You are here

UPDATED: Brace For A Big Jump In National Park Entrance Fees

Share

Editor's note: This updates with reaction from National Parks Conservation Association and U.S. Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva.

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke moved Tuesday to find a way to boost funding to address the National Park Service's maintenance backlog, proposing to substantially increase park entrance fees during the "high season" for vacations. It's a move that seemingly would do little to address the backlog, estimated at roughly $12 billion, while hitting families with school students hardest.

“Secretary Zinke would rather take money directly out of the pockets of hardworking Americans instead of coming up with a serious budget proposal for the National Park System,” said Rep. Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat. “More than doubling the vehicle entrance fee at Grand Canyon, as this proposal would do, or any other park is not a sustainable funding strategy. We should be encouraging more people to get outdoors and enjoy our great natural wonders instead of discouraging them by raising park entrance fees. Whether it’s healthcare, tax cuts, or now access to our national parks, the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress just don’t seem to care about everyday American families.”

Under the fee proposal laid out in a press release, "entrance fees would be established at 17 national parks. The peak season for each park would be defined as its busiest contiguous five-month period of visitation."

During the peak season, the release explained, a seven-day-long "entrance fee would be $70 per private, non-commercial vehicle, $50 per motorcycle, and $30 per person on bike or foot. A park-specific annual pass for any of the 17 parks would be available for $75."

Parks to be affected by these rates, if approved, are "Arches, Bryce Canyon, Canyonlands, Denali, Glacier, Grand Canyon, Grand Teton, Olympic, Sequoia and Kings Canyon, Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Zion national parks with peak season starting on May 1, 2018; in Acadia, Mount Rainier, Rocky Mountain, and Shenandoah National Parks with peak season starting on June 1, 2018; and in Joshua Tree National Park as soon as practicable in 2018."

“We should not increase fees to such a degree as to make these places – protected for all Americans to experience – unaffordable for some families to visit," said Theresa Pierno, president and CEO of the National Parks Conservation Association. "The solution to our parks’ repair needs cannot and should not be largely shouldered by its visitors.

“The administration just proposed a major cut to the National Park Service budget even as parks struggle with billions of dollars in needed repairs," she added. "If the administration wants to support national parks, it needs to walk the walk and work with Congress to address the maintenance backlog."

If implemented, Interior officials said, the higher fees could be expected to raise $70 million a year. Eighty percent of the revenues raised would remain in the parks where they are collected, with the remainder to be distributed elsewhere in the National Park System.

Not mentioned in the release was how the proposed entrance fees were calculated, or how significant of an impact the additional revenues would have on the maintenance backlog.

“I think the proposal speaks for itself. I don’t think we’re going to speculate on what is a good amount of money, or what is enough," said Park Service spokesman Jeff Olson.

Public comment on the proposal will be open from October 24 to November 23. You can find details on the proposal and leave your comments at this site.

The proposal comes in the wake of the Trump administration's desire to cut the National Park Service budget by roughly $400 million and its staff by about 1,200. It also comes as Interior is raising hundreds of millions of dollars from off-shore oil and gas lease auctions, a source of revenues Mr. Zinke earlier this year said could be used to address the park system's maintenance woes.

But the Interior secretary almost from the start of his tenure at Interior has said entrance fees need to be adjusted upward.

"About half the parks don't charge. Which is interesting," he said during a media call in May. "We have a tier system (for entrance fees). A number of parks chose not even to follow the tier system. So, we're concentrating on where are revenues, and shore it up."

The tiered approach to fees, if enacted, likely would hit hardest families whose vacations are governed largely by school schedules, as school vacations typically coincide with the high seasons outlined by the release. 

This past summer senior citizens, not the appropriations system, were looked to by Congress to raise more money for the Park Service. On August 27 the price for a lifetime senior pass to the parks, which had been just $10 for years, jumped to $80. Park Service officials could not say Tuesday how much revenues were generated by that increase.

Yet to come is a proposal to adjust entrance and permit fees for commercial tour operators. "The proposal would increase entrance fees for commercial operators and standardize commercial use authorization (CUA) requirements for road-based commercial tours, including application and management fees," the Park Service release said. "All CUA fees stay within the collecting park and would fund rehabilitation projects for buildings, facilities, parking lots, roads, and wayside exhibits that would enhance the visitor experience. The fees will also cover the administrative costs of receiving, reviewing, and processing CUA applications and required reports."

Unlike entrance fees for park visitors, any proposed increases in CUAs would take effect following an 18-month implementation window, the Park Service said.

Comments

I agree.  I thought it was an odd statement that the people who use the park shouldn't be the ones to pay for it.  Try applying that logic to anything else in life. 

 

You're also right about using a peak season model to shift use to different times of the year. Although the article did make a good point about family vacations revolving around school schedules. But I don't see a problem using a little economic stick/carrot to solve over crowding at places like Yellowstone. 


"...park-specific annual pass..." available for $75.  This is in addition to what?  The regular annual pass, currently for $80, which I assume would no longer grant you access into any of those 17 parks?  So, if you already owned an annual pass for which you paid $80, you'd still have to fork over an extra $75 for each one of those 17 particular parks you might visit in a year?  The government seems to be a little vague on that wording. 

As SmokiesBackpacker put it, the NPS is not Disney, a for-profit corporation, so paying that rather drastic fee increase for entrance into a PUBLIC land, the upkeep of which is already supposed to be funded by our tax dollars, is not still cheaper than an entry fee to some other recreational/entertainment (for-profit) entity.  Look, I understand the need to increase fees.  The cost of everything has gone up over the years, and an increase in fees (IMO, a definite increase in those damned tourist buses is needed) might help - to a very, very small extent - with infrastructure and payroll costs.  However, I don't really trust the NPS to apply the funds in a wise manner; this agency seems to be adept at mishandling things ranging from funds to sexual harrassment issues.  And an increase really will price out much of the population of all ages.  The current administration seems to be hell-bent on doing so, and this passive-aggressive increase in fees from $20 or $30 to $75 would definitely accomplish this mission, leaving only the well-off to enjoy what are still - as far as I am aware - public lands, open to all.


Smokies, your contribution to the Parks via taxes is minimal, certainly far less than even the current entrance fee.  And of course foreign visitors, which make up a large part of the attendance contribute nothing in taxes.  

For Bamboolyn, camping fees (which aren't going up) are $10-20 a night.  Trying finding a motel for that.

The magnitude of the hike is disconcerting but overall still a bargain.  If the NPS didn't exist until today and there was a press release announcing these amenities and prices people would be screaming "what a deal".  


I think there is another reason to raise entrance fees, by keeping out the common folk, over time the majority of people will slowly forget about the parks, then the government can do what they want with them, sell off, drill, what ever the agenda is, just like now shrink or get rid of National Monuments, give back to states...........


Charge the increased fee (or even a higher one) to non tax-paying foreigners that clog these parks, but keep the fee reasonable for US citizens that are already directly supporting the NPS through their federal taxes. (And, no, I'm not a Trump fan, anti-foreigner nor right wing - just a regular NPS user/visitor (with a well used lifetime pass) looking at the real picture.) 

A reasoanble way to implement this would be to make a nationwide NPS "discount" pass available to US citizens (either free or at a low cost) - rather than using an all-too-trumpian citizenship check at each NPS entrance gate.   


I have a degree in outdoor recreation management and this is something we have discussed and my professor and I think this is the lowest anyone could go, as it is a form of discrimination.

On the other hand, why not? lets discriminate against the poor because we have a rich bully as a president and the most millionaires in the cabinet of any president in history.  Oh, lets have polluters go free and the banks get their freedom back to screw us again to make it better.


The fee law does not prohibit tha NPS from spending fee money on operations. It is NPS policy to use the entrance fee money only for "maintenance backlog."  Here is the law requirements:

118 STAT. 3389

PUBLIC LAW 108-447--DEC. 8, 2004

 

(3) shall be used only for--

(A) repair, maintenance, and facility enhancement related directly to visitor enjoyment, visitor access, and health and safety;

(B) interpretation, visitor information, visitor service, visitor needs assessments, and signs;

(C) habitat restoration directly related to wildlife-dependent recreation that is limited to hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, or photography;

(D) law enforcement related to public use and recreation;

(E) direct operating or capital costs associated with the recreation fee program; and

(F) a fee management agreement established under section 6(a) or a visitor reservation service.

 

 


Not surprising that the resident rich, white GOP donor drone is a-for it. I'll grant that he's usually for fee increases because he doesn't care about people who work for a living rather than working the casino of Wall Street and real estate.

At least at Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Sequoia, and Joshua Tree, the majority of foreigners may enter on tour buses but for every tour bus of 75, there a dozen rental cars with individuals or couples. This is a disaster for "casual" and young tourists.

As for Yellowstone, Rocky Mountain, and Glacier, it's not possible to apply a carrot and stick any further (unlike Grand Canyon and the desert parks). There is literally no way into most of those parks for over half the year for anyone who is not a fairly experienced winter recreationist. The others (Yosemite, Sequoia, Mount Rainier, and Olympic) could do with some additional winter tourism but have enormously reduced staffing, road closures, and other challenges that this money could not fund. Even if it was sufficient.

Finally, even granting the "Disney model," Disney does not double entry fees in a single year. No one in the tourism industry would do something in a way that would so adversely affect their business. If these guys really were about running the parks as businesses, they'd have constant fee growth that does not induce sticker-shock. But this is obviously meant to paper over (some) of the proposed cut to the system while proceding apace with gutting those lousy government workers.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.