Interior Secretary Zinke told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that too many free and discounted passes into the National Park System are part of the Park Service's funding problems.
Editor's note: This corrects that fourth-graders, not 4-year-olds, can get a free parks pass, and adds reaction to Secretary Zinke's comments from a military veteran.
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke says free or discounted passes given to senior citizens, active military, disabled, and even fourth-graders and their families are part of the reason for the National Park Service's funding problems.
During an at times contentious appearance before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the secretary, explaining why he's considering a surge pricing system for 17 national parks, said parks are losing too much money to those pass programs.
"I've spent a lot of time in a (park) kiosk, and it's amazing, in our parks, which the maintenance (backlog) as you know, we're far behind," the secretary told the committee Tuesday while explaining the Trump administration's FY2019 budget proposal for the Interior Department. "But when you give discounted or free passes to elderly, fourth-graders, veterans, disabled, and you do it by the carload, there's not a whole lot of people that actually pay at our front door.
"As well as you have a lot of foreign guests," he added. "We're looking at ways to make sure we have more revenue in the front door of our parks themselves. Because when you have a park like (Mount) Rainier, the money they receive coming in the front gate, I want to make sure more of it goes to that park superintendent so he has flexibility in how he spends it."
Under current pass programs, senior citizens 62 and older can purchase a lifetime pass to the parks for $80 (the fee had been $10 until it increased last year), fourth-grade students can receive a free pass through the Every Kid in a Park program started by the Obama administration, active military and their dependents gain free passes, and U.S. citizens who are permanently disabled receive free passes.
While Secretary Zinke said too much of entrance fee revenues go back to Washington, D.C., under current regulations 80 percent of the fees collected in a park stay there, while the other 20 percent is sent to Washington to be redistributed to other areas, including to parks that do not collect entrance fees.
He did acknowledge that park fees alone won't significantly address the park system's $11.7 billion maintenance backlog.
"But a lot of our parks have record visitation," he said. "We expect them to have record visitation again."
Under questioning from Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, Secretary Zinke said he wasn't suggesting that the free entry given to military, seniors, and fourth-graders should be done away with.
"No, what I'm saying is this: We subsidize and we allow, by design, a lot of people to go through. If you're in a car and you have a veteran in the car, everyone, whether they're a veteran or not, is free in that car," said Secretary Zinke. "Same thing with disabled, same thing with elderly, on passes. Basically, one person with a pass, everyone in that car comes in for free. Whether or not that's correct, we're looking at it."
The secretary's comments drew criticism from an Army veteran who is a senior campaign representative for the Sierra Club's Military Outdoors program.
“I’m a veteran who helps other veterans and their families get outdoors because our public lands can ease the transition from active duty to active citizenship, and are spaces to heal emotionally and physically," said Rob Vessels. "It’s insulting to have the Secretary of the Interior blame me and other veterans for the fact that he won’t fund our national parks properly. I served my country to help protect institutions like our national parks, and have dedicated my life to expanding access to the outdoors for all people. Secretary Zinke should learn to speak more respectfully about veterans before he uses us as a tool for his political agenda to shut working families out of our national parks.”
Secretary Zinke also told the committee that the $80 America the Beautiful parks pass, which allows holders to enter parks as many times as they want for a one-year period, is an incredible bargain, saying he took his family to a movie the other night and that the bill, which included popcorn, came to more than $80.
He said that his staff's review of park fee structures is designed to "make sure that revenue coming into the door of our principal parks is appropriate, making sure that we still have value. Because American parks belong to the public, they belong to all Americans, and everyone should have access."
"We definitely believe we should be increasing access, not disincentivizing it," responded Sen. Cantwell.
Comments
Perhaps he shouldn't take vacations in dangerous places on the public...
Hmm. Kinda reminds you of the national parks, doesn't it--all of those people taking "dangerous" vacations and asking the Park Service to come and rescue them. When I ran for mayor of Seattle, I didn't ask for bodyguards, but damn, I wished I had been important enough to be assigned one. If Zinke is important enough, more power to him. Now, will he still pull me off that cliff?
If this was an Obama-appointed SOI you'd be assailing it as a waste of taxpayer money. Traditionally cabinet secretaries outside of Treasury, Defense, or State don't get round the clock security and would definitely not be getting security because they were on vacation. I've been in the room with a cabinet secretary, but it was at a high profile public event. We could definitely see who were the security guys as they had those stereotypical earpieces.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/230/220702.pdf
Zinke doesn't seem to care about how much this costs. I remember back with the whole plane thing he had an opportunity to fly to a wildfire site with the Governor of Colorado in a state-owned aircraft. He declined because there was only room for him and not his security detail. Never mind that the Governor had his own competent security detail. Zinke wouldn't travel without his own security, which then meant paying to charter a flight at federal taxpayer expense.
And on a private vacation? I seem to recall that even Steve Mnuchin didn't take security with him, although he asked for one of those Air Force VIP jets taking his wife on their honeymoon.
Wow, Buck. Every time in the past when I've kind of fake flirted with you, you've gotten riled, and rejected it even to the point of getting Kurt to make me stop. Now you keep proclaiming to the masses that you are keeping a close eye on my panties.
I know it is just a way of minimizing the essence of my comments instead of attempting to counter them and attempting to minimize them in the public discourse, but the irony of your imagery is just so cute.
Stick to the subject matter rather than the juvenile belittling and let's make this discussion one that we're both proud of. Frankly, with the majority negative impression those you follow have, it isn't a good day for your side to try to appear even more juvenile.
EC, there are more people behind you than many think. I wqould've written off Kurt's site long ago without you. Kurt does a great, tremendous contribution to discourse here. You make it relevant. Please don't immigrate to New Zealand and leave us:)!
i hear New Zealand is nice this time of year.
Once again we have to ask that you keep the debate/dialogue out of the gutter and the schoolyard playground. Traveler not only is designed/intended to be family friendly, but to provide pertinent stories on both the wonders and the challenges of the National Park System.
To debase that mission with juvenile tit-for-tat exchanges is embarrassing.
At a time when there are stories on the site about the impact climate change is having on birds in the park system, on the history and some of the wonders of the National Trails System and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, on Portugal's only national park, on the question of physically transporting wolves to Isle Royale, and more ... to have the comments revolve around personal attacks and demeaning rather than substantive comments ... is it any wonder there's not more participation from readers?
Years ago a former colleague said readers would police themselves when it came to comments. Sadly, we don't see that happening. So we're faced with one of a handful of choices:
* Ban offenders
* Ban all comments
* Make all comments go through moderation
* Edit comments.
Frankly, we don't have the time to either deal with wholesale moderation or editing comments. The final choice is in your hands.
Good comments Kurt...sometimes the site has the feel of a junior high slam book. I
Hi Kurt. You know my vote. I've said all along there should be a letters to the editor column. (1) People write you as the editor; (2) They give their full names and addresses; (3) They limit their letters to 150 words; (4) If they want to write an op-ed, the limit is 750.
Pleading for anonymity has never cut it with me, since I see that as the bane of the Internet. If you think your employer would fire you for commenting, shut up. Easy for me to say? Try working in a university. These days, it is all about shutting up.
The sharpness of the comments here indeed reflects that level of frustration. Where can you comment and be heard for your opinion--and not be in jeopardy as a result?
As long as people sign their names to their opinions, I would hardly call them offenders. But yes, all of us could be more formal and less strident. For that, however, we would indeed need open minds--and a willingness to respect the other half of the electorate. Unfortunately, that train left the station years ago. Nor will simply banning comments on The Traveler get it back.