Comment on Anon tries to understand his coworker
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 19 hours agoThere 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:
- national park - has ranger stations and infrastructure, and usually an entrance fee
- state park - same as national park, but at the state level, and lower fees (often free)
- regional park - owned either by the state, county, or city, but isn’t designated as a “state park”; may or may not have parking fees, depending on popularity and how developed it is (esp near urban areas)
- national forest - designated area, but generally little infrastructure outside of some campgrounds (paid) and semi-curated trails; no entrance/parking fees
- BLM land - federally owned, but virtually no infrastructure and no fees; avoid hiking during hunting season so you don’t get mistaken for game
- undeveloped state land - like BLM land, but owned by the state
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.
Dasus@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
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.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 18 hours ago
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.
Dasus@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
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 where there not the infrastructure which is upheld by said profit.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 18 hours ago
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.