Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Other Stuff
Off Topic
Unexpected price for news article
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="fotojack" data-source="post: 410231" data-attributes="member: 16"><p>Ya know, I have to completely agree with Lawrence. OK, here's my take on this: National Parks are maintained by the Federal government, correct? OK, the federal government has a parks budget, paid for by the nation as a whole (we the people). <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> So...if tax dollars are being used to maintain said park, why are these extra fees being collected? Seems to me it's just an extra tax grab; it's like double dipping. </p><p>We have the same thing here in Canada, where the government tried to charge fees to photographers for taking and selling their photos...particularly wedding photographers. From what I remember, it was directed at "out of town" photographers, due to the local photographers complaining of 'losing business' to outsiders. The town I'm referring to is Banff National Park, about 90 miles west of Calgary, Alberta...Canada's largest national park.</p><p>I'm not sure, but, I think there was a big kerfuffel about it all, and the government backed down on that idea. </p><p>In short, if it's already being paid for by tax payers, then there should be no need to charge an extra fee for 'maintenance and upkeep'. The park belongs to the people, paid for by the people.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="fotojack, post: 410231, member: 16"] Ya know, I have to completely agree with Lawrence. OK, here's my take on this: National Parks are maintained by the Federal government, correct? OK, the federal government has a parks budget, paid for by the nation as a whole (we the people). :) So...if tax dollars are being used to maintain said park, why are these extra fees being collected? Seems to me it's just an extra tax grab; it's like double dipping. We have the same thing here in Canada, where the government tried to charge fees to photographers for taking and selling their photos...particularly wedding photographers. From what I remember, it was directed at "out of town" photographers, due to the local photographers complaining of 'losing business' to outsiders. The town I'm referring to is Banff National Park, about 90 miles west of Calgary, Alberta...Canada's largest national park. I'm not sure, but, I think there was a big kerfuffel about it all, and the government backed down on that idea. In short, if it's already being paid for by tax payers, then there should be no need to charge an extra fee for 'maintenance and upkeep'. The park belongs to the people, paid for by the people. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
Off Topic
Unexpected price for news article
Top