Comprehensive coverage

Entrance fees to the reserves will benefit nature conservation

The entrance fees are supposed to cover the expenses of operating and cleaning the reserves, while the meager government budget must be used for research and conservation projects

I will start by stating that I am in favor of charging entrance fees to nature sites - reserves and gardens, since it turns out that, as in many other issues in which Americanism is copied here, so too in the government budgets for conservation and nature conservation, instead of budgeting the reserves according to their environmental and economic importance, the budgets are given according to Political indicators, like this in the USA starting with Bush's ascension to the presidency, like this with us - a ridiculous budget.

In the past I have already written about the economic viability of preserving nature and the environment, now it deserves support from an unexpected direction. Bush's rule is known for his lack of sympathy for environmental issues in general and nature reserves in particular, now a report is being published that shows that this attitude is an economic mistake. Groves, vice president for government affairs at the National Wildlife Refuge Association, says that: "The budget cuts during the Bush days severely damaged the ability of the reserve staff to function, layoffs are causing the closure of areas for visiting and activities in nature and stopping Conservation research and development activity.
Cuts in economic accounting cause a loss, since according to economists, every dollar invested in reserves brings an income of at least 4 dollars.
Payments for entrance to sites, hunting and fishing licenses, services for birders, all these and others provided employment for 2006 workers until 27,000 and gave an annual income of 2 billion dollars soon. About two hundred million dollars in taxes were paid from them. Reserves and sites provide employment and livelihood for local residents, an income that was not calculated here. Because of the cuts, about 20% of the employees will be laid off, layoffs that will cause further closure of websites and activities.
About 20% of the RM amount came from payments for hunting and fishing licenses, with the balance from entrance fees for about 10 million visitors to the reserves. The more controlled reserves "produced" 155 dollars per investment dollar, less "popular" reserves produced "only" 44 dollars per investment dollar and the "lowest" income was 23 dollars per investment dollar.

Fish and Wildlife Director Dale Hall says that: Since Bush came to power, the budgets have been cut so that today there is a deficit of 2.5 billion dollars to cover the expenses of the current operation, a lack that will be reflected in the closing of sites and the limitation of activities at other sites due to a cut in the number of employees. After seeing the positive financial account, how the nature conservation budget is an "economic and profitable business", how every dollar invested generates profits, it is clear that budget cuts are an economic concept.

And again compared to us, payments for hunting licenses, entrance fees to a few of the reserves, etc. do not even cover the expenses for preserving nature and the environment in the whole country, since the system "takes into account", a meager government budget... If there were entrance fees for every reserve, entrance fees that are calculated on According to the expenses that result from public visits, entrance fees that will cover the cleaning of the paths after hundreds of students trample and dirty everything in their path, repairs to fences and signs that are destroyed by "visitors", cleaning beaches after the stay of "celebrants", to restore vegetation after "vacationers" bonfires, all of these There is a lot of bloodshed and there is no reason why those responsible for the expenditure will not pay, the meager budget from the government must be directed to research and development, this is of course when the managers of the "authority" will be aware of their role/duty according to the law - to preserve nature.

Dr. Assaf Rosenthal, ecologist,
Tour guide/leader in Africa and South America.
For details: Tel. 0505640309 / 077-6172298,
Email: assaf@eilatcity.co.il

2 תגובות

  1. It's also a cultural thing, I find it hard to believe that many people will pay for fishing licenses here. Besides, imposing high entrance taxes will reduce the number of visitors, and in addition, as Yehuda said before, we pay enough taxes to keep the nature reserves open, among other things.
    I don't think that incorrect economic conduct of the state should hurt my pocket. If taxes will be levied on everything here, such as nature reserves, parks, bathing beaches (including Kinneret), then why do I continue to pay taxes?

  2. Why should we finance this and not the state?
    If it is so profitable, and I believe it is, then may the country develop and profit from it!
    I, as a free citizen of the country, want to be the owner of nature and not the financier of nature. I pay for it all with my taxes. The approach in which an authority finds every possible place to embezzle its funds is unacceptable to me. Today, for example, every Tel Aviv madraba is almost painted over and becomes a money squeezer for the local authority. It is almost impossible to get to any beach without paying. it's unacceptable.
    Our taxes should fund everything and not just inflated salaries of bureaucrats.
    It is also upsetting that families with many children will have to be unable to share the landscape.
    The payments should be reduced to a minimum, if at all.

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.