Rob and Tweets,

Good point Rob. I think this ties in with an earlier comment about the "end use" of the revenues generated by use fees. While paying to support a good cause sounds good, it is not beneficial when the funds are directed elsewhere. I also pay extra dollars at times to support a particular good cause (in a pollyannaish way), but to require everyone to pay at all times will certainly limit access to services/public lands to some people and for the wrong reason (lack of income).

Mike's right about the need to better represent our interests and a voluntary payment to one of our own interest groups would certainly give us better control of the revenues while not excluding the less wealthy.

Of course, we could set up separate public access areas for those with money and those without. We could have a Fire Dept. for those with money and those without. And have schools for those with money and those without. Or just have schools for those with money and nothing for those without. I think I'll stop thinking down this line. It definitely gets ugly.

Like Connie, I don't like user fees. But if we have to pay them, we REALLY need a better way of finding out WHAT is needed, HOW MUCH it will cost and WHERE to get it.

Also, don't be misled by the apparent comprehensive coverage of the National Parks Pass. While entrance fees are covered, PARKING fees are NOT. If they charge a parking fee in lieu of an entrance fee, you have to pay it or get a ticket. :(

Bruce Jones
Shoreline, WA