Mt. San Jacinto State Park On List To Close

[magikwalt]

http://www.calparks.org/act-now/2008-bu ... posal.html

The link gives the detailed list of which parks are on the list. Per the Tram's PAO, "If the park closes then the patio is as far as anyone is allowed to go."

I may want my money back.

[Zé]

so if there's no 'park', then you aren't allowed on that wilderness area?

[nobohobo]

i heard they're moving san jacinto to a more profitable state.
mmmmmmm........... maybe new hampshire???

[some guy]

they should just shut down the tram. It'd be much more peaceful up there.

[Florian]

Well crap. I better get in as many tramway hikes as i can now. But like Zé said, i don't see how they can close the wilderness. There are tons of unsupervised wilderness areas that are open to hiking. But, now that i think about it, why are there maintained trails in a wilderness area at all?

-Florian

[hikehigh]

So If they "close" the park there would be less people and we wont have to hassle with permits or reservations? Where do we sign up? Sounds like a good thing to me.

This is just a bluff. They would never close the number 3 money maker.

[Perry]

This is just a bluff. They would never close the number 3 money maker.

I think it's roughly a dollar per tram rider. It appears the visitation number only includes hiking and camping permits, not people in Long Valley.

I could see them changing something with the Hearst Memorial Beach. Just charging a dollar per person would bring in half a million annually.

[Hikin_Jim]

So If they "close" the park there would be less people and we wont have to hassle with permits or reservations? Where do we sign up? Sounds like a good thing to me.

Well, if you get caught, I'm sure there would be a fine, although with no staff, who's going to catch you? The main thing is that we couldn't go from the tram during the closure.

This is just a bluff. They would never close the number 3 money maker.

Number 3 money maker? Do you have a website with that info that you can post a link to? I don't believe the tram generates net revenue for the state. I don't think proceeds from the tram cover the park's budget. The state would be perfectly fine with closing the park.

A bluff? Maybe. Let's hope so, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[magikwalt]

Hi Jim,

The link I posted has dollars listed for FY2006/2007. Its shows revenue of $399,000 for San Jacinto. What is missing is the expense budget.

Here is another link with a great summary of what the State Parks people are faced with. Check out the declining costs per visit chart on the last page.

http://parks.ca.gov/pages/712/files/bud ... -14-08.pdf

Walt

[Hikin_Jim]

Here is another link with a great summary of what the State Parks people are faced with. Check out the declining costs per visit chart on the last page.

http://parks.ca.gov/pages/712/files/bud ... -14-08.pdf

Wow. Assuming these figures are not adjusted for inflation, that's quite a steep drop off in terms of what they spend per visitor. Also, if as has been reported elsewhere, visits to state and national parks are declining, then it's an even more dramatic drop (if spending were constant, then the per visitor amount would increase as the number of visitors declined).