Proposed OverSand Vehicle Permit Increase

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Charkbait

I may not even get the 24 hour, I really should be getting some sleep, I've never caught anything between 12-5 anyway and usually start dosing in and out around 1:30-2:00 anyway shhhhhh!

Ahhh.. My favorite times

[Randy Stinchcomb]

well, Im a "newbi" at the whole AI & surfishing, as most of you know 2006 was my first year doing the OSV thing
it doesn't bother me in the least, whatever it is, I'll pay it just for the enjoyment of getting away from the crowed beaches, being able to fish at night, see beautiful sunrises and sunsets, the ponies and catching fish
I can always fish outta' my boat but you guys have opened my eyes to a whole new world of fishing from the shore (something I always looked down on, being a boater all my life) so I deeply thank Sam, Steve(s) Dave, Scott and the rest of you fine people on this site for showing me the ropes, surf fishing ...its'a BLAST

[Beachme670]

I don't mind the price increase for the permit as long as we have access. As for the bullpen becoming a campground, I hope it doesn't happen. We have a great set up the way it is. It's part of what makes camping on the island special. I like coming down and being able pull in as a group and camp together. With a rented space bullpen we will lose this and much more!

[derf]

the bullpen is a campground for truck campers / self contained vehicles ....

[Bohica]

For the record, I am opposed to any increase. They should manage the money they already get better. (good grammar huh?)

Slippery slope and all that.....

[mdram]

Originally Posted by derf

the bullpen is a campground for truck campers / self contained vehicles ....

yes and no, it is not managed as such. if it were it would generate income

[lookinbeachie]

I don't think the word 'campground ' really applys to the bullpen. I thought most campgrounds require reservations with prior registration? I know we park our self contained vehicles in there but never ever thought it to be a campground...
I thought years ago it was actually supposed to be like a 'safe haven' for the overnight campers to stay in...
that was when the "DUNE" was still up in front of the bullpen!
I guess the fees are what the issue is really about.
And as I said before, these are just my thoughts and respect all others!

Dianne

[derf]

Originally Posted by mdram

yes and no, it is not managed as such. if it were it would generate income

imho , thats is what they are doing by raising the rates for a 24 hour permit ...
in all honesty , i don't mind an increase . but going from $70 to $150 ??
the regular camping rates only went up $2 or 10 %
the 24 hour pass from $70 to $110 or 20 %
the other thing i'd like to know is how many people have the gate pass that also have an orv permit ??
because i bet that the majority of entrance permit holders also have the orv permit...

it just seems like the increases that are the greatest all deal with the orv area ......
hummm cash cow being milked before the beach is taken away ???

[mdram]

but if you consider the cost of camping, either 18 or 22, per night. and the fact you don't pay to camp at the bullpen, the increase is only 3-4 nights worth of normal camping fees.

[derf]

Originally Posted by mdram

but if you consider the cost of camping, either 18 or 22, per night. and the fact you don't pay to camp at the bullpen, the increase is only 3-4 nights worth of normal camping fees.

you aren't going to get an argument from me about it , it is still a 'good deal'.
i would just like to know how it was decided on what was going to be increased and why ...

[lookinbeachie]

I would like to know how they decided the "proposed' increases too!
Good point!
Dianne

[Charkbait]

I'm sure it comes down to some type of usage model. The people who use the beach the most incurr the brunt of the expense even if the expenses are theoretically fixed. I would assume that those with campers use the beach for more hours then those without and the same goes for the folks that stay overnight. They came up with the shortfall and then distributed it over the usage that they came up with. It's one way to do it, not the end all.

I would think that the casual users are actually more expensive to moderate, breaking rules, breaking pumps etc but I still think the increase and distribution is fair.

I don't think you can focus on the increase from $70-$150 rather the fact that for a number of years you got additional value without paying more then anyone else...now you've got to pay for it is all.

[Heavy Duty]

The fee increase amounts were based on the findings of "Fee Impact Study" conducted last year. It was determined that AI charged much less than similiar parks along the East Coast. Also the fact that they operate at over $100,000/yr loss in a area that by NPS guidelines should pay for itself, forced them to increase fees in order to bring AI more in line with NPS policy. The study also looked at how many permits were sold and based on NPS input as to the types of vehicles, estimations were made in each catargory outlined in the fee proposal to determine costs per user group.

Hope this helps.

[derf]

similiar parks along the East Coast

ok then that means they had to only check cape cod ...the only other national park
that is similar to ai that charges user fees , as far as i know that is the only
national park to the north similar to ai ..
because they sure didn't check hatteras , no user fees ..
cape lookout you pay for the ferry , but that really isn't a 'user fee '

unless they checked the state parks , which are over priced imo
-----------------------------------------
don't get me wrong , i don't mind paying for something i use ..
just really wondering where and how they came up with the ##'s
what i'd really like to see are the gate ## 's and a break down of what kind of users ..
-------------------------------------------------

[Dave]

i will pay the fees, because I love assateague, but hope fully it wont turn into a yearly rate increase. I hope they use the money wisely.