Fees for NPS Dock STT

MORE fees? In this case, a demand for a special permit fee of $150 each time a liveaboard tied up his dinghy to the dock to walk his dog. Even the government apparently feels the rate unduly excessive. Are you maybe in favor of people who jog and walk the property there paying a similarly hefty fee to do so?

If you do not have a place to tie a dinghy up to walk your dog. Don't have a dog. Or pay the price.

That's pretty outrageous for the costs to temporarily tie up a dingy. Maybe there could be a nominal fee set for that? Is there really no other place nearby with non-Federal public access, as the article states, that doesn't exclude dogs? If so, why is that not possible?

I find it hard to believe that he wasn't told numerous times. Many pet owners treat their animals like humans and expect everyone to accommodate their desires.

I got the sense that he'd been warned previously about his use of the dock and ignored it which was why he got the fine. He could have gone around to Vessup and beached his dinghy or anchored stern to beach to walk his dog.
There are also other docks in the area he could arrange use thru to get ashore with his dog.

NPS dock and grounds are the most convenient so I'm sure there will be signs and fees coming in the future.

You may have "got the sense" from a newspaper article but obviously the judge wasn't convinced.

You're point being?

That it matters not what your "sense" was.

In any event, the OP's post wasn't about the merits of the already heard case; whether liveabords should own dogs or not; or whether or not the defendant was told or not told in the last 30+ years that he shouldn't do what he was doing - but that the NPS should charge more fees for use of its facilities.

You may have "got the sense" from a newspaper article but obviously the judge wasn't convinced.

Nowhere did it say the judge wasn't convinced. It came down to a technicality that there were no signs present on federal property when law requires them. It wouldn't have mattered for this legal ruling if every officer there testified he had been warned.

Put the sign up and see if he still disregards laws.

And your comment on the OP's opinion is?

Sounds like they are collecting zero fees, so anything more is a good thing.

That it matters not what your "sense" was.

In any event, the OP's post wasn't about the merits of the already heard case; whether liveabords should own dogs or not; or whether or not the defendant was told or not told in the last 30+ years that he shouldn't do what he was doing - but that the NPS should charge more fees for use of its facilities.

Just because it doesn't matter to you, doesn't invalidate what I wrote.
Give it a rest.

I'll "give it a rest" when (a) you stop telling me to do so and (b) when you lighten up and stop being so negative about pretty much everything.

So how DO you feel about the NPS imposing more fees for people's use of their facilities?

Pot calling kettle black.

I think the NPS should post signs and collect fees since they maintain the dock, the building, the parking area and the grounds and have to pay personnel to do so.

I got the sense that he'd been warned previously about his use of the dock and ignored it which was why he got the fine. He could have gone around to Vessup and beached his dinghy or anchored stern to beach to walk his dog.
There are also other docks in the area he could arrange use thru to get ashore with his dog.

NPS dock and grounds are the most convenient so I'm sure there will be signs and fees coming in the future.

That makes more sense. I had gotten the impression from the article that the only places he could go were the NPS area or one other private access that excluded dogs.

The previous warnings seem like a he said/she said situation, and the judge's concern was lack of notification. Hard to believe the rules weren't properly posted, since the islands are well-known for their accurate signage. 🙂

Imo, they need to create a tier of fees. One fee for one day use, and another yearly fee like other National Park usage. I guess it could be set up like mooring fee collection so there wouldn't need to be an employee collecting fees. Wonder how much Caneel is paying to use that dock?

I often see dogs at Vessup. I know people complain that there are not many places they can take their pets, but on such a tiny island with a very limited budget, you can't expect many free areas to accommodate your pet. We don't have doggie parks like some stateside jurisdictions.

BTW, National Parks will soon be selling signage ads in National Parks. I saw the article on Mother Earth News and posted link on another forum. Lots of things that used to be free now require fees.

They have to increase fees to maintain these wonderful places.

They have to increase fees to maintain these wonderful places.

Not sure if they need to increase, but enforce existing fees and maybe implement new ones with limitations.

Not with conservative republicans wanting to sell off national parks and public lands. It's costly to enforce regulations and protect wildlife and pristine environments. National Parks are struggling.

Not with conservative republicans wanting to sell off national parks and public lands. It's costly to enforce regulations and protect wildlife and pristine environments. National Parks are struggling.

Pretty sad considering Republican Teddy Roosevelt was the one to establish many of what would become the nation parks and forests.

(tu)

So it is a dock on federal land built with public money. What use does it serve when access is restricted by some outrageous fees like $150 per day access fee. For a dinghy. Every harbor should have public access dinghy dock. It's good for business. Look at Canada. They plan for common use public spaces. The access is free.