5 ms·

Am I understanding this correctly: you need to pay for a permit for hiking in some places in the USA, and it's a lottery so you might not even be able to go onc

by jk563 3y ago

Am I understanding this correctly: you need to pay for a permit for hiking in some places in the USA, and it's a lottery so you might not even be able to go once you've paid the money?

jamiem 3y ago
Yes. It's intended to limit the number of visitors to protect sensitive areas. It made sense to me, as I was under the impression that the money went directly to the park. But the fact that it goes to a middleman changes things.
- jk563 3y ago
  I can understand that reasoning, and it does make sense to me too, but only if all the money goes to the park. Ideally then even only for successful applications.
  - kwhitefoot 3y ago
    Even then it is a regressive tax.
  - justsomehnguy 3y ago
    Ideally you should have an option to support the park even if you don't go/don't want/can't go for a hike and in any case you should receive a clear breakdown of the costs in what goes where.
zoiksmeboiks 3y ago
For some places would be over run given ease of access and historical features draw huge crowds. Everyone wants ultimate freedom then complains when they show up and everyone else with ultimate freedom has trashed the place. The general public has a huge credibility problem of its own to grapple with, but somehow it’s always someone else’s job to sit and reflect, find the solution.
- eloisant 3y ago
  I understand the lottery but it makes no sense to have people pay money that they lose even if they lose the lottery.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
    This stops people from submitting lots of lottery applications knowing they will get the money back if they lose.
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    Stops people from applying for every single lottery on the website and selling the spots they win.
- 19h 3y ago
  If people actually took some personal responsibility instead of blaming 'the system' for everything, places wouldn't get trashed in the first place.
genezeta 3y ago
There are two payments. First you pay to participate in the lottery. This is money you've lost no matter what. Then if you win you pay a second amount for the permit itself.
- grumple 3y ago
  The government should not be selling loot boxes that are sometimes empty. You shouldn't be charged for nothing.
  - Shocka1 3y ago
    I agree. To add my POV, I feel this is just another step in the pimping of national land. The government and American people are once again being taken advantage of by one of the big consulting firms. Big surprise. Places like Gatlinburg have become cesspools as it's pretty much a mini Las Vegas of the East. As someone who came from a rural background, you couldn't pay me to go to one of the bigger national parks so I can wait in line to faux climb a peak. On the private land side, more and more landowners are leasing their land for hunting. I'm in the rural midwest - not long ago you could hunt on just about any private property simply by walking up to the person's front door and asking nicely. Nowadays more and more properties are leased out and under strict contracts that limit access. In my area many contracts limit foot traffic, not just hunting. Luckily my family owns land, and we let neighbors on it, but this is becoming more and more outlier philosophy. I totally get it all and understand it from an economic point of view, but it doesn't make it suck any less. On the public side however, this just doesn't sit right with me. There must be a different solution.
  - chii 3y ago
    you're not charged for nothing - you're charged for a chance to get something. If the lottery was free, what prevents you from signing up multiple times? The fact is, demand for these spots are too high. I'd rather see an auction, but that'd be too unfair for people who aren't rich enough - public goods are still public and should be available.
    - 3y ago
sharkbird2 3y ago
I had no idea about this either. For me this screams of a dystopian future civilization (which is apparently now) where even access to the outdoors has been limited due to overpopulation and is now regulated through a lottery. I mean, I get it, I understand that they need to limit the amount of people visiting certain sensitive ecosystems, but still... something about this just seems fundamentally wrong to me. Access to the great outdoors, to nature, seems like such a fundamental human right to me.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  Allowing the best spots to be completely overrun seems far more dystopian to me. To be clear, you do not need a permit to have an incredible experience at a national park.
  - altec3 3y ago
    Arches National Park requires permits for entry during the busy season so you would need a permit for any sort of experience there.
    - HDThoreaun 3y ago
      Not if you go in the off season... Arches is also unique because it was legitimately seeing permanent damage due to overuse. There are plenty of other national parks in Utah you can go to whenever you like.
- say_it_as_it_is 3y ago
  Protected spaces would be over-run without permits and enforcement of said permits. These are fragile places. The dystopia would be a graffiti-laden, human excrement covered Wave with garbage laying everywhere and tourists piling on top of each other.
  - nofunsir 3y ago
    I hope this is sarcasm. No it wouldn't.
MagicMoonlight 3y ago
I get the lottery because it stops someone booking out the next 10 years. Imagine MrBeast’s “I bought the entire national park for the next century” video. You want people to always have a chance to go, no matter the demand.
- JustBreath 3y ago
  Easy fix there, require a government ID and limit visits to two weeks or whatever.
singron 3y ago
Just to be clear, this applies to only the most popular parts of National Parks. Most National Parks don't require permits or they are easy to get. There are also tons of ways to hike that aren't National Parks. If you have the skills and gear, I recommend wilderness areas in National Forests. This is like when that new gelato place opens up and has a 45 minute line for $15 ice cream, and the regular ice cream place is basically as good and has normal prices and no line.
- tradertef 3y ago
  Great analogy on the ice cream place.

by jk563 3y ago

Am I understanding this correctly: you need to pay for a permit for hiking in some places in the USA, and it's a lottery so you might not even be able to go once you've paid the money?

jamiem 3y ago

Yes. It's intended to limit the number of visitors to protect sensitive areas. It made sense to me, as I was under the impression that the money went directly to the park. But the fact that it goes to a middleman changes things.

jk563 3y ago
I can understand that reasoning, and it does make sense to me too, but only if all the money goes to the park. Ideally then even only for successful applications.
- kwhitefoot 3y ago
  Even then it is a regressive tax.
- justsomehnguy 3y ago
  Ideally you should have an option to support the park even if you don't go/don't want/can't go for a hike and in any case you should receive a clear breakdown of the costs in what goes where.

zoiksmeboiks 3y ago

For some places would be over run given ease of access and historical features draw huge crowds. Everyone wants ultimate freedom then complains when they show up and everyone else with ultimate freedom has trashed the place. The general public has a huge credibility problem of its own to grapple with, but somehow it’s always someone else’s job to sit and reflect, find the solution.

eloisant 3y ago
I understand the lottery but it makes no sense to have people pay money that they lose even if they lose the lottery.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
  This stops people from submitting lots of lottery applications knowing they will get the money back if they lose.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  Stops people from applying for every single lottery on the website and selling the spots they win.
19h 3y ago
If people actually took some personal responsibility instead of blaming 'the system' for everything, places wouldn't get trashed in the first place.

genezeta 3y ago

There are two payments. First you pay to participate in the lottery. This is money you've lost no matter what. Then if you win you pay a second amount for the permit itself.

grumple 3y ago
The government should not be selling loot boxes that are sometimes empty. You shouldn't be charged for nothing.
- Shocka1 3y ago
  I agree. To add my POV, I feel this is just another step in the pimping of national land. The government and American people are once again being taken advantage of by one of the big consulting firms. Big surprise. Places like Gatlinburg have become cesspools as it's pretty much a mini Las Vegas of the East. As someone who came from a rural background, you couldn't pay me to go to one of the bigger national parks so I can wait in line to faux climb a peak. On the private land side, more and more landowners are leasing their land for hunting. I'm in the rural midwest - not long ago you could hunt on just about any private property simply by walking up to the person's front door and asking nicely. Nowadays more and more properties are leased out and under strict contracts that limit access. In my area many contracts limit foot traffic, not just hunting. Luckily my family owns land, and we let neighbors on it, but this is becoming more and more outlier philosophy. I totally get it all and understand it from an economic point of view, but it doesn't make it suck any less. On the public side however, this just doesn't sit right with me. There must be a different solution.
- chii 3y ago
  you're not charged for nothing - you're charged for a chance to get something. If the lottery was free, what prevents you from signing up multiple times? The fact is, demand for these spots are too high. I'd rather see an auction, but that'd be too unfair for people who aren't rich enough - public goods are still public and should be available.
  - 3y ago

sharkbird2 3y ago

I had no idea about this either. For me this screams of a dystopian future civilization (which is apparently now) where even access to the outdoors has been limited due to overpopulation and is now regulated through a lottery. I mean, I get it, I understand that they need to limit the amount of people visiting certain sensitive ecosystems, but still... something about this just seems fundamentally wrong to me. Access to the great outdoors, to nature, seems like such a fundamental human right to me.

HDThoreaun 3y ago
Allowing the best spots to be completely overrun seems far more dystopian to me. To be clear, you do not need a permit to have an incredible experience at a national park.
- altec3 3y ago
  Arches National Park requires permits for entry during the busy season so you would need a permit for any sort of experience there.
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    Not if you go in the off season... Arches is also unique because it was legitimately seeing permanent damage due to overuse. There are plenty of other national parks in Utah you can go to whenever you like.
say_it_as_it_is 3y ago
Protected spaces would be over-run without permits and enforcement of said permits. These are fragile places. The dystopia would be a graffiti-laden, human excrement covered Wave with garbage laying everywhere and tourists piling on top of each other.
- nofunsir 3y ago
  I hope this is sarcasm. No it wouldn't.

MagicMoonlight 3y ago

I get the lottery because it stops someone booking out the next 10 years. Imagine MrBeast’s “I bought the entire national park for the next century” video. You want people to always have a chance to go, no matter the demand.

JustBreath 3y ago
Easy fix there, require a government ID and limit visits to two weeks or whatever.

singron 3y ago

Just to be clear, this applies to only the most popular parts of National Parks. Most National Parks don't require permits or they are easy to get. There are also tons of ways to hike that aren't National Parks. If you have the skills and gear, I recommend wilderness areas in National Forests. This is like when that new gelato place opens up and has a 45 minute line for $15 ice cream, and the regular ice cream place is basically as good and has normal prices and no line.

tradertef 3y ago
Great analogy on the ice cream place.