Among the wonders of Natural Bridges National Monument is Sipapu Bridge/Colleen Miniuk-Sperry
National Park Service officials are proposing to more than double the entrance fee for Natural Bridges National Monument, a small, fascinating, off-the-beaten-path unit of the National Park System in southern Utah.
The current fee for a single vehicle is $6, while the proposed fee is $15. If you hike or bike into the monument, it could cost you $7 to enter, more than twice the current $3 charge. Motorcyclists would see their entrance fee more than triple, from $3 to $10, under the plan that would take effect next year if approved. Camping fees, currently $10 per night, would not change.
'Revenues from entrance and camping fees are used to improve facilities, infrastructure, and visitor services,' said Natural Bridges National Monument Superintendent Jim Dougan in a press release. 'We want to keep the park as affordable as possible while ensuring the best possible experience for visitors.'
Revenues that would be raised through the higher entrance fees would be used to pay for road signs, trail work, and unspecified infrastructure improvements, the release said.
Public comment is being taken on the proposed fee increase through January 2 via mail, at Fee Increase Proposal, HC-60 Box 1, Lake Powell, Utah, 84533, or via fax at 435-692-1111. Acceptance of on-line comments was pending.
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
So they are not accepting online comments either?
Above comment is clearly a knee-jerk reaction without bothering to find out anything about the park. Natural Bridges is "off the grid" - the park generates its own electricity, has no cell service, etc. I don't know if they even have access to the Web, but if they do, bandwidth is likely very limited and expensive. So, in this case, taking comments by mail is very reasonable.
Doesn't sound like SmokiesB has ever been to this park, so unless he has plans for a future visit, he doesn't really "have a dog in this fight," other than his general philosophical bent toward criticizing the NPS at any possible opportunity.
JThomas. All I asked is if they were accepting online comments or not. Your reaction was way over the top. I see no reason why the NPS can't accept online comments in a standardized fashion. They continually tell us that they treat each unit equally and apply NPS standards across the board. Of course, that is when it suits them.
6 USD surely was a massive bargain for this beautiful little gem. 15 USD sounds reasonable to me.
I've not yet made it Natural Bridges, but hope to do so. Among other virtues, it's renowed for some of the best night sky experiences in the country.
I cannot imagine going to Utah to visit National parks with out a Parks Pass (America the Beautiful annual Pass to all National Parks) so the point is mute.
More than "is this a terrible percentage of increase" my question would be "is $15 a reasonable fee"? It doesn't sound onerous.
Without opening a debate as to how pricing in the nps system should be established I don't think it is unreasonable to question a 300% increase.
And, wild one, I don't think a $15 admission fee is unreasonable.
It is also reasonable to question your basic math, as $15 is 250% of $6, not 300%.
Rick, don't blame wild one for math problems. I own that one; since corrected.
Kurt - I'll just blame you for the time I just spent figuring out how to work a percentage calculator.
Thanks.
And they are accepting comments via Internet
Here's the link
http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfmparkID=81&projectID=55535&docume...
Thanks for the link. I just followed it all the way through the menus to the right place, which states that there are 30 days remaining to comment. Should be enough time for anyone no matter how hard they find it to follow links.
The basic issue about entrance fees remains this: Where does the money go? Is it spent for preservation or what Edward Abbey described as Industrial Tourism? Does it go to hiring naturalists or simply fund more bureaucrats? That is what we wonder between the lines when we object to these fees. So let's take it out from between the lines and be honest for a change. We have every right to demand that the Park Service show performance for preservation. What are these so-called "unspecified infrastructure improvements?" The ghost of Edward Abbey would like to know, and so would I.
Natural Bridges would be a bargain at twice that amount.
The most wonderful thing about NBNM is its emptiness. The only other person we saw while there was the poor lady at the entrance gate. She must have been lonely - non-stop talker... It is worth $15 to have the beautiful place to yourself. It is a wonderful respite from Arches and Capitol Reef.
SmokiesBackpacker - Given the negative tone of many of your previous comments on this site, your earlier post on this story came across to me as a sarcastic comment rather than an honest question. If I misinterpreted your intentions, I apologize.
Interesting since there is no entrance gate at Natural Bridges. Traffic is routed through the Visitor Center parking lot, and you're supposed to park and go inside and pay your fee there. Past that point you're on the honor system, subject I suppose to spot checks by Law Enforcement. Being very familiar with that unit, I would have to say that Natural Bridges is a drive-through park, expendible on most peoples' itineraries. There are lots of beautiful places in the vicinity that you can drive through without any fee. My guess is that once this is implemented, there will be a lot more u-turns at the boundary sign. Too bad. It's an interesting place, well worth preserving, but doesn't rise to the Canyonlands/Arches/Bryce/Zion/Grand Canyon/Lake Powell level. The NPS's across-the-board fee increases are going to have the effect of sacrificing small but wonderful places like Natural Bridges in order to maximize revenue from the cash cows like Grand Canyon.
entrance gate, visitor center... I stopped and paid. And talked with the only other person I saw the entire time there. We drove the loop (and saw no one). We hiked (and saw no one). I greatly enjoyed it and have planned a return trip.
I suspect many people passing through the park are on the "Grand Loop" and are checking off another box on their list. And I suspect most, as such, have a national parks pass.
I'm not sure how less visitation is a sacrifice. Less people means less wear and tear. About 100,000 people per year visit and, since it isn't really close to anything or on the way to anywhere, I'm pretty sure the visits are intentional (i.e. - one is less likely to turn around and leave after driving all the way there). But what if they aren't? What if visitation drops by 20% by 50%? What changes? Nothing, most likely. The lady all alone at the visitor center will still be alone. The bridges will continue to defy gravity, at least for a time until they don't. The federal government will continue to protect it for future generations.
I'm sure visitation would increase somewhat with a National Park designation. But what would the area gain with visitation?
Agreed. Which pass was most likely purchased elsewhere. Since all pass revenue stays at the unit where purchased, Natural Bridges or any other unit sees zero revenue from 99% of them. With more and more park-specific annual passes going up into the $60 range, there is inevitably going to be upward pressure on the current $80 national pass fee. What's your pain threshold? $90? $100? $150? $200? Get ready, because that's coming. Bottom line: it's just another tax.
I would pay $200 for a yearly access pass. It would still be a bargain.
Actually, not all the money collected in a park necessarily remains in that park. Larger parks or parks with more income keep only about 75% and must share the remainder with smaller, less affluent park areas.