Hacker News Reader

Yes. It's intended to limit the number of visitors to protect sensitive areas.

It made sense to me, as I was under the impression that the money went directly to the park. But the fact that it goes to a middleman changes things.

View on HN

I can understand that reasoning, and it does make sense to me too, but only if all the money goes to the park. Ideally then even only for successful applications.

Even then it is a regressive tax.

Ideally you should have an option to support the park even if you don't go/don't want/can't go for a hike and in any case you should receive a clear breakdown of the costs in what goes where.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com