Temple Tax

[jsp1001]

Just a personal opinion arising from several trips to Seoraksan, Maisan, and other Korean Parks which have Buddhist temples inside them.

Simply put, I don't like it.

1. Recently, the National Park Service of Korea decided to get rid of all entrance fees. Awesome decision. The best things in life are free.

2. However, many Buddhist temples are located inside these parks, and previously, it seems, when admission was charged at national parks, they got a share of the proceeds because some people came to enjoy the historic Buddhist heritage sites.

3. With the entrance fees abolished, these temples, it seems, panicked. A ranger told me that they took legal action to collect their fees, and it was upheld in court. So, the NPS wants things to be free (and entrance is free at gates without a temple), but their hands are tied by the courts.

4. 3,000 won is not a lot, but I just don't like being forced to pay for something I didn't buy. I came to enjoy the trees and the rocks, not to take pictures of temples and statues. I'd blindfold myself through that area if they wanted me to. Why not separate the temple areas from the rest of the park and charge admission only to those entering the former? One concession at Seonunsan is that they usually allow climbers in for free.

I don't like it. And I don't think it helps the public image of the Buddhist temples' administrations either.

[nomadicmind]

Are the monks at all involved with park upkeep? Surely the park service is involved, but if they want to demand entrance fees, I see a solution here. How could a monk say no to keeping nature beautiful, anyway? Also, they should light one stick of incense for everyone entering.

[shanja]

Yeah it's a thorny issue...but I'd probably take a totally different tack. Firstly, the land on which many of these national parks are found was originally temple lands. In Seoraksan's case, approximately 35% of the land in "the national park" is still owned by the temple and really only on a 'permanent-lease'. Many temples gave up the lands to National Park developments on the basis that they would be given part of the park enterance fees to help upkeep their buildings (which are far more visited than the rest of the park area by your average tourist/ weekender and family). So their claim is not so greedy as it might seem.
Secondly I think the idea of no enterance fees on National Parks is a huge mistake. Don't get me wrong, I don't like to pay, but without revenue how is the National Parks Service meant to pay for the upkeep of trails, bridges, shelter huts, car-parks and so on? Forget even how they are meant to pay for their main task which is protecting Korea natural environment and wildlife.
NPS needs more money, not less. I'd rather pay double the entrance fee if I knew it was being well spent on protecting the parks valuable resources (be they natural or man-made).
I don't know if monks do much to protect the parks or not, but those temles have been there for hundreds if not thousands of years and as such warrant some contribution of upkeep from all the passersby (who invariably touch, litter, damage, enjoy or make use of the temples water/ toilets/ land).
A lot of people go to parks for different reasons, and I don't think it's practicable to have have differential charges on entrance based on what people say they are going there to see. Everyone would just say they were there for the cheapest option and do whatever anyways.
But I dunno, that's just my 5 cents.

[jsp1001]

okay, eloquently stated as always Jake. It seems to me that the idea of "no fees" was from a desire to instill a sense of ownership upon the general public. Anyway, I guess we disagree. But don't hold it against me, mate, esp. when I'm on belay :)


Yeah it's a thorny issue...but I'd probably take a totally different tack. Firstly, the land on which many of these national parks are found was originally temple lands. In Seoraksan's case, approximately 35% of the land in "the national park" is still owned by the temple and really only on a 'permanent-lease'. Many temples gave up the lands to National Park developments on the basis that they would be given part of the park enterance fees to help upkeep their buildings (which are far more visited than the rest of the park area by your average tourist/ weekender and family). So their claim is not so greedy as it might seem.
Secondly I think the idea of no enterance fees on National Parks is a huge mistake. Don't get me wrong, I don't like to pay, but without revenue how is the National Parks Service meant to pay for the upkeep of trails, bridges, shelter huts, car-parks and so on? Forget even how they are meant to pay for their main task which is protecting Korea natural environment and wildlife.
NPS needs more money, not less. I'd rather pay double the entrance fee if I knew it was being well spent on protecting the parks valuable resources (be they natural or man-made).
I don't know if monks do much to protect the parks or not, but those temles have been there for hundreds if not thousands of years and as such warrant some contribution of upkeep from all the passersby (who invariably touch, litter, damage, enjoy or make use of the temples water/ toilets/ land).
A lot of people go to parks for different reasons, and I don't think it's practicable to have have differential charges on entrance based on what people say they are going there to see. Everyone would just say they were there for the cheapest option and do whatever anyways.
But I dunno, that's just my 5 cents.

[nomadicmind]

That is a good point, Jake. When a thing is good for *us* we tend to ignore that it may not make sense, or may be damaging for everyone else. In this case, money not collected through fees would either have to come from increased taxes, or from nowhere at all (and thus the park suffers). What's more fair... taxing everyone across the board, or just those who actually use the park? From that standpoint, the fee makes sense. While I may grumble when I'm handing over the money and not thinking about the why of the thing, I am with Jake in that I'd gladly pay that fee anyway, to keep things in good shape.

[shanja]

Don't worry Joe, I'll not hold a difference of opinion against you at all! There is sure to be a decent amount of those fees that is siphoned off to "dodgey" pockets and so on. In a perfect world the parks would be free and the public would exercise a resposible collective ownership (kinda sounds Commie doesn't it?). Great to read about your Seoraksan trip too!

[jsp1001]

You know, I originally titled the trip "expeditionary" because it was preparation for future trip (s), right? Got the permit situation in hand, scoped out the approach, all that's left is for people to come and climb this beautiful battleship in the sky.

[shanja]

Oh my! But how poetic a turn you have grown of late! I shall be there with bells on, if only that he "battleship in the sky" be half as delighting as your vernacular!

[nomadicmind]

B-7... You sunk my pitch!