It very likely will be a bit more costly to enter Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Acadia, Shenandoah and the other 126 units that charge entrance fees by the time the National Park Service's centennial arrives in 2016, and you also should brace for slightly higher fees to camp, shower, paddle, and participate in boat and cave tours.
Park Service Director Jon Jarvis last month notified his superintendents (see attachment) that they could increase their park's fees "after they have actively engaged the public and stakeholders about proposed changes and impacts."
Accompanying that notification, which was not announced publicly, was an entrance fee schedule that placed the 131 units that now charge entrance fees into four groups. Under those guidelines, for example, Yellowstone, which now costs $25 for a week's entry by vehicle, would be allowed to charge $30 after going through public engagement activities, which could entail "soliciting opinions through local media or online media such as Facebook, Twitter, etc."
The four groupings are intended to reflect the size and expense of running a park. So parks such as Yellowstone in Wyoming, Grand Canyon in Arizona, Glacier in Montana, and Yosemite in California would be in Group 4, while parks such as Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area in Wyoming, Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park in Maryland, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, and Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve in Idaho would be in Group 1.
Under Director Jarvis' schedule, "if supported by civic engagement," by 2017 all Group 4 parks would charge $30 per week for vehicle entry, $15 for someone on foot, and $25 for a motorcycle; all Group 3 parks would set their entrance fees at $25, $12 and $20; all Group 2 parks would move to $20, $10, and $15, and; all Group 1 parks would move to $15, $7 and $10.
Also increasing would be the cost of an individual park's (or parks') annual pass, and the director left open the possibility that parks could increase fees for camping, RV dump stations, and tour fees, just to mention some of the fees now in place across the National Park System.
The Park Service is promoting these proposed increases as a way to provide needed dollars "to invest in the improvements necessary to provide the best possible park experience to our visitors."
"Additional funds will enable us to enhance visitor facilities and services as we approach our centennial anniversary in 2016," Director Jarvis wrote in his letter to regional directors. "Each park should identify how the additional revenue will be used to improve the park experience. Sharing this information will be an important part of each park's civic engagement plan."
Park managers authorized to seek fee increases were instructred to begin the engagement process this fall.
"Each park's implementation timeline may vary, depending on the public feedback received," wrote Director Jarvis. "If there is significant public controversy, a park may choose not to implement new fees, may phase in the new rates over three years, or delay the new rates until 2016 or 2017."
(Back in 2007, then-Park Service Director Mary Bomar relented on a proposal to increase Yosemite's entrance fee from $20 to $25 after local communities complained in a letter-writing campaign that high gas fees and declining visitation were already hurting park visitation and a higher entrance fee would not be prudent at the time.)
Also likely to be increasing next year are the costs of using Recreation.gov to reserve a campsite or cabin in the parks, or to participate in some tours.
"All parks on Recreation.gov will be subject to slight increases in overhead costs so it is advisable for parks to examine rates for 2015," wrote Director Jarvis.
Higher fees to enjoy the parks seldom are welcomed. The Park Service notes that entrance fees across the system have not changed since 2008, and that "the majority of fees have not increased since 2006, and there continues to be a growing need for funds to improve facilities, infrastructure and visitor services in parks."
Congress also has been reluctant to increase discretionary spending.
There was no mention in the director's directive concerning the price of the America the Beautiful National Parks and Federal Lands Pass, which has been $80 for a number of years. That pass allows the holder unlimited entry to all national parks and other federal lands that charge entrance fees. As such, it could become even more of a bargain if its price tag does not increase while the parks move towards the new entrance fee schedule.
How the proposed increases are received, both by the public and in Congress, remains to be seen. There has been an effort in the House to rewrite the fee authority legislation that governs fees collected by the Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and other federal land managers. That legislation, as drafted, would require the price of the America the Beautiful passes to be recalculated every three years "to reflect the change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers over the same period..."
That legislation, if enacted, also would restrict sales of the passes to U.S. citizens and permanent residents, a move that likely would prove unpopular with international travelers who come to the United States to see a number of national parks on one visit. Kitty Benzar, president of the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition that long has fought fee creep on public lands, said that restriction could require one to provide proof of U.S. citizenship or permanent residency to purchase an America the Beautiful pass.
"Besides being unfriendly to foreign visitors, it opens the door to all kinds of racial and ethnic profiling abuse," she said Wednesday in an email to the Traveler. "Would the groups that are opposing ID requirements to vote be OK with having to show ID to purchase an ATB pass? I don't think so. Would entrance station staff have to see proof of citizenship/residency along with each pass presented?
"My Canadian friends are livid about this, pointing out that although their annual Parks Canada passes are more expensive than ours, they are available equally to all, both Canadians and foreign visitors. Because they WANT to encourage foreign tourism. Don't we?," she added. "Overall, I think that making the parks less affordable, both to Americans and others, is a pretty shabby way to celebrate the NPS Centennial."
Comments
Let's see . . . How much does a day in Dizzyworld cost?
As for taxes, a new Megaplex theater is under construction nearby. The city is building a new road to serve it. The city has laid water and sewer lines to serve it. And the city has given them a two-year "tax holiday."
Should I be able to go to movies for free now?
Then there are the football and baseball stadiums all around the country that were built on similar deals to keep their wealthy owners happy and prevent them from taking their teams and leaving town.
Free football or baseball or basketball tickets anyone?
My heartburn on this issue is a result of the astounding amount of government waste and how it impacts the allocation of funds for the NPS. After you read this, go to your choice of search engine and look up "government waste". How is it possible that funds cannot be directed to what I consider the greatest of gifts? If after you read this and you are unable to make the connection, I can't say anymore to convince you otherwise.
Yeah, i've seen the ghetto trail shelters with their privies and mile after mile of absolutely horrid muddy swamps from horseback riders too. Which i might add is far worse than any trail conditions i've ever encountered in a national forest as of now. And i don't think we need to even talk about trees being cut after that one certain article that was on here.
So using your own two feet to travel, using no amenities is grounds for a fee? Okay, sure, if you drive a road in a park or use facilities that cost money to maintain. But even then if and only if they have stretched their dollars to the bare minimum first, which often isn't the case.
You guys obviously don't understand the difference between a national park and a national forest. To you it's all the same and you think the rules and regulations should be the same that you find in the lesser managed places that let you do what you want. And seriously horse use and the rules legislating them are a lot less strict in the National Forest areas... Are you guys really just trying to mess with people? Sometimes I wonder, if all the misinformation and garbage spewed on this site 24/7 is just one big joke to you. Because it's evident many of you have little understanding about why National parks are held at higher levels of resource protection, and seem to want others to just buy into rampant conspiracy theories that you can find on any teaparty.com site. One would expect that the readership here would have a better comprehension of land management, and understand the differences between the various organizations that manage public lands, but I assumed too much, and that's definitely my fault.
And once again, to these Tennessee residents, that can only whine about how bad it is in the smokies - seriously, it's getting old. Your fiddle has worn out. I realize most of you have never been anywhere else in the national park system, so you aren't used to having to pay for anything. Your extent of the NPS world is perhaps big south fork, and cumberland gap, where everything is also free, so you just beat the same old drum, and this site is constantly stuck in the same old whiney rhythms day-in-and-day-out, because a few of you refuse to learn something about other areas, or try to comprehend the importance of the public lands that you actually have in your back yard. You think this public land is just supposed to sit there and be free, and youre wrong - it comes with a cost to manage public lands, and if you think public lands don't need managed, then you are very delusional. I think Megaera's comment were right on. But, Megaera the problem with that is some of these boys don't want to be contributors and they EXPECT others to pay and hand everything to them. It's an entitlement mentality that dates back a little more than a hundred some years, and it's just how they were raised..
In the early days of the National Parks only the wealthy few could afford the time and effort required to visit them. So they were enclaves of the elite. After WWII and through the Mission 66 years they became accessible to people of more limited means. With the new and increased fees that emerged under Fee Demo that pendulum began to swing back.
These new increases, and the "pay to play" philosophy that underlies them, bring us full circle. Once again the Parks are becoming enclaves for the elite few who can afford $200 a night for a cabin on the north rim of Grand Canyon, or $600+ for the Bracebridge Dinner at the Ahwahnee in Yosemite.
More than most people I fully understand the difference between National Parks and National Forests.
The Parks are where the fee stations are.
For a bunch of supposed backpackers, you can visit one of these preserved natural gems in the West for well under 50.00, if you choose. Yellowstone cost 25.00 to get in, and 25.00 for a backcountry permit. Yosemite cost 25.00 to get in, then a 5.00 permit registration fee, and 5.00 per night per person to visit the backcountry, although depending on your route permits are limited, but you'll always be able to do something there because not all zones get filled. Grand Canon cost 10.00 for a permit registration, then 5.00 per night. Then there are other parks where the fee is 10.00 to get in, and backcountry camping is free, but you still need a permit. By comparison, the Smokies doesn't even have a registration fee, and is just 4.00 per night, and in my opinion it's a Group 1 park, like the other three mentioned. If you can't afford 50.00 to spend a week in a place, then your biggest concern shouldn't be hiking.. As for staying in hotels. Yes, there is very limited lodging availability in our parks, so your best and cheaper options are staying outside of the park, or getting a tent.. Inside the park, it can be 10 to 25.00 to get a campsite. Even if you spent 5 days in Yellowstone at one of the more developed campgrounds, that's just 125.00 to spend the week there. That's at least 2 nights in a cheap 1 star roach motel, or one night in one with at least a 4 star rating. Yes, such elitism at play...
I'm happy to have all taxpayers pay towards the basic protection of a park area - law enforcement, resource management, poaching prevention, etc. However, visitation isn't "free" regardless of whether a user fee is charged or not. Visitor centers, tour roads, trail maintenance, and ranger programs all cost money - and the more people who visit, the more these things cost. It only makes sense to make the people who are actually visiting contribute to covering the additional costs of their visit.
Then why are the people who are using the visitor centers and their bathrooms not having to put a dollar in the slot to get the doors to open? I'll tell you why. Because it would create outrage and the NPS knows better than to set up such an obviously ridiculous symbol that would be the butt of editorial cartoons all over. So they just nickel and dime the backcountry folks. So ironic to hear Wilson talk about backcountry camping. I've seen no evidence he's ever spent a single night in the Smokies backcountry. But thanks for educating us, Gary.
And the name calling is outrageous. One thing is for sure. Every time he shows up on a thread the ad hominum attacks begin and the thread gets shut down. Last time I checked, this article was about fee increases and he turns it into personal attacks of individuals and groups yet again.