"For the benefit and enjoyment of the people," all people, not just those who can afford nibbling price increases/NPS

More, and higher, entrance fees to national parks have been in the news lately, and neither is a good idea, frankly.

Most recently, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke told the House Natural Resources Committee last week that he wants more entrance fees charged across the National Park System to help offset a $400 million cut in the National Park Service budget proposed by President Trump. (The secretary also believes more resource extraction from public lands could help the Park Service's budget problems, but that's fodder for another column.)

And some have at various times suggested "surge pricing," when regular entrance fees are boosted during popular time periods (Fourth of July weekend, perhaps?) as a means of increasing Park Service revenues. 

Managers of Disney's theme parks discovered a predictable result when they turned to surge pricing in response to crowding: ticket sales, and attendance, fell. According to recent media reports, 13 of 14 Disney theme parks saw attendance fall last year when compared with 2015. Why? Higher ticket prices, according to analysts. The company didn't take a financial hit, though, as the higher ticket prices carried the day: a 9 percent increase in operating income.

Now, let's be clear: National parks should not be compared to theme parks. There is no comparison. National parks win, hands down. But as the National Park System sees year of record growth after year of record growth, the system is being unnecessarily and destructively strained. Resources are being impacted, park staffs are being pushed past the limit, and the park experience is being diminished.

And the leadership of the Park Service largely has turned a blind eye toward the problem.

Back in 1978 -- the year Queen hit the top of the rock music charts with "We Will Rock You/We Are the Champions" and the Who asked "Who Are You?" -- Congress, through its National Park Service Management Act, directed park superintendents to "identify visitor carrying capacities for managing public use. Superintendents will also identify ways to monitor for and address unacceptable impacts on park resources and visitor experiences."

§ 8.2 – Visitor Use: “Management controls and conditions must be established for all park uses to ensure that park resources and values are preserved and protected for the future. If and when a superintendent has a reasonable basis for believing that an ongoing or proposed public use would cause unacceptable impacts to park resources or values, the superintendent must make adjustments to the way the activity is conducted to eliminate the unacceptable impacts. If the adjustments do not succeed in eliminating the unacceptable impacts, the superintendent may (1) temporarily or permanently close a specific area, or (2) place limitations on the use, or (3) prohibit the use. Restrictions placed on recreational uses that have otherwise been found to be appropriate will be limited to the minimum necessary to protect park resources and values and promote visitor safety and enjoyment. … When practicable, restrictions will be based on the results of study or research, including (when appropriate) research in the social sciences.”

Well, here we are in 2017, and no park has set a limit -- daily, monthly, or annually -- for visitation. Instead, we have parks such as Yellowstone talking about building new parking lots to handle the crowds, Zion working on a visitor use plan, and Yosemite hoping new traffic patterns and parking spot reservations will make the crowds seem less crowding.

Though these efforts are good-intentioned, and while park managers are tinkering with ways to squeeze in as many visitors as want to come into their parks, resources are being damaged, social trails are eclipsing official trails, campgrounds are being turned into dusty basins, and staff are being pushed to the breaking point.

For the National Park System, there's a better, more democratic solution to managing crowds during the busy seasons: reservations.

There's no need to raise prices to limit crowds. No need to figure out where you can lay new asphalt or gravel for parking. No need to further strain limited park staff. No sticker shock that prices people out of the parks. The answer is obvious: Set a daily limit for visitation. 

Some parks already have a de facto carrying capacity: lodging. The relative dearth of lodging at Glacier National Park compared to that at Yellowstone or Grand Canyon has created a day-trip feeling there; stay after 5 p.m. with a room key in your hand, and Glacier becomes deliciously crowdless. Want to overnight in Yellowstone in a room instead of a tent? You best make your reservation at least six months in advance.

But lodging doesn't limit day traffic, and with nearby gateway towns such as West Yellowstone, Montana; Pigeon Forge and Gatlinburg, Tennessee; Three Rivers, California; and Tusayan, Arizona, the out-of-park hotel/motel industry can funnel thousands into the parks every day and welcome them back at day's end.

The answer to park overcrowding, resource damage, and staff breakdown is simple: set a reasonable limit of daily visitation and force visitors to be deliberative in their vacation planning. Set aside perhaps 25 percent of the reservations for first-come, first-serve slots so there's still a way to address spur-of-the-moment travelers, but place the rest on a reservation system. Resorting to surge pricing will only serve to lock certain groups out of the parks at various times of the year.

Gateway towns might be slow to come around to support such a move, but continued degradation of national parks and the national park experience won't be good for business, either.

As for Secretary Zinke's desire to see more parks charge entrance fees -- currently, just 117 of the 417 units of the National Park System charge such fees -- Congress has been tasked with holding these lands in trust for all Americans, not only those who can afford to go there. And yes, for someone planning to visit Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, or Yosemite for a week, the prospect of a $50 or even $100 entrance fee for a family of four isn't likely going to change their plans.

But how might such an increase affect visitors heading from Washington, D.C., to Shenandoah National Park, or Boston to Cape Cod National Seashore? Would they pay the higher rate or head to a national forest, state forest, or state park instead? That would certainly lessen the human crush on the national parks, but it also would fail to nurture new advocates and stewards for the parks.

How else might the park system's fiscal needs be addressed?

Instead of ratcheting fees ever upward, why not ask the Air Force to go without one or two $95 million F-35A fighters (if they ever get out of testing and into production) every year or two? Or Congress could add a cent or two to the federal fuel tax, with the proceeds dedicated to national parks. Do that and the folks driving to the parks will help boost revenues without the need for a higher entrance fee.

Or, why not simply take a page from the Trump adminstration's own playbook: It has proposed to increase Interior's budget for managing oil and gas programs by $16 million, so why not pledge a similar amount or more to the National Park Service each year to better manage visitation and natural resources?

More than a few folks believe international park visitors should be charged a higher entrance fee. Some other nations do this. For instance, a U.S. citizen visiting Nairobi National Park in Kenya would be charged $43 per adult, which is 10 times the rate charged Kenyans. In China, though, fees can be all over the board due to the various agencies that might have a role in their national parks, according to an article last November in The Economist.

Yet there is no logic or consistency to the facilities on offer, the fees charged, the development permitted, or the conservation work undertaken at China’s 8,000-odd parks, reserves and protected areas.

What the U.S. National Park System does not need to do is lose "logic or consistency" in its fee structure, nor should the Park Service try to wipe out the maintenance backlog or work to supplant congressional appropriations by digging deeper into the pocketbooks of visitors. 

The national parks are wondrous realms, rich in adventures, inspiration, reflection, and rejuvenation. Let's not lose sight of that. Instead, let's be more creative in finding reasonable ways to fund and protect the system.