Kieran00001

53 minutes ago, Liverpudlian said:

Thanks for that ! the 3 hares are on pagan gift cards, used to sell em in my hippy dippy shop.

Yes, they are very popular symbology, and assumed to be the origins of the three arms of the Isle of Mann flag.

The Green Man of Europe appears to be the same character as Kirtimukha.  It is thought to have been taken to Europe by traders returning from Asia as they are found all along the Silk Road with the earliest in China.  They are believed to have been taken as motiffs adorning pottery, and that these were later copied within Europe, perhaps due to the value of the original Chinese pottery the traders had bought.

The link is in the frequent inclusion of another depiction in both images of the Green Man and Kirtimukha, which is of three rabbits running in a circle with joining ears, sometimes known in England as the Tinners' Rabbits.

These are from Buddhist China.

These are from Throwleigh church.

So, to answer your question, no, I do not think you are the first to get the locals intrigued by that guy.  I think this is him, and he's all over Thailand.

2 hours ago, borderlesss said:

Leaving to Vientiane direct in a few hours.

 

My passport looks like:

 

page 1 of visas: thailand exit stamp + stamp showing details of tourist visa from last passport + 14 day overstay stamp

page 2: cambodia visa

page 3: cambodia entry/exit stamp + thailand denial of entry stamp (

page 4: empty

page 5: cambodia visa

page 6: cambodia entry stamp

 

By the time I try to cross to Thailand later tonight, I will have another cambodia exit stamp, a Laos visa + laos entry/exit stamps (i think). That's a pretty ugly looking passport + the fact I'm trying to get in 2 calendar days after being denied means that if I get in, pretty much anyone has a decent shot via land borders.

 

Will update results for good measure <removed>

You could try going to Poipet and paying one of the border guys, they do little services there such as taking your passport to Laos and back for you to save you the bother of walking through and queueing, they might also be able to help you with this one.

The Warsaw Convention puts the onus on the carrier to make sure the passenger is legal to fly, if then denied entry for a predetermined reason such as in your case, then the carrier must return the passenger to where they came from.  In civilized countries, this is exactly what happens, they put them on the next returning flight and then the airline tries to recover the cost later as there is a clause added to your ticket in which you've agreed to foot that bill.  However, in Thailand, they are leaving people to rot in the detention center if they haven't the money upfront, these are presumably the same airlines, its certainly the same international agreement, I guess it comes down to different local laws 55.  Best to do whatever they suggest and just get out of there.

On 4/15/2019 at 1:02 PM, uhuh said:

These are interesting figures that certainly support your argument ( but you talk about fees for tourists,  which is not what this thread is mainly about).

May I ask where you get these figures from and what kind of "parks" they refer to? (I suspect it is Koh Samet, Similan and similar tourist traps, sorry, attractions... but I really don't know)

The figures are in a link a few pages back, it refers to the the parks which charge, there are only about 20 out of some 110 ish national parks which do charge, the rest are free  Overall, at fee paying parks, the numbers have doubled in less than 10 years raising an extra 2 billion baht.

2 hours ago, uhuh said:

Many places write the Thai price at the gate in Thai numbers, foreigners are not supposed to see they pay more (the same does the English restaurant menu mentioned by another poster, different menus for different folks; many hospital websites do this too)

 

That's because Thais know very well how insulting double pricing is.

They would laugh about the Thai apologetics at TVF.

Did you not realize that it was Thai's who made the dual pricing system?

18 hours ago, wilcopops said:

as opposed to a ten-fold surcharge? Different thing altogether

You mean the 90% discount for Thai nationals?

16 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Oh dear... the same rubbish is being regurgitated by folk, who, 31 pages into a thread think they have the answer but instead presenting the same rubbish posted in the first few pages... 

 

"Foreigners regardless of their official Status in Thailand are obliged to pay the foreign price"

 

 

Very simple stuff, you are not considered a foreigner if you apply for residency and then get a Thai ID card.

12 hours ago, luis888 said:

I don't need anyone to make me feel better, as far as I'm concerned dual pricing is wrong, plain and simple. I've been charged more for a haircut just because I'm a foreigner. Is that so that the poor Thais can also have a haircut? Sure there's many locals that can't afford certain things, that is the same all over the world. Many foreigners work very hard the whole year so that they can have a week or two holiday in another country, to experience different cultures. This subject has been discussed so much and it'll never end. There are those that feel it's fine to take advantage of the foreigner and those like me that feel that the foreigner already does a lot for the economy just by coming here and deserves a brake and a "thank you" for generating billions of Baht every year. Not a kick in the arse and get screwed everywhere possible. This goes for any country that does or supports this type of thing.

Please, spare us the sob story, you are not hard done by, you are entitled.

On 4/15/2019 at 12:19 PM, donim said:

No wonder.

For HKT:

Sweden left together with the peace,

Russian came and they don't giving a 'stool' about others with high level of xenofobia.

 

Except Garage54 and The riotting cats. ????

 

For that article at Nation

"Quoting the Tourism Department"

????

 

 

Anyway, tourism is not about foreigners. It consist of foreigners AND thais.

These numbers says nothing but better welfare with Thai people.

 

Nonsense, they break down the numbers into Thai and foreigner, and they remain at 2/3 Thai and 1/3 foreigner, both increased and are the result of increased disposable income in Thailand and also increased foreign visitor numbers.

22 minutes ago, donim said:

 

 

The Chief of Tourism Promotion office of the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, Wanlapha Yuttiwong :

•     She insisted, stipulate that foreigners, regardless of their official status in Thailand, are obliged to pay the foreign price.
•     Foreigners even do not qualify for free entry if under 3 or over 60 years of age.

 

•     Asked why she thought the fees were so high, Ms Wanlapha remarked “We don’t get enough budget from the government to maintain the parks, and lately the number of foreign visitors to national parks has declined.”

And no wondering why?

That was five years ago, visitor numbers have since doubled, wondering why?

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/big_read/30359219

11 minutes ago, wilcopops said:

Again more nonsense - you have not read anything to suggest this as the maths is just not that simple - if the fees are unified, foreign visitor numbers will increase and as said added value activities once in the parks also increases income - but you have chosen to ignore changes in numbers as well as the amount of funding in proportion the games from government. 

The change required is not just a simple scrapping of the fees for foreigners - (you also need to identify who they are BTW) - it is a total shake up of how the parks are maned with an eye to increased usage accompanied by appropriate conservation safeguards. The amount of foreign tourists who visit national parks outside the "iconic" money-spinners is incredibly small - there are a vast national recsources that at present is at best ignored and even worse abused.......... they get nothing from tours of Phi-Phi etc but they have a lot to offer and with the archaic dual pricing system and management in place no progress cam be made and it is very likely a lot of these natural resources will be diminished or even destroyed.

Quote

there are a vast national recsources that at present is at best ignored and even worse abused

No, they are protecting that land, it just looks ignored because they are ignoring you, the protected area keeps growing, you talk nonsense.

9 minutes ago, wilcopops said:

this is grossly misleading, it hasn't raise "extra" money, it has raised money despite the situation. If a single fee for each facility was introduced the money raised would go much further and as a percentage of funding it is insufficient.

 

the main money is also raised by just a few parks - e.g the maritime parks in the South which have millions of visitors - the money is not shared out equitably and again management makes no good use of the money as seen by the damage sustained by these parks.

The parks have seen foreign visitor numbers increase in line with overall tourist numbers, what is misleading?  What fee would you introduce?  Would you increase the Thai fee?  Would you introduce fees at the currently free parks?  The money is shared out, the free parks don't have any income, and the good use is evident in the fact that they have protected the tiger and elephant populations to the point that they are increasing for the first time in a long time.  I can't see what you ask me to, what I see is them sacrificing small amounts of land in sites which happen to be particularly beautiful to protect massive areas of land which are particularly bio-diverse, that would be evidence to the contrary to that which you claim, that is good use of the money.

19 minutes ago, luis888 said:

Absolute bullshit, so in your theory, because you have more money than the Thais it's fine to pay more, so you should pay more for everything. You should pay double or 10 times more when you go to Big C, Tesco,  the cinema, put fuel in your vehicle,  etc. Wake up and smell the roses, oh, sorry, you can't,  because the smell of the bullshit you just spoke is so strong you can't smell anything. Wake up people, dual pricing is wrong. Full stop. 

But what would you replace it with?  Would you increase the Thai fee just to make you feel better but in doing so also price out the poorest local people?  Or would you reduce the foreigner fee and lose the billions of baht it has been raising, protecting an additional 4.5 million rai last year alone?

15 minutes ago, jackdd said:

Source?

When i visit a national park many times i don't see any other foreigner, and never more than a handful, but i see hundreds of Thais. At Phuket the ratio might be different, but for sure not 1/3 foreigners when counting all over Thailand.

In this article from 5 years ago they said the number of foreigners has declined https://www.thephuketnews.com/tax-paying-foreigners-not-entitled-to-local-price-at-national-parks-50333.php#OFAYZJxaGFBvJpCo.97

Quote

During the same period, the country saw the number of visitors at iconic national parks soaring, from 11 million in 2013 to 18.7 million last year, with foreign tourists accounting for almost one-third, around six million visits.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/big_read/30359219

14 minutes ago, jackdd said:

When looking at the majority of national parks probably less than 1% of visitors are foreigners. If they increased the price for a ticket by 5 THB and charged everybody the same price they would get way more money than by charging foreigners 10 times the Thai price. Having to pay 20 THB more for a family trip would not stop any Thai from visiting a national park.

At the fee paying parks 2/3 are Thai and 1/3 foreigner, currently it brings in 3 billion from foreigners and 600 million from Thais.  If they increased the Thai price by 5 baht and reduced the foreigner price to the same they would bring in 330 million from foreigners and 660 million from Thais, that's over 2.5 billion baht loss.

32 minutes ago, wilcopops said:

Which has been demonstrated to be utterly ineffective way of funding a park.

Many countries national heritage attractions museums parks etc are FREE to nationals and foreigners alike as the benefits are seen to come with the numbers of visitors extra spending not by charging them. The contribution that entrance fees make to most national parks is minimal.

There are over 100 free national parks in Thailand, to visit and camp, they get visited mainly by local people and there is rarely something for sale because the visitors are sporadic and that is because they often just have one place of interest such as a waterfall within a substantial area, and sometimes nothing or much interest, but they are an essential part of the migration corridor none the less.  There is little scope for development in these places and they don't want it anyway, they just want an easily and cheaply protected forest, which means little to no access. 

Then there are the parks which charge, about 20 of them, about half of which are mainly visited by foreigners, they have more attractions and they do have things for sale and raise funds that way as well, they have bungalow and tent rental, guides, safaris, all sorts to help raise the funds to pay for the free parks and to keep all parks cheap for all Thai people.  Charging foreigners more has not seen foreigner visitor numbers decrease, tourist visitors at the most expensive parks has doubled in the past 10 years and bring in 3 billion baht in tickets while at the same parks Thai's bring in about 600 million in tickets.  They both probably spend similar amounts once inside and by giving Thai's a 90% discount it allows local poor people to appreciate their own park while also getting some good funding in off all foreign visitors even when they bring everything with them from Big-C.

Some of these most popular parks are already limiting capacity to protect them, as although iconic, many of these parks are not very big, they cannot simply further exploit those ones, and as previously mentioned, many of the free parks are not suitable for tourist development of any kind, so what is your suggestion?

10 minutes ago, wilcopops said:

You are completely misinformed...in fact you appear to be making it up by yourself.

You obviously have completely misunderstood what WWF  have said...they are talking about the resources themselves not the management thereof.

I have made it quite clear about how management is outdated too.

As far as I can see you are simply gainsaying with no real point to make

So tell us, just how is that the resources increased to praiseworthy levels without management being worthy of that praise?

5 minutes ago, Despondent Foreigner said:

Just for the record some organizations also drug tigers and beat elephants with pickaxes.

 

Don't even get me started on the monkeys and crocodiles. 

What sort of avant-guard record keeping is this?

6 minutes ago, wilcopops said:

I mentioned this earlier. It has been shown that Thais would pay more to enter National Parks. About twice what they pay now. There also needs to be NO BLANKET FEE, and parks should be allowed to set fees according to potential visitor attractiveness and what's on offer. A single rate for Thais and foreigners would make the parks more attractive to foreigners too thus increasing numbers and once inside, income

As also pointed out, different rates around the world are in general not SURCHARGES but DISCOUNTS for selected groups to improve access, increase numbers or recognise repeated visits.

I have no doubt that the parks could raise more funds through charging Thai people more, the majority of visitors are affluent, however it would exclude some poorer Thai's.

I don't know what blanket fee you are talking about, there isn't one.  They all charge differen't amounts and 90% of them are free.

The lower rate for Thai's is a discount for locals exactly the same as a state resident discount in the US, you support that right?

The dual pricing only makes it unattractive to a very small minority of foreigners, having a single price would make no noticeable difference, the vast majority of visitors are Thai.

9 minutes ago, wilcopops said:

The principal is that Thais should pay as little as possible to enjoy their own national heritage.

ALL other nationalities have to pay...there may be exceptions for ASEAN, I don't know.

 

THE PROBLEM with this is that it is illogical and out of step with many other countries who these days charge the same basic rate for nationals and visitors a like.

The norm is for countries to give DISCOUNTS to certain deserving groups. E.g. hose living locally, senior citizens, students, minors etc etc.

Funding for Thailand's national parks is a mess.  Though the number of National Parks has been increasing the funding simply has not kept up. Staff are paid a pittance and eco-development is virtually zero. The entrance fees are alloted as collected to each park and consequently in most cases make a miserable contribution to running and maintaining a place.

Anyone whose has ever run an attraction like a park museum etc will know that the entrance fees are not the way to raise money. If they are too high, people turn away ...... if they are low or even FREE then people will come.....foreign tourists included. Once you have "bums on seats" THEN you create a value-added experience .... food tours camping souvenirs all can generate income and managed properly to protect the environment help to create a better experience and park for all.

 

Apart from a couple of marine parks and possibly Khao Yai, relatively few foreigners visit Thailand's National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries ... these places are potentially some of the best pristine or near pristine forests left in S.E.Asia.

They need conserving and poor management and lack of government funding combine to keep Thailand's national resources constantly under threat.

Thailand's national parks are doing better than any in S.E.Asia, the reason they have gone the route of linking up the migration corridor and keeping human access very limited, rather than the route of many other countries of large scale eco-tourism development, is that they are protecting the habitat of tigers and elephants, neither of which coincide well with humans anyway, and which require massive areas, loggers will access wherever their is infrastructure that permits them, its fundamentally important in Thailand to prevent access to allow the forests time to recover.  And they are protecting them reasonably well these days.  In the late 90's, before they started adjusting park fees, poaching and logging were set to see complete deforestation and large scale extinctions imminently, now the forests are growing again and Thailand has the only growing tiger population in the region.

5 minutes ago, Despondent Foreigner said:

Can you grasp a one price for all idea?

 

No foreigner price, no thai price. 

 

Just one universal human price.

No one is failing to understand what you are suggesting, I just seek clarification, would you like to see Thai's pay more for their tickets of foreigners pay less, or perhaps us to meet in the middle?

6 minutes ago, Despondent Foreigner said:

The setting of price is up to the government or whatever body sets the prices, not me. If its 20 baht for all, OK. If it's 200 baht for all then so be it. Point is, one price for all people. Thai, British, American, Danish, Syrian, Tongan. Everyone should pay the same.

You want the prices adjusted, tell me which way you think would be best for Thailand, to up the Thai price or to lower the foreigner price.

7 hours ago, wilcopops said:

It's important to understand that this isn't a race thing, it is a result of blinkered and parochial pouches adopted by uneducated Thai officials who don't understand how to promote Thailand's natural resources.

The whole situation with National parks, waterfalls etc s that they are terribly managed and poorly funded, the practice of 2-tier charging is the kind of nape-of-the-neck thinking that people have in an effort to raise money....the truth is it does NOTHING to help park finances and only stirs up bad feeling in visitors.

 

A report (Japanese, I recall) about 10/15 years ago pointed out that apart from a few maritime parks the dual charging system does nothing to improve income to the parks and also pointed out the Thai visitors to most NPs were capable and prepared to pay a little more and having a single rate fee, this  would increase the numbers of foreigners visiting waterfalls and National Parks and improve finances.

 

Unfortunately the policies of the DNP are old, outdated and not in keeping with modern international methodologies for the management of Parks and other natural resources,

 

(race has nothing to do with it - that is the territory of racists, who are always the first to cy "racism!" themselves)>

What DNP policies are old, outdated and not in keeping with modern international methodologies for the management of Parks and other natural resources?  Please inform us as the likes of WWF keep telling us that Thailand is leading S.E.Asia and is the model to follow.

To be honest, I have only asked you for a laugh, you also claimed that upping the prices did nothing for park finances, and of course you only have to look at the raise in park budget since the 1998 fee increases to see you're talking out your backside.

2 minutes ago, Despondent Foreigner said:

They can start by charging everyone, regardless of nationality, the same price to enter.

 

That would be a great start in my book.

So which do you want, the prices to be upped for all and some Thai's be priced out, or the prices to be lowered for all and the parks get less funding?