Park Service Charging for Photos

Welcome, once again, to Bushworld!

WASHINGTON (AP) -

Wedding parties and other groups hoping to commemorate their special event with a photograph at the Lincoln Memorial, Washington Monument or other popular landmarks on National Park Service land now have to pay for a permit.

Under a new policy that began May 15, the Park Service is requiring a payment of $50 to $250 from groups that hire commercial photographers to snap pictures at some of the 390 monuments, parks and historic sites it oversees. The cost depends on the size of the group.

The fees are being charged at some of the busiest Park Service sites in the Washington, D.C., area and at the Grand Canyon in Arizona. Other heavily used sites include the Statue of Liberty, Alaska's Denali National Park and Preserve, Big Bend National Park in Texas, and Yellowstone National Park.

more...

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-other/2006/jun/08/060806720.html

this is just another fucking republican disgrace.

There is NO WAY that 100% of these fees are being utilized in order to operate the parks service.

I wonder how much of these fees will go towards funding the $9 billion a month occupation of the Middle East. I guarantee you one thing it WON'T fund: healthcare, education or minimum wage increase...

... they own the parks. If we want to photograph them, we should pay the rightful owner.

Or something like that.

I think my argument might be faulty. Somebody help me out here ...

The point is: we have to pay. Think about it! What does your gut say? It says we have to pay.

Or something.

I'm not wild about the idea--fund the parks or get out of my government, I say--but if anyone has to be charged to make up for Congress' malfeasance, it should be those who are making money off the pictures.

"cost of doing business". Not only that, they'll probably jack on a 40% increase into the fee for such things as time, postage, cash/check processing and the ink from the pen used (full charge for the pen, of course). The customer won't even know what the actual fee is.

edit to add: Technically, they are not making money off the pictures of the scenery. They would still be (hopefully) making money regardless of the location since the subject is the group, not the scenery. They are making money off the customer.

:wtf:

You must pay admission to enter and an additional fee for the privilege to take a photograph of it. I understand...

would be my guess.

...Billy was a mountain
Billy was a mountain
Ethel was a tree growing off of his shoulder
Ethel was a tree growing off of his shoulder
( hey, hey, hey! )
Billy had two big
Caves for eyes
With a cliff for a jaw
That would go up or down
And whenever it did
Hed puff out some dust
And hack up a boulder, hack.
Hack up a boulder, hack, hack.
Hack up a boulder, hack, hack.
Hack up a boulder.

Now, one day, and I believe it was on tuesday, a man in checkered double-knit suit drove up in large el dorado cadillac leased from bob spreene ( where the freeways meet in downey! )

He laid a huge bulging envelope right at the corner of billy the mountain, that was right where his foot was supposed to be.

now billy the mountain, he couldnt believe it: all those postcards he
posed for, for all of those years, and finally, now at last, his royalties! royalties, royalties, royalties! the royalty check is in, honey! ... yes, billy the mountain was rich! yes,
...


http://www.lyricsfreak.com/f/frank+zappa/billy+the+mountain_20056748.html

the repbubs have cut all their federal funding

to the customer to cover the fee (stealth tax).

Kempthorne "Eager" To Expand Drilling On Public Lands - ENN

EDIT

The two-term Idaho governor and former Republican senator was confirmed by the Senate late last month on a voice vote.

Kempthorne told senators he was eager to expand oil and gas development on public lands and waters that already produce 30 percent of the nation's domestic supply of energy.

Eight Democratic senators, including Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, registered their opposition. Nelson opposes the Bush administration's proposed lease sale of 3.6 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico off the Alabama and Florida coasts.

Bush said Kempthorne would pursue energy development that would treat the environment responsibly. "As we work to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy, he will make sure that any exploration on federal lands and federal waters is done in an environmentally sensitive way," Bush said.

EDIT

http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=10631

Blahblahblahblahbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitblahblahblahblah.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x56274

India requires a camera fee at most sites, and citizens get a seriously cheaper ticket. (Like 15 rupees versus 300.) We aren't doing that. The parks service keeps getting cut and cut and cut, so they have to pay for salaries, benefits and maintenance SOMEHOW. What are they supposed to do, sell the advertising rights to the Washington Monument and Mt. Rushmore? The last thing we need is the Verizon Washington Monument and Coors Mt. Rushmore.

Since professional photographers can (in theory) sell their pictures for profit, it makes sense that the subject of the pictures get a cut.

I don't see it so much as an infringement on personal liberty to take pictures as a last desperate gasp of a starved program. Look out, Snow Crash, here we come.

Your mother's not here, so someone had to say that.

Thought I'd get as many syllables in there as possible.

It's not an ideal solution by any means, but I can't come up with a better way to fund the parks without making it impossible for road-tripping families to afford it. Right now, Rocky Mountain National is really up there, and Yellowstone is not only expensive, but crowded. If we have to raise entrance fees, then the only people who will go to the national parks and monuments are not us... I'd like to be able to take my niece and nephew up into the back country, and if that means that we have to pay extra to take professional pictures, then that's better than pricing it out of our range entirely.

Of course, best solution would be to fund Parks, not tanks, but I know I'm a hopeless idealist.

Silly me, I forgot about that aspect.

Still, this whole bizness strikes me as just one more way Bu**sh**Co is trying to shift expenses from taxes proportionate to disposable income, to taxes and fees that fall just as hard on the people who can't afford them as they do on the ones with so many $$$$ they don't even notice ... especially since it's billed to the company and written off on their taxes...

Sounds like we may not be on the same page exactly, but we're reading the same book, and not enjoying it.

I've seen enough of India to know that, as an International Laboratory for Bad Government, they rank up there with Texas. Our real premise should be, if India and Texas think it's a good idea, that's a real good reason to look for another solution. And Texas has been doing these fee diversions for years.

But if it has to happen... I'd rather it be pushed into something that is a luxury item anyway and is unlikely to affect the mom who saves all year to take her kids to the Smithsonian to inspire them to aim high. My brother-in-law the professional photographer may murder me for saying this, but wedding pictures are not one of life's necessities, while inspiration really is. I don't like the premise of diversionary funding because it is far more expensive to manage (it is so much easier to manage anything when you have a fixed budget and aren't reliant on sales and the fees that go with sales processing...) and in the long run, it isn't as effective or efficient... but hey, we don't elect 30 year old, over-educated economics buffs with funny colored hair.

And yeah, I'm just a pre-9/11 girl living in a post-terror world. I've even got the She-bop records to prove it. (And if you get that reference, we are both too old...)

that given the Park Service's horrific funding crisis, this makes sense. If someone can afford a professional photographer to capture their moment, they can probably afford to spend a token amount to help support the system.

Ideally, of course, the government would properly fund the Park Service. Maybe it will again, one day.

:shrug: but we all know that would benefit the citizens instead of the wealthy..

And this will just discourage that.

A disgrace.

The National Parks' public monuments have been in the public domain for centuries.

They are charging for intellectual property they simply do not own.

Laugh if you want, if we keep heading down this neo-con path this will be reality within a decade.