“Graass Criticizes Sticker Plan to Raise Park Money” from the July 27, 1961 Door County Advocate
Graass Criticizes Sticker Plan to Raise Park Money
The following brief by Former Assemblyman Frank N. Graass was written for presentation to the legislature in opposition to the park sticker bill that would provide for admission fees in state parks in Wisconsin.
State Parks need financial help and need it badly. Financial help should be given if the method is sound and realistic. If one will take the time to study our park problems and present administration from a financial angle the method provided in Bill 5-S is not sound or realistic.
For years the legislature has set up Interim committees to study and provide ways and means to bring about the needed finances to provide sanitation, good water, sanitary toilets and shelters by a mill tax, gas tax, gas tax refund, auto tax, etc. All failed in legislative session.
In 1955 under the Kohler administration there was appropriated from general fund $500,000 — non-lapsable and for sanitary toilets, good water and shelters. The Conservation department did a good job at about $125,000 per year. Since then the department had to rely on appropriation from general fund about $200,000 — $200,000 from Conservation fund, (not fish and game license money) as has been claimed to arouse hunters and fishermen in order to help pass Bill 5-S, also about $200,000 from park income. Now 5-S proposes to raise additional money through a park sticker stamp on all cars entering the State Parks. It makes a toll road out of our park roads which are being built from the gasoline money. The cars are now paying State 6¢ per gallon tax. If we are to charge 50¢ to drive through a state park, then why not also apply it to access to lake roads that are built from Conservation and taxpayers money.
Amendment 5-S exempts skiers and others after Nov. 1 to March 31. Why should thousands of skiers who use park facilities in winter be exempt while the layman in summer must pay 50 cents?
Who should contribute to the operation of state parks? First, like the “crash” program, the state should pay for capital improvements. Second, after that the campers who use the facilities of the parks. The fees should be based upon the facilities and services offered by the park. This can be done by the Conservation Commission under the present law 27.01 (2) (1).
What have been the camp fees over a period of years regardless of number in each camp? First 25¢, then 50¢, then 75¢ and February 15, 1959 the commission raised the fee to $1.00 stating that the raise would pay for the cost of administration, other than capital improvements. Campsites in all parks have been improved and especially, so in our larger parks — Devils Lake, Potawatomi and Peninsula. Let’s see what the camper gets in the latter 3,600 acres for $I.00 per day.
1. Large camp space for car, tent or trailer and boat if the owner of one.
2. Good water facilities.
3. Clean sanitary toilets.
4. Fireplaces.
5. Garbage disposal.
6. Large shelters.
7. Playgrounds.
8. Boat ramp.
9. Good fishing.
10. Bathing beach.
11. Large docks.
12. Hiking.
13. Nature study.
14. Baseball fields.
15. Telephone service in emergencies.
16. Limited police protection.
17. Laundry facilities.
Most of these services and facilities are found in a great number of our larger parks, all for $1.00 per day. One cannot park his car in any city or county ramp in Madison for $1.00 per day.
5-S would charge 50¢ just to enter the park where there is now a golf charge of $1.75 per day, public cemetery and certain land leases that do not expire for several years. This brief is not to protect the travelers in two Door county parks but to oppose this unequitable charge for all parks. Instead of charging to enter the parks the state should charge a more equitable fee for those who enjoy the services and facilities of these parks in order to improve not only our large parks but other smaller state parks that need much needed improvements.
Some state parks are accessible via water. Docks costing thousands of dollars are available for boat landing. Small crafts, $15 to $50,000 boats use these docks to reach shore as well as to deposit garbage, garbage that the state must collect at considerable expense. They can also use our beaches and other facilities. No provisions are made to collect from these wealthy guests but a poor person would be charged an entrance fee if he drives in over the highway.
To anyone who would study the cost of collection they might learn that it would be enormous. By an increase in park camping fees the collection would be nil as the collector would collect increased fees just as he now collects the present fee.
Bill 5-S will be an administrative monstrosity. The proposed potential income from an entrance fee cannot be challenged because no one has the facts but from experience and the methods used to base the potential income, the income is greatly exaggerated.
If 616A, the conservation crash program is adopted, why would it be simpler not only to provide needed aid for the administration of the parks as well as the Conservation Commission providing more funds for our parks under Chapter 27.01 (2) (1) by increasing camping fees that are equitable for services and facilities rendered in each park.
The state now spends hundreds of thousands of dollars inviting tourists to visit Wisconsin and especially our 30 state parks. No mention of “Toll Roads” before they arrive. The general public will resent such unjustifiable charges and it will be resented by the public who now pay a gas tax to use our roads, statewide, and in parks. The records will disclose that the great majority of States administrate their park through general fund appropriation, camper fees and concessions. Only few have entrance fees. It is stated that Illinois has already repealed their park entrance fees.
Where does the support for 5-S come from? Mostly misrepresentation of facts and figures and not being familiar with the administration of our park system. The hunters and fishermen of this state have been told that the state is using some of their license fees to run parks. They have been up in arms. If this is true, why do we not jeopardize our federal aids from Dingell-Johnson and Pittman Robinson aids amounting to millions of dollars. These charges have been made to federal government by conservation clubs and on two occasions the federal auditor said Wisconsin does not use hunter’s and fishermen’s license monies for parks. The last report appeared in the Milwaukee Journal. In short here is the story:
The conservation fund is made up of about three dozen different sources of income. The 1960-61 records show that $586,662 of the conservation fund could be largely used for general purposes and state parks.
If appropriating money from the general conservation fund for parks is using hunter’s and fishermen’s license money then by appropriating money from this fund for fox and coyote bounty, it can be said you are using fishermen’s license money for fox and coyote bounties.
The governor of Michigan vetoed in three legislative sessions a charge to enter State parks. Finally he let the bill become the law because the legislature would not pay attention to a realistic approach to the problem. At that time the Michigan conservation commission did not approve the bill. Minnesota had it thrust upon them by the legislature and found it unpopular and costly collection. Indiana charges entrance fees but their parks are Disneyland parks — gingerbread. Illinois, it is reported, just repealed their park entrance fees.
Our parks can and should be made a tourist and camper attraction but don’t put a “cover charge” to enter — make those who use park facilities pay the bill — campers and picnickers.
We know that silence is our best instructor but in proposals such as 5-S we cannot refrain from calling to your attention the fact, that men are so busy, time is so noisy, speed is so fast, volume is so great, we have accelerated our lives so much, that some fail to pause long enough to study the problem of our parks. Let’s stop, think, reason and be sure to defeat 5-S which has met defeat in the last two sessions of the legislature, and resort to a more equitable method suggested herein.
Courtesy of the Door County Library Newspaper Archive
Posts related to the Department of Natural Resources
https://doorcounty.substack.com/t/department-of-natural-resources
Posts related to Frank Graass
https://doorcounty.substack.com/t/frank-graass