping the idiots spray painting or defacing our parks. I could go on and on about the little things and it all adds up.

If you really want to burn it all down and start from scratch, understand that the scope of damage that will be done in the process likely will not be recoverable. I don't that that's an over the top statement full of internet hyperbole I truly believe it.

---

If our debt is not brought under control there will be nothing left to burn down. We are bankrupt and drastic actions are the only hope. Parks should be the least of our worries at this point.

---

I'm all for bringing down bureaucracy because you're right, our debt is way out of control. But two things can be true at the same time. The parks should absolutely be taken care of.

Here's the thing, we're the United States of ****ing America. We have enough money for the parks. Even if you don't want tax dollars going to it, here's one way to do it: double the admission price. It's been way under market relative to other vacation type prices for way too long. Taking a 7 day pass to Yosemite from $35 to $70 will still be 85% cheaper than one day admittance for a family of four to Disney. Boom. Revenue is doubled with no drop off on attendance. And for folks that complain about not being "fair" from their $900 cell phones…well they aren't the people that typically go to parks anyways.

---

Technically amigo, we don't. Last I checked I think we were in the $37 TRILLION in debt range.

Debt. As in "we owe this money to somebody else because we borrowed it because we have had a century of unabetted and unfettered spending without anybody actually doing anything close to a real live budget (not the made up crap from the Clinton years)"

But you are right, two things can be true - problem is that the second you start making exceptions as to why this program or that spending or this money should be spared the axe, you perpetuate the current situation. And we, frankly speaking, cannot perpetuate it any more. And like Trump or not, he was elected and one of the platforms he ran on was doing exactly what he is doing. I suppose most people may have thought it was just campaign promises, but apparently he is at least trying.

I doubt seriously that the USDA is going to be put in the grave. Nor will the national parks service be killed off completely. They may have to learn to run leaner and more efficient though, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that in any capacity whatsoever.

Signed,

A taxpayer
A hunter
A fisherman
A person that likes having national parks and forests and uses them
A person that likes clean water and clean air
A person that is beyond tired of his taxes continually increasing with zero actual accountability on where those taxes go

---

Hola, amigo. I'm totally with you. We agree that parks should be taken care of. But I think you missed what I was trying to say. If you read my whole post, you would get the full scope of a way to start getting the parks for the parks in the black. Stopping at sentence two for a sound bite (or text bite) dismissed the fact that the population that utilizes the parks can pay for the parks. Raise the prices on the parks so that they are self funding. That was my point.

Other than that, you hit the nail on the head.

---

The parks will never pay for themselves.

The cost per person to visit the parks in order for them to be self sustaining would be prohibitively high.

Let's take the most popular NP - Yellowstone.

Currently it takes about $44MM per year to maintain it, and that is with a whole lot of deferred maintenance or projects that just aren't done.

Number of annual visitors is about 4.3-4.5 million, so we'll shoot for the middle at 4.4 million. Sounds reasonable, right? $10 a head pays for the park. Except it doesn't, because right now there is about $625 to $630 million in deferred maintenance that simply isn't done because there isn't the funding to do so. That changes the equation significantly and puts what would be self funding costs per person sky high.

I did read the whole post, BTW.

---

Rattler12 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

BSD said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

BSD said:

---

hopeandrealchange said:

---

AllTheFishes said:

---

BenderRodriguez said:

---

AllTheFishes said:

---

But it's not the bureaucrats that's are going to suffer. They are still ensconced in DC. However, I would advise not planning a summer trip to a national park this year.

---

This reminds of the petty stuff Obama pulled during the govt shutdown, like barricading off monuments on the national mall.

But honestly, whatever. Shut down the natl parks for a summer.

Still need to make cuts.

---

I'm not arguing that cuts shouldn't be made, but where they are made is what matters.
I'm a hunter and fisherman and generally enjoy our national public lands. There is a big difference between cutting bad spending and not having a government at all. That's called anarchy and I don't think anybody wants that.

This isn't going to cause the national parks or forest to be shut down. It's just going to mean fewer people working at them. So when the drunk guy at the campsite next to you won't shut up there won't be a ranger to come take them to sleep it off and your families has to put up with it. Longer lines at entrances. Not stopping the idiots spray painting or defacing our parks. I could go on and on about the little things and it all adds up.

If you really want to burn it all down and start from scratch, understand that the scope of damage that will be done in the process likely will not be recoverable. I don't that that's an over the top statement full of internet hyperbole I truly believe it.

---

If our debt is not brought under control there will be nothing left to burn down. We are bankrupt and drastic actions are the only hope. Parks should be the least of our worries at this point.

---

I'm all for bringing down bureaucracy because you're right, our debt is way out of control. But two things can be true at the same time. The parks should absolutely be taken care of.

Here's the thing, we're the United States of ****ing America. We have enough money for the parks. Even if you don't want tax dollars going to it, here's one way to do it: double the admission price. It's been way under market relative to other vacation type prices for way too long. Taking a 7 day pass to Yosemite from $35 to $70 will still be 85% cheaper than one day admittance for a family of four to Disney. Boom. Revenue is doubled with no drop off on attendance. And for folks that complain about not being "fair" from their $900 cell phones…well they aren't the people that typically go to parks anyways.

---

Technically amigo, we don't. Last I checked I think we were in the $37 TRILLION in debt range.

Debt. As in "we owe this money to somebody else because we borrowed it because we have had a century of unabetted and unfettered spending without anybody actually doing anything close to a real live budget (not the made up crap from the Clinton years)"

But you are right, two things can be true - problem is that the second you start making exceptions as to why this program or that spending or this money should be spared the axe, you perpetuate the current situation. And we, frankly speaking, cannot perpetuate it any more. And like Trump or not, he was elected and one of the platforms he ran on was doing exactly what he is doing. I suppose most people may have thought it was just campaign promises, but apparently he is at least trying.

I doubt seriously that the USDA is going to be put in the grave. Nor will the national parks service be killed off completely. They may have to learn to run leaner and more efficient though, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that in any capacity whatsoever.

Signed,

A taxpayer
A hunter
A fisherman
A person that likes having national parks and forests and uses them
A person that likes clean water and clean air
A person that is beyond tired of his taxes continually increasing with zero actual accountability on where those taxes go

---

Hola, amigo. I'm totally with you. We agree that parks should be taken care of. But I think you missed what I was trying to say. If you read my whole post, you would get the full scope of a way to start getting the parks for the parks in the black. Stopping at sentence two for a sound bite (or text bite) dismissed the fact that the population that utilizes the parks can pay for the parks. Raise the prices on the parks so that they are self funding. That was my point.

Other than that, you hit the nail on the head.

---

The parks will never pay for themselves.

The cost per person to visit the parks in order for them to be self sustaining would be prohibitively high.

Let's take the most popular NP - Yellowstone.

Currently it takes about $44MM per year to maintain it, and that is with a whole lot of deferred maintenance or projects that just aren't done.

Number of annual visitors is about 4.3-4.5 million, so we'll shoot for the middle at 4.4 million. Sounds reasonable, right? $10 a head pays for the park. Except it doesn't, because right now there is about $625 to $630 million in deferred maintenance that simply isn't done because there isn't the funding to do so. That changes the equation significantly and puts what would be self funding costs per person sky high.

I did read the whole post, BTW.

---

Can you give some examples of the unfunded deferred maintenance? Are they on the "absolute necessity" list or a "wish" list? There's a difference

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

BSD said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

BSD said:

---

hopeandrealchange said:

---

AllTheFishes said:

---

BenderRodriguez said:

---

AllTheFishes said:

---

But it's not the bureaucrats that's are going to suffer. They are still ensconced in DC. However, I would advise not planning a summer trip to a national park this year.

---

This reminds of the petty stuff Obama pulled during the govt shutdown, like barricading off monuments on the national mall.

But honestly, whatever. Shut down the natl parks for a summer.

Still need to make cuts.

---

I'm not arguing that cuts shouldn't be made, but where they are made is what matters.
I'm a hunter and fisherman and generally enjoy our national public lands. There is a big difference between cutting bad spending and not having a government at all. That's called anarchy and I don't think anybody wants that.

This isn't going to cause the national parks or forest to be shut down. It's just going to mean fewer people working at them. So when the drunk guy at the campsite next to you won't shut up there won't be a ranger to come take them to sleep it off and your families has to put up with it. Longer lines at entrances. Not stopping the idiots spray painting or defacing our parks. I could go on and on about the little things and it all adds up.

If you really want to burn it all down and start from scratch, understand that the scope of damage that will be done in the process likely will not be recoverable. I don't that that's an over the top statement full of internet hyperbole I truly believe it.

---

If our debt is not brought under control there will be nothing left to burn down. We are bankrupt and drastic actions are the only hope. Parks should be the least of our worries at this point.

---

I'm all for bringing down bureaucracy because you're right, our debt is way out of control. But two things can be true at the same time. The parks should absolutely be taken care of.

Here's the thing, we're the United States of ****ing America. We have enough money for the parks. Even if you don't want tax dollars going to it, here's one way to do it: double the admission price. It's been way under market relative to other vacation type prices for way too long. Taking a 7 day pass to Yosemite from $35 to $70 will still be 85% cheaper than one day admittance for a family of four to Disney. Boom. Revenue is doubled with no drop off on attendance. And for folks that complain about not being "fair" from their $900 cell phones…well they aren't the people that typically go to parks anyways.

---

Technically amigo, we don't. Last I checked I think we were in the $37 TRILLION in debt range.

Debt. As in "we owe this money to somebody else because we borrowed it because we have had a century of unabetted and unfettered spending without anybody actually doing anything close to a real live budget (not the made up crap from the Clinton years)"

But you are right, two things can be true - problem is that the second you start making exceptions as to why this program or that spending or this money should be spared the axe, you perpetuate the current situation. And we, frankly speaking, cannot perpetuate it any more. And like Trump or not, he was elected and one of the platforms he ran on was doing exactly what he is doing. I suppose most people may have thought it was just campaign promises, but apparently he is at least trying.

I doubt seriously that the USDA is going to be put in the grave. Nor will the national parks service be killed off completely. They may have to learn to run leaner and more efficient though, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that in any capacity whatsoever.

Signed,

A taxpayer
A hunter
A fisherman
A person that likes having national parks and forests and uses them
A person that likes clean water and clean air
A person that is beyond tired of his taxes continually increasing with zero actual accountability on where those taxes go

---

Hola, amigo. I'm totally with you. We agree that parks should be taken care of. But I think you missed what I was trying to say. If you read my whole post, you would get the full scope of a way to start getting the parks for the parks in the black. Stopping at sentence two for a sound bite (or text bite) dismissed the fact that the population that utilizes the parks can pay for the parks. Raise the prices on the parks so that they are self funding. That was my point.

Other than that, you hit the nail on the head.

---

The parks will never pay for themselves.

The cost per person to visit the parks in order for them to be self sustaining would be prohibitively high.

Let's take the most popular NP - Yellowstone.

Currently it takes about $44MM per year to maintain it, and that is with a whole lot of deferred maintenance or projects that just aren't done.

Number of annual visitors is about 4.3-4.5 million, so we'll shoot for the middle at 4.4 million. Sounds reasonable, right? $10 a head pays for the park. Except it doesn't, because right now there is about $625 to $630 million in deferred maintenance that simply isn't done because there isn't the funding to do so. That changes the equation significantly and puts what would be self funding costs per person sky high.

I did read the whole post, BTW.

---

Can you give some examples of the unfunded deferred maintenance? Are they on the "absolute necessity" list or a "wish" list? There's a difference

---

I would guess things like roads and trails would chew up a bunch. Road maintenance in cold weather parks like Yellowstone, Grand Tetons, etc…..is likely outrageous.

---

txags92 said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

BSD said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

BSD said:

---

hopeandrealchange said:

---

AllTheFishes said:

---

BenderRodriguez said:

---

AllTheFishes said:

---

But it's not the bureaucrats that's are going to suffer. They are still ensconced in DC. However, I would advise not planning a summer trip to a national park this year.

---

This reminds of the petty stuff Obama pulled during the govt shutdown, like barricading off monuments on the national mall.

But honestly, whatever. Shut down the natl parks for a summer.

Still need to make cuts.

---

I'm not arguing that cuts shouldn't be made, but where they are made is what matters.
I'm a hunter and fisherman and generally enjoy our national public lands. There is a big difference between cutting bad spending and not having a government at all. That's called anarchy and I don't think anybody wants that.

This isn't going to cause the national parks or forest to be shut down. It's just going to mean fewer people working at them. So when the drunk guy at the campsite next to you won't shut up there won't be a ranger to come take them to sleep it off and your families has to put up with it. Longer lines at entrances. Not stopping the idiots spray painting or defacing our parks. I could go on and on about the little things and it all adds up.

If you really want to burn it all down and start from scratch, understand that the scope of damage that will be done in the process likely will not be recoverable. I don't that that's an over the top statement full of internet hyperbole I truly believe it.

---

If our debt is not brought under control there will be nothing left to burn down. We are bankrupt and drastic actions are the only hope. Parks should be the least of our worries at this point.

---

I'm all for bringing down bureaucracy because you're right, our debt is way out of control. But two things can be true at the same time. The parks should absolutely be taken care of.

Here's the thing, we're the United States of ****ing America. We have enough money for the parks. Even if you don't want tax dollars going to it, here's one way to do it: double the admission price. It's been way under market relative to other vacation type prices for way too long. Taking a 7 day pass to Yosemite from $35 to $70 will still be 85% cheaper than one day admittance for a family of four to Disney. Boom. Revenue is doubled with no drop off on attendance. And for folks that complain about not being "fair" from their $900 cell phones…well they aren't the people that typically go to parks anyways.

---

Technically amigo, we don't. Last I checked I think we were in the $37 TRILLION in debt range.

Debt. As in "we owe this money to somebody else because we borrowed it because we have had a century of unabetted and unfettered spending without anybody actually doing anything close to a real live budget (not the made up crap from the Clinton years)"

But you are right, two things can be true - problem is that the second you start making exceptions as to why this program or that spending or this money should be spared the axe, you perpetuate the current situation. And we, frankly speaking, cannot perpetuate it any more. And like Trump or not, he was elected and one of the platforms he ran on was doing exactly what he is doing. I suppose most people may have thought it was just campaign promises, but apparently he is at least trying.

I doubt seriously that the USDA is going to be put in the grave. Nor will the national parks service be killed off completely. They may have to learn to run leaner and more efficient though, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that in any capacity whatsoever.

Signed,

A taxpayer
A hunter
A fisherman
A person that likes having national parks and forests and uses them
A person that likes clean water and clean air
A person that is beyond tired of his taxes continually increasing with zero actual accountability on where those taxes go

---

Hola, amigo. I'm totally with you. We agree that parks should be taken care of. But I think you missed what I was trying to say. If you read my whole post, you would get the full scope of a way to start getting the parks for the parks in the black. Stopping at sentence two for a sound bite (or text bite) dismissed the fact that the population that utilizes the parks can pay for the parks. Raise the prices on the parks so that they are self funding. That was my point.

Other than that, you hit the nail on the head.

---

The parks will never pay for themselves.

The cost per person to visit the parks in order for them to be self sustaining would be prohibitively high.

Let's take the most popular NP - Yellowstone.

Currently it takes about $44MM per year to maintain it, and that is with a whole lot of deferred maintenance or projects that just aren't done.

Number of annual visitors is about 4.3-4.5 million, so we'll shoot for the middle at 4.4 million. Sounds reasonable, right? $10 a head pays for the park. Except it doesn't, because right now there is about $625 to $630 million in deferred maintenance that simply isn't done because there isn't the funding to do so. That changes the equation significantly and puts what would be self funding costs per person sky high.

I did read the whole post, BTW.

---

Can you give some examples of the unfunded deferred maintenance? Are they on the "absolute necessity" list or a "wish" list? There's a difference

---

I would guess things like roads and trails would chew up a bunch. Road maintenance in cold weather parks like Yellowstone, Grand Tetons, etc…..is likely outrageous.

---

Especially when you have to contract somebody to fix it using a government procurement system. Having to go through all that BS probably accounts for 2x to 3x cost on the low end.

---

Rattler12 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

BSD said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

BSD said:

---

hopeandrealchange said:

---

AllTheFishes said:

---

BenderRodriguez said:

---

AllTheFishes said:

---

But it's not the bureaucrats that's are going to suffer. They are still ensconced in DC. However, I would advise not planning a summer trip to a national park this year.

---

This reminds of the petty stuff Obama pulled during the govt shutdown, like barricading off monuments on the national mall.

But honestly, whatever. Shut down the natl parks for a summer.

Still need to make cuts.

---

I'm not arguing that cuts shouldn't be made, but where they are made is what matters.
I'm a hunter and fisherman and generally enjoy our national public lands. There is a big difference between cutting bad spending and not having a government at all. That's called anarchy and I don't think anybody wants that.

This isn't going to cause the national parks or forest to be shut down. It's just going to mean fewer people working at them. So when the drunk guy at the campsite next to you won't shut up there won't be a ranger to come take them to sleep it off and your families has to put up with it. Longer lines at entrances. Not stopping the idiots spray painting or defacing our parks. I could go on and on about the little things and it all adds up.

If you really want to burn it all down and start from scratch, understand that the scope of damage that will be done in the process likely will not be recoverable. I don't that that's an over the top statement full of internet hyperbole I truly believe it.

---

If our debt is not brought under control there will be nothing left to burn down. We are bankrupt and drastic actions are the only hope. Parks should be the least of our worries at this point.

---

I'm all for bringing down bureaucracy because you're right, our debt is way out of control. But two things can be true at the same time. The parks should absolutely be taken care of.

Here's the thing, we're the United States of ****ing America. We have enough money for the parks. Even if you don't want tax dollars going to it, here's one way to do it: double the admission price. It's been way under market relative to other vacation type prices for way too long. Taking a 7 day pass to Yosemite from $35 to $70 will still be 85% cheaper than one day admittance for a family of four to Disney. Boom. Revenue is doubled with no drop off on attendance. And for folks that complain about not being "fair" from their $900 cell phones…well they aren't the people that typically go to parks anyways.

---

Technically amigo, we don't. Last I checked I think we were in the $37 TRILLION in debt range.

Debt. As in "we owe this money to somebody else because we borrowed it because we have had a century of unabetted and unfettered spending without anybody actually doing anything close to a real live budget (not the made up crap from the Clinton years)"

But you are right, two things can be true - problem is that the second you start making exceptions as to why this program or that spending or this money should be spared the axe, you perpetuate the current situation. And we, frankly speaking, cannot perpetuate it any more. And like Trump or not, he was elected and one of the platforms he ran on was doing exactly what he is doing. I suppose most people may have thought it was just campaign promises, but apparently he is at least trying.

I doubt seriously that the USDA is going to be put in the grave. Nor will the national parks service be killed off completely. They may have to learn to run leaner and more efficient though, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that in any capacity whatsoever.

Signed,

A taxpayer
A hunter
A fisherman
A person that likes having national parks and forests and uses them
A person that likes clean water and clean air
A person that is beyond tired of his taxes continually increasing with zero actual accountability on where those taxes go

---

Hola, amigo. I'm totally with you. We agree that parks should be taken care of. But I think you missed what I was trying to say. If you read my whole post, you would get the full scope of a way to start getting the parks for the parks in the black. Stopping at sentence two for a sound bite (or text bite) dismissed the fact that the population that utilizes the parks can pay for the parks. Raise the prices on the parks so that they are self funding. That was my point.

Other than that, you hit the nail on the head.

---

The parks will never pay for themselves.

The cost per person to visit the parks in order for them to be self sustaining would be prohibitively high.

Let's take the most popular NP - Yellowstone.

Currently it takes about $44MM per year to maintain it, and that is with a whole lot of deferred maintenance or projects that just aren't done.

Number of annual visitors is about 4.3-4.5 million, so we'll shoot for the middle at 4.4 million. Sounds reasonable, right? $10 a head pays for the park. Except it doesn't, because right now there is about $625 to $630 million in deferred maintenance that simply isn't done because there isn't the funding to do so. That changes the equation significantly and puts what would be self funding costs per person sky high.

I did read the whole post, BTW.

---

Can you give some examples of the unfunded deferred maintenance? Are they on the "absolute necessity" list or a "wish" list? There's a difference

---

I would guess things like roads and trails would chew up a bunch. Road maintenance in cold weather parks like Yellowstone, Grand Tetons, etc…..is likely outrageous.

---

Especially when you have to contract somebody to fix it using a government procurement system. Having to go through all that BS probably accounts for 2x to 3x cost on the low end.

---

Like paying $700 for a hammer? That kind of BS ?

---

Bradley.Kohr.II said:

---

Well, the customer is actually the grocer.

Don't they weigh pallets when they come in?

---

FunkyTownAg said:

---

If there is USDA funding it triggers NEPA permitting requirements. As a regulatory consultant there is a real need for regulations on development however the regulatory permitting process really needs to be overhauled or left up to the states (and the states actually enforce).

---

AggieChemist said:

---

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/27/trump-fired-bird-flu-hires-00206334

---

amateur gene ecologist said:

---

Y'all don't even have to worry about bird flu. My uncle figured out you can let the disease go its natural course and then just breed the survivors. He even posted about it on facebook.

Eggs should be back to normal in no time and I expect he'll be getting a medal for his achievement.

---

amateur gene ecologist said:

---

mpl35 said:

---

amateur gene ecologist said:

---

Bradley.Kohr.II said:

---

I was in a meeting at TAMU, where various researchers were grumbling about losing corporate research opportunities to UC Davis - and also talking about how it would be at least 6 months to make a decision to take a research contract and 2 years to start it, if they hurried - for a project where all of the infrastructure was already in place and idle.

Now, that's not really on DC, TMK, but it is disgusting how wasteful the management is at TAMU, and we are supposed to be a fairly economically efficient school.

---

"We" (I have been but am not employed in a research capacity at A&M currently) are relatively efficient by academia standards, but when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it, we waste money and time in many obvious ways that staff are extremely discouraged from pointing out. I don't work for them anymore, so they can't fire me for saying it.

Couple that with many of the labs having to resort to maintaining outdated equipment that hampers the research process or scaling back on the scope of what each project could accomplish since 51% of any grant to the university going to pay for indirect costs (salaries for multiple layers of administration who take 6 months to 2 years to approve those contracts) and we get to what you are talking about.

I have toyed with the idea of starting a nonprofit to process donations in a way that could circumvent that 51% IDC rule. Like, say you want to donate $10k to a particular lab but didn't want $5,100 going to the department head for their pet projects, donate to my nonprofit with instructions and we could make sure $9k actually made it to that lab by way of materials and paying for their advertised services. But I like my job more than I like circumventing bureaucracy.

I hadn't heard about losing out to UC Davis. That stings when a california school is more efficient than we are.

---

you don't understand IDC I see

---

Didn't feel like breaking down every paperclip and staple it buys, just listed the part I had the biggest problem with. We have one of the larger IDC percentages that I know of. Lots of places are between 20 and 30%.

But, feel free to explain it to me.

---

mpl35 said:

---

amateur gene ecologist said:

---

mpl35 said:

---

amateur gene ecologist said:

---

Bradley.Kohr.II said:

---

I was in a meeting at TAMU, where various researchers were grumbling about losing corporate research opportunities to UC Davis - and also talking about how it would be at least 6 months to make a decision to take a research contract and 2 years to start it, if they hurried - for a project where all of the infrastructure was already in place and idle.

Now, that's not really on DC, TMK, but it is disgusting how wasteful the management is at TAMU, and we are supposed to be a fairly economically efficient school.

---

"We" (I have been but am not employed in a research capacity at A&M currently) are relatively efficient by academia standards, but when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it, we waste money and time in many obvious ways that staff are extremely discouraged from pointing out. I don't work for them anymore, so they can't fire me for saying it.

Couple that with many of the labs having to resort to maintaining outdated equipment that hampers the research process or scaling back on the scope of what each project could accomplish since 51% of any grant to the university going to pay for indirect costs (salaries for multiple layers of administration who take 6 months to 2 years to approve those contracts) and we get to what you are talking about.

I have toyed with the idea of starting a nonprofit to process donations in a way that could circumvent that 51% IDC rule. Like, say you want to donate $10k to a particular lab but didn't want $5,100 going to the department head for their pet projects, donate to my nonprofit with instructions and we could make sure $9k actually made it to that lab by way of materials and paying for their advertised services. But I like my job more than I like circumventing bureaucracy.

I hadn't heard about losing out to UC Davis. That stings when a california school is more efficient than we are.

---

you don't understand IDC I see

---

Didn't feel like breaking down every paperclip and staple it buys, just listed the part I had the biggest problem with. We have one of the larger IDC percentages that I know of. Lots of places are between 20 and 30%.

But, feel free to explain it to me.

---

what do you need me to educate you on? Universities don't have 20-30 percent. UC davis is 61%. Tamu is 52.5. The feds can't consider IDC when awarding grants. Places with medical schools are much higher. IDC is a real cost I could get into it more but you seem to have your mind made up.

---