National Park Experience

[SoiBiker]

I like how 400-500 baht is now being calculated as a "few pennies" and "a dollar or two".

WOW...the exchange rate sure went to hell when I wasn't looking.

The OP mentions a price difference of 80 baht.

Read through the 10 pages of this thread, and you will find several references to National Park fees of 400-500 baht for non Thais.

Well then - they're probably not what people are referring to when they say 'a dollar or two', are they?

Exchange rates. They're not rocket surgery.

[kjhbigv]

Had the same experience yesterday at the waterfalls in Mae Rim, was taking a friend on holiday here there, showed driving licence and the attendant wasn't having any of it (never happened before).....reversed the truck and left!

To me it's not the money, it is the principle, I have a wife and kid here and I am treated like a 2nd class citizen....I think giving me Thai prices to a National Park is the least they can do after the amount of cash I have invested and spent here over the years!

When my wife and kid went to the UK they paid the same as me! What's the difference?

Edited October 29, 2015 by kjhbigv

[buji]

Late reply, I know but had to comment on the OP...cheap piece of existence as he is to complain about paying what! 1-2 dollars to enter a national park! Christ! Go home!

[Robert24]

Had the same experience yesterday at the waterfalls in Mae Rim, was taking a friend on holiday here there, showed driving licence and the attendant wasn't having any of it (never happened before).....reversed the truck and left!

To me it's not the money, it is the principle, I have a wife and kid here and I am treated like a 2nd class citizen....I think giving me Thai prices to a National Park is the least they can do after the amount of cash I have invested and spent here over the years!

When my wife and kid went to the UK they paid the same as me! What's the difference?

right decision. Although not sure if it will change anything...certainly not by comparing it to the UK.

I think the only thing that will make them change pricing is if revenues from entry fees are down as a result of the price hike for foreigners. My guess is though that National park revenues will be up considerably.

[buji]

Wasn't right decision. No one should be allowed to place their own countries' values over one they visit! Really tiring how one measures their country to another without respecting the values of the country their visiting. Any attitude against says, "you the opposer, are the Bigot"

[Fairynuff]

Had the same experience yesterday at the waterfalls in Mae Rim, was taking a friend on holiday here there, showed driving licence and the attendant wasn't having any of it (never happened before).....reversed the truck and left!

To me it's not the money, it is the principle, I have a wife and kid here and I am treated like a 2nd class citizen....I think giving me Thai prices to a National Park is the least they can do after the amount of cash I have invested and spent here over the years!

When my wife and kid went to the UK they paid the same as me! What's the difference?

There isn't a difference, well done and stick to your principles

[Fairynuff]

Wasn't right decision. No one should be allowed to place their own countries' values over one they visit! Really tiring how one measures their country to another without respecting the values of the country their visiting. Any attitude against says, "you the opposer, are the Bigot"

Utter nonsense

[Ricardo]

I don't think I've ever heard quite so much rubbish in one post before. It's a human rights issue? Sure, you're so concerned about that - yet, you're living in a country where the Rohingya, for example, are treated more than abysmally. Entry fees to parks are not in the same league. Why embarass yourself? You're cheap. That's it. That's OK too. If you don't find value in the price on the door - you're free not to go. But to try and pretend this a high moral issue? That's really sad.

First "pathetic skinflint" and now "You're cheap" & "sad", you know TV used to have rules about flaming other members, and it is possible to disagree without being insulting like that.

Luckily there's the Ignore-button.

[SoiBiker]

The difference in the UK is that you can't use nationality in the same way to separate two groups who generally have very different abilities to pay - and therefore assume a basis to apply a differential pricing policy.

But few here seem interested in understanding why this happens. They're too busy assuming that Thai people are stupid and greedy - and then, ironically, concluding that it's the Thais who are the racists here.

[MartinL]

Aren't you being a bit presumptuous in telling kjhbigv why HIS friend came to Thailand? What makes you think he came for the culture?

Maybe the ONLY reason the friend came was to see kjhbigv and the fact he lives in Thailand was just incidental - the friend would have gone to visit kjhbigv whichever country he lived in. Perhaps kjhbigv had discussed NP entry fees with his mate before trying to visit and they'd agreed the strategy. Only kjhbigv and his mate can answer those points, not me or anybody else.

My family & friends come to Thailand to see ME, occasionally. When planning a visit, they say "We want to come and see you" not "We're coming to Thailand & would like to drop in sometime during the visit". They'd never come here if I didn't live here - getting some of them to come for the first time was sometimes difficult. For various reasons, Thailand holds no interest for them - if it did, they'd come to the country whether or not I lived here. They're all old enough to have had many opportunities to visit but, until I came here, never had the desire to do so.

I'd imagine something similar could be said by most foreigners living here who have friends from 'home' to visit them occasionally.

[seedy]

Posts Hidden - Posts Edited - at posters request

[MartinL]

Aren't you being a bit presumptuous in telling kjhbigv why HIS friend came to Thailand? What makes you think he came for the culture?

Maybe the ONLY reason the friend came was to see kjhbigv and the fact he lives in Thailand was just incidental - the friend would have gone to visit kjhbigv whichever country he lived in. Perhaps kjhbigv had discussed NP entry fees with his mate before trying to visit and they'd agreed the strategy. Only kjhbigv and his mate can answer those points, not me or anybody else.

My family & friends come to Thailand to see ME, occasionally. When planning a visit, they say "We want to come and see you" not "We're coming to Thailand & would like to drop in sometime during the visit". They'd never come here if I didn't live here - getting some of them to come for the first time was sometimes difficult. For various reasons, Thailand holds no interest for them - if it did, they'd come to the country whether or not I lived here. They're all old enough to have had many opportunities to visit but, until I came here, never had the desire to do so.

I'd imagine something similar could be said by most foreigners living here who have friends from 'home' to visit them occasionally.

This was in reply to a post from FolkGuitar - deleted at his request, it seems - in which FG told kjhbigv (his Post 242) why his friend had come to Thailand. FG's post said something like " ... because you don't like Thai culture (for which HE came) ...".

Without that bit, my post - clearly a response to somebody - loses context.

[FolkGuitar]

You're absolutely right. Very presumptuous. After all, who in their right mind would travel thousands of miles to see and learn about a new culture...

Sometimes my imagination just gets waaay out of hand. My apologies.

[curtklay]

I like how 400-500 baht is now being calculated as a "few pennies" and "a dollar or two".

WOW...the exchange rate sure went to hell when I wasn't looking.

The OP mentions a price difference of 80 baht.

Read through the 10 pages of this thread, and you will find several references to National Park fees of 400-500 baht for non Thais.

Well then - they're probably not what people are referring to when they say 'a dollar or two', are they?

Exchange rates. They're not rocket surgery.

Well then-what are they referring to? The topic is National Park dual pricing.

OK, I'll explain it; they are exaggerating about the price difference, and I'm being sarcastic about the exchange rate.

And what the heck is "rocket surgery"?

[SoiBiker]

They're referring to the OP.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Let me comment on some of the left-over scraps:

in samet 3 year ago i pay 20 b thai price because i just speak thai and my family pay falang price

In Samet 3 weeks ago I paid nothing, because the taxi had very good window film.

No Charge to visit the little railway station and the tunnel.

[Khun Tan Train Station pic]

Right, but Thais ride completely free on the (ordinary) trains! Foreigners pay like 27 Baht or whatever.

But anyway, I'm not really approaching this from some morality or human rights type of angle. I do think it's petty and ultimately sad on the part of Thailand. As I love Thailand, I think it's unfortunate, and reinforces the perception that Thailand is poor and third-world-like, instead of proud, generous and welcoming. This is further worsened by implementing it like a scared little bitch, with signs using Thai numbers specifically for this purpose.

It sends a message that Thailand aspires to the level of Somchai-the-tuk-tuk-driver: "You Farang, you pay more", or Noy-the-bar-wench, getting a couple baht kickback wherever she takes her white buffalo. Really, Thailand?

Also there are countless ways to encourage people to spend money, and lots of money too. Inevitably some services will be a lot more popular with tourists (including wealthy Thai tourists), and they will pay a lot of money for it. The current practice actually discourages tourist visits: many tour / trek operators have shifted to avoid national park visits (or specifically avoid those national park areas where entry fees are charged). This can't really be a goal for a country where tourism is important, wanting to showcase the best it has to offer.

What they're doing now is really dumb from a business perspective. Dumb, closed-minded government at its worst, perpetually shooting at their own feet.

Edited October 30, 2015 by WinnieTheKhwai

[arunsakda]

The fact remains 10x Thai entrance tariff for Foreigners has been promulgated as the official policy programme of the DNP (Department of National Parks).

Arguing with entrance staff for special treatment based on past practices (and practical reality) is pointless. I am sure that most Thai decision makers at the higher levels are well aware of the policies of other nations and also the keen objection those raised in Western democracies feel towards any perceived structural bias based on race or nationality.

Perhaps those officials will reconsider their decision at a later time. It may be good for all of us to reconsider or own positions, perhaps our ingrained biases and our own individual degrees of flexibility we posses for living abroad.

Personally I think it is about the money. If data shows later that revenue is positive, they'll probably raise the tariff for Foreigners again.

I was living in California when budget considerations hit the State Parks hard. (Using almost daily for beach, hiking and biking). The solution? Basically shocking increases in parking fees. Liberal politicians tend to argue that parks are the birthright of the people. Right-wingers say all you get for free is a massive law enforcement establishment, and that Parks are extras that should be largely self funded by user fees. Otherwise they are happy to close them or enact privatisation policies (i.e., sell off to land developers).

I started buying 6 month and yearly passes that made it quite economical. Of course visitors would be stuck paying daily rates. Perhaps a similar solution could be adopted here?

Edited October 30, 2015 by arunsakda

[TheSiemReaper]

I don't think I've ever heard quite so much rubbish in one post before. It's a human rights issue? Sure, you're so concerned about that - yet, you're living in a country where the Rohingya, for example, are treated more than abysmally. Entry fees to parks are not in the same league. Why embarass yourself? You're cheap. That's it. That's OK too. If you don't find value in the price on the door - you're free not to go. But to try and pretend this a high moral issue? That's really sad.

First "pathetic skinflint" and now "You're cheap" & "sad", you know TV used to have rules about flaming other members, and it is possible to disagree without being insulting like that.

Luckily there's the Ignore-button.

They do say that the truth hurts. Those aren't insults, unless you percieve them to be. Cheap is cheap. Bleating about $2-$10 on an internet forum? That's the definition of cheap. As for sad, it really is sad, when you take a serious issue like human rights and pretend it applies to your own minor fiscal problems. It's not just sad, it's shameful.

[SoiBiker]

What they're doing now is really dumb from a business perspective.

Not at all. It's actually quite smart if you understand how these things work.

Different customers have different abilities to pay. Ideally, in order to maximise profit, a business would tailor its prices individually according to each customer's financial means - so those with less money are not deterred, but those with more money pay what they can afford. However, in the real world, it's simply not feasible to means test each customer in most situations.

But, where an easily applicable criteria exists that can be used to identify groups of customers who broadly share a financial status, it's simply sound business sense to use it to set different price points. Hence things like student discounts, pensioner discounts etc.

Here in Thailand, it's broadly the case that non-Thai visitors are better off than the locals - therefore it makes sense to use this fact to set different price levels and extract maximum profits.

You might find this a little callous (welcome to capitalism), but it's certainly not dumb from a business sense.

[Awk]

What they're doing now is really dumb from a business perspective.

Not at all. It's actually quite smart if you understand how these things work.

Different customers have different abilities to pay. Ideally, in order to maximise profit, a business would tailor its prices individually according to each customer's financial means - so those with less money are not deterred, but those with more money pay what they can afford. However, in the real world, it's simply not feasible to means test each customer in most situations.

But, where an easily applicable criteria exists that can be used to identify groups of customers who broadly share a financial status, it's simply sound business sense to use it to set different price points. Hence things like student discounts, pensioner discounts etc.

Here in Thailand, it's broadly the case that non-Thai visitors are better off than the locals - therefore it makes sense to use this fact to set different price levels and extract maximum profits.

You might find this a little callous (welcome to capitalism), but it's certainly not dumb from a business sense.

What you are describing is communism, not capitalism. You are able to pay 500B for entrance, you pay 500B. You are only able to pay 50B for the same entrance? Ok, you pay only 50B. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Capitalism? Too funny.

And you want to lecture on how things work? Hilarious.

[Chiengmaijoe]

What they're doing now is really dumb from a business perspective.

Not at all. It's actually quite smart if you understand how these things work.

Different customers have different abilities to pay. Ideally, in order to maximise profit, a business would tailor its prices individually according to each customer's financial means - so those with less money are not deterred, but those with more money pay what they can afford. However, in the real world, it's simply not feasible to means test each customer in most situations.

But, where an easily applicable criteria exists that can be used to identify groups of customers who broadly share a financial status, it's simply sound business sense to use it to set different price points. Hence things like student discounts, pensioner discounts etc.

Here in Thailand, it's broadly the case that non-Thai visitors are better off than the locals - therefore it makes sense to use this fact to set different price levels and extract maximum profits.

You might find this a little callous (welcome to capitalism), but it's certainly not dumb from a business sense.

The main point about this topic is that expats that live here are no longer able to get the Thai rate. Some of the National Parks mentioned here hardly ever see a tourist (Kun Tan, Jae Son), so losing the expats does not increase revenue unless plenty of expats still go and pay the higher rate. You would also have to take into account that expats are likely to take visitors to these parks that they otherwise would never know about.

Out of curiosity I have contacted TAT in Chiang Mai (I drive past it every day, so no great inconvenience) and Chiang Mai provincial tourist office near Governors house as well as National Parks office near Regina School on Charoen Prathet rd, which are both very close to work. The boss at TAT was busy, so I made an appointment for Tuesday and the folks at National Parks office said they will try to get an answer for me as to why the policy changed. I also called Ministry of Tourism and sports and they said they will call me back. I'm not holding my breath, but you never know, someone might provide an honest explanation as to the reasoning behind the change. After all, that is what the topic is about - resident expats no longer being able to get into local parks at regular rates.

[GarryP]

What they're doing now is really dumb from a business perspective.

Not at all. It's actually quite smart if you understand how these things work.

Different customers have different abilities to pay. Ideally, in order to maximise profit, a business would tailor its prices individually according to each customer's financial means - so those with less money are not deterred, but those with more money pay what they can afford. However, in the real world, it's simply not feasible to means test each customer in most situations.

But, where an easily applicable criteria exists that can be used to identify groups of customers who broadly share a financial status, it's simply sound business sense to use it to set different price points. Hence things like student discounts, pensioner discounts etc.

Here in Thailand, it's broadly the case that non-Thai visitors are better off than the locals - therefore it makes sense to use this fact to set different price levels and extract maximum profits.

You might find this a little callous (welcome to capitalism), but it's certainly not dumb from a business sense.

Can't fault your reasoning but can't say I agree with two tier pricing. It's nice to have a reasoned response. Everyone else seems to be ready for dueling pistols at dawn.

[nontabury]

Late reply, I know but had to comment on the OP...cheap piece of existence as he is to complain about paying what! 1-2 dollars to enter a national park! Christ! Go home!

Another one whose been here 5 minutes!

[nontabury]

What they're doing now is really dumb from a business perspective.

Not at all. It's actually quite smart if you understand how these things work.

Different customers have different abilities to pay. Ideally, in order to maximise profit, a business would tailor its prices individually according to each customer's financial means - so those with less money are not deterred, but those with more money pay what they can afford. However, in the real world, it's simply not feasible to means test each customer in most situations.

But, where an easily applicable criteria exists that can be used to identify groups of customers who broadly share a financial status, it's simply sound business sense to use it to set different price points. Hence things like student discounts, pensioner discounts etc.

Here in Thailand, it's broadly the case that non-Thai visitors are better off than the locals - therefore it makes sense to use this fact to set different price levels and extract maximum profits.

You might find this a little callous (welcome to capitalism), but it's certainly not dumb from a business sense.

They could always decide on the tourist ability to pay, by the car they drive in. Same logic.

[curtklay]

And I'm very sure you'll find more Thais driving the Mercedes' and BMWs than non Thais.

So if you want to "judge" people by their ability to pay, the whole 2 tier system based on nationality goes down the toilet, where it should be.

[Beng]

What they're doing now is really dumb from a business perspective.

Not at all. It's actually quite smart if you understand how these things work.

Different customers have different abilities to pay. Ideally, in order to maximise profit, a business would tailor its prices individually according to each customer's financial means - so those with less money are not deterred, but those with more money pay what they can afford. However, in the real world, it's simply not feasible to means test each customer in most situations.

But, where an easily applicable criteria exists that can be used to identify groups of customers who broadly share a financial status, it's simply sound business sense to use it to set different price points. Hence things like student discounts, pensioner discounts etc.

Here in Thailand, it's broadly the case that non-Thai visitors are better off than the locals - therefore it makes sense to use this fact to set different price levels and extract maximum profits.

You might find this a little callous (welcome to capitalism), but it's certainly not dumb from a business sense.

The main point about this topic is that expats that live here are no longer able to get the Thai rate. Some of the National Parks mentioned here hardly ever see a tourist (Kun Tan, Jae Son), so losing the expats does not increase revenue unless plenty of expats still go and pay the higher rate. You would also have to take into account that expats are likely to take visitors to these parks that they otherwise would never know about.

Out of curiosity I have contacted TAT in Chiang Mai (I drive past it every day, so no great inconvenience) and Chiang Mai provincial tourist office near Governors house as well as National Parks office near Regina School on Charoen Prathet rd, which are both very close to work. The boss at TAT was busy, so I made an appointment for Tuesday and the folks at National Parks office said they will try to get an answer for me as to why the policy changed. I also called Ministry of Tourism and sports and they said they will call me back. I'm not holding my breath, but you never know, someone might provide an honest explanation as to the reasoning behind the change. After all, that is what the topic is about - resident expats no longer being able to get into local parks at regular rates.

Are you serious ? If so, I pull my hat and say well done. Some government officials must be aware by now. Hope there will be answers.

Thank you.

[Chiengmaijoe]

And I'm very sure you'll find more Thais driving the Mercedes' and BMWs than non Thais.

So if you want to "judge" people by their ability to pay, the whole 2 tier system based on nationality goes down the toilet, where it should be.

Who said the decision is based on ability to pay? All we know for sure is that it is based on being a Thai national or not.

The decision of allowing locals to use a facility for free or at a lower rate, whether it be here or anywhere else in the world is rarely based on their ability to pay, so why should Thailand be any different?

[Mousehound]

Two tier pricing also exists in Australia. Overseas students pay much higher fees. Visiting a doctor or hospital is way more if you don't have a medicare card. I agree that if you work in Thailand and pay taxes you should get the local rate. If like myself you have never paid Thai taxes and are never likely to I don't find it unreasonable to pay a higher rate. It should really have nothing to do with anything other than citizenship and whether you pay taxes or not.

[Chiengmaijoe]

What they're doing now is really dumb from a business perspective.

Not at all. It's actually quite smart if you understand how these things work.

Different customers have different abilities to pay. Ideally, in order to maximise profit, a business would tailor its prices individually according to each customer's financial means - so those with less money are not deterred, but those with more money pay what they can afford. However, in the real world, it's simply not feasible to means test each customer in most situations.

But, where an easily applicable criteria exists that can be used to identify groups of customers who broadly share a financial status, it's simply sound business sense to use it to set different price points. Hence things like student discounts, pensioner discounts etc.

Here in Thailand, it's broadly the case that non-Thai visitors are better off than the locals - therefore it makes sense to use this fact to set different price levels and extract maximum profits.

You might find this a little callous (welcome to capitalism), but it's certainly not dumb from a business sense.

What you are describing is communism, not capitalism. You are able to pay 500B for entrance, you pay 500B. You are only able to pay 50B for the same entrance? Ok, you pay only 50B. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Capitalism? Too funny.

And you want to lecture on how things work? Hilarious.

That quote had nothing at all to do with the pricing of goods, but rather, was concerned about the organisation of labour and the system of rewards! You get a fail on that one.

The scenario described above is a good example of capitalism, in that price is determined by supply and demand, except that in this scenario it is based on the ability to pay of each group of customers, rather than as a whole.

The Asian system of haggling is an advanced version of that, in that it is based on the ability of each individual, as opposed to a group. The seller tries to assess each buyer based on his perception of what the buyer is willing to pay, whilst the buyer assesses the seller on his perception of what he thinks he is prepared to sell it for. People forget that this system existed well before foreigners entered the equation, which means that wealthier people generally paid more than impoverished people. In some instances wealthier people paid more as a means of either distributing their wealth or showing their generosity.

This still happens today among the Thais in places that Farangs never venture, so getting the hump because someone offered their goods or services at a higher price, especially on the assumption that it is based on race is more often than not incorrect. it's a simple calculation based on what they perceive to be your price equilibrium. Capitalism at it's purest. It could be argued that governments intervening in this process by fixing prices is a form of Socialism!! But we digress................

[rickb]

How many times will this topic be brought up? I think you're arguing over peanuts. The fee to enter a NP, whether the same amount as for Thais or 5 times the amount for Thais, is almost nothing. Sure it's true that the fees for entrance to National Parks in the USA are the same for everyone (disregarding the discounts for senior citizens, local residents, or others). But we're not talking peanuts, either. The fee to enter Yellowstone NP is $30 per vehicle. The fee for Bryce Canyon NP is $25 per vehicle. That's a lot different than 100 or 200 baht. So why can't foreigners in Thailand be happy that entrance fees are much cheaper here than in other western countries. Why get so hung up on the fact that you must pay more than Thais?