During the past few months of watching the coronavirus pandemic roil the National Park System and those who love to visit it, a couple things have bubbled to the surface that the National Park Service should act on: Extend annual passes that are to run out in 2020 for two or three months, and make park reservations a norm where obviously necessary.
The first, extending annual passes, makes sense and would buy the Park Service some good will, and the second would solve a range of problems that are impacting parks and park staff.
While it's absolutely true that the National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass gets one onto public lands beyond the National Park System, is there anything preventing the National Park Service from accepting passes that expire in 2020 for an additional two months to make up for parks being closed due to the coronavirus pandemic? The Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other federal lands management agencies can choose whether to extend passes on their own.
What's the harm of extending a pass for the parks? It doesn't impact the other public lands where the pass is accepted. And some parks already are extending their park-specific annual passes for two months (Everglades National Park, for example). And really, the good will wouldn't hurt.
As far as reservations to enter parks, have you seen what's going on at Zion National Park in Utah, where the shuttle system hasn't been running and so park staff have allowed only as many vehicles into Zion Canyon as the parking lots can hold? This from the park's Twitter feed:
- Visitors near the front of the line have been arriving at or around 4 a.m....
- Sunday 6/7 at 6:06 a.m.: Parking is full in the Zion Canyon Scenic Drive. The scenic drive is closed until parking becomes available.
- Saturday 6/6 at 6:15 a.m. - Parking is full on the Zion Canyon Scenic Drive. The Scenic Drive is closed until space becomes available. Parking and information is available at the Zion Canyon Visitor Center.
- Friday 6/5 at 6:36 a.m. - Parking is full on the Zion Canyon Scenic Drive. The Scenic Drive is closed until space becomes available. Parking and information is available at the Zion Canyon Visitor Center.
- Thursday 6/4 at 6:53 a.m. - Parking is full on the Zion Canyon Scenic Drive. The Scenic Drive is closed until space becomes available. Parking and information is available at the Zion Canyon Visitor Center.
- Wednesday 6/3 at 7:35 a.m. - Parking is full on the Zion Canyon Scenic Drive. The Scenic Drive is closed until space becomes available. Parking and information is available at the Zion Canyon Visitor Center.
- Tuesday 6/2 at 7:05 a.m. - Parking is full on the Zion Canyon Scenic Drive. The Scenic Drive is closed until space becomes available. Parking and information is available at the Zion Canyon Visitor Center.
- The Scenic Drive will reopen each day only if space is available. There is no schedule or place to wait. We recommend having a backup plan. Check in at the visitor center for more info.
See the trend? Not only do lots of folks want to visit Zion Canyon, but they're willing to arrive as early as 4 a.m. to ensure they get in these days. And the odds look pretty good that if you arrive after 6:30 a.m. or 7 a.m., you'll have to wait until some folks leave the canyon.
Instituting a reservation system for parks where crowding is a problem (and not only in these coronavirus pandemic days) would alleviate this mad rush to get into a park, and likely alleviate some bad temper/frustrations expressed by late arrivers.
Rocky Mountain National Park officials implemented a reservation system for this summer to try to avoid crowding in the park, which attracted more than 4.6 million visitors last year. They say it will only last for this summer, but the results might convince them to rethink a longer term use of that approach. Yosemite National Park officials are expected to adopt a similar system when they open.
Acadia National Park last year adopted a reservation system that will be instituted incrementally for some parts of the park during the peak summer months.
More than likely reservations wouldn't be required year-round in parks (though Zion's 'crowd season' seems to be getting longer and longer), but focused rather on the busy summer months.
What are the benefits of a reservation system? Here are a few:
- Park managers could better manage visitation levels to protect park resources.
- Visitors would know that they'd be able to get into the park of their choice when they arrive at the entrance gate with a reservation in hand.
- Park staffing levels could be geared against a known visitation level.
What are the negatives? There are a few, as well:
- Some traveling spontaneity would fall by the wayside.
- Could the Park Service come up with a reservation system that wouldn't fall prey to bots and scalpers?
- How would reservations that are canceled due to weather or other factors (wildfires) that close parks be handled?
- Would locals who consider a national park their "backyard" rebel?
Are these insurmountable problems? Probably not. Unappealing to some? No doubt.
But reservations already are an ingrained part for travelers. You usually need a motel reservation, a dining reservation, and a campground reservation. Elsewhere in American life some movie theaters allow you to reserve a ticket ahead of your arrival, and doctors and dentists expect you to schedule your visit. Airline reservations are good to have, too, along with rental car reservations.
In fact, many parks already utilize a reservation system for camping, both front-country and backcountry. Why? To protect park resources. And don't forget your lodge reservation.
Instituting a park-wide reservation system for parks that routinely have to grapple with crowds only makes sense in these times of higher and higher visitation and fewer dollars for resource protection and staffing. Crowding, and overcrowding, in some parks in recent years has impacted natural resources, park staffing, and the visitor experience.
Would improving the quality of a park visit, and the health of a park's resources, by requiring a reservation be such a bad thing?
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
Agree 100%. It makes no sense to not move in this direction in some places. Maybe next year it can become more standard practice.
What is not mentioned is the economic impact on surrounding tourist communities. The businesses have built their sales model based on the visitaction constantly increasing year after year. They also have political clout that may make it difficult to continue the (much needed) reservation system.
Reservation systems might be the best alternative for those relatively few parks with long waits to enter, but most NPS units don't even charge admission. Entry reservations would be difficult to administer at a park like Olympic, where most attractions are dead-ends requiring visitors to exit the park to reach the next. The eastern third of Mount Rainier NP is outside the entrance stations and would see vastly increased use under a reservation system.
Reservation systems primarily benefit the financially well-off. Those who can afford in-park lodging or a two thousand dollar Mount Rainier summit climb climb, for example, would get head of the line privileges.
I refuse to do financial transactions online. Ten percent of Americans do not use the internet at all:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/22/some-americans-dont-use...
Some Americans can manipulate the internet to their advantage:
https://www.adventure-journal.com/2018/08/campsite-hopelessly-booked-cou...
Given the current problems with campsite reservations, integrating campsite & entry reservations might be difficult. Check out the comments:
https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2019/09/challenges-recreationgov
I'd like to see a substantial portion, at least 10% of capacity, saved for first-come, first-served in any reservation system.
I bought the pass in February 2020 for 2020... would love to see THAT extended.
Our NPs have been underfunded for years. We make reservations for everything when traveling, why not the NP. There are too many cars, trucks, SUVs, and RVs traveling on narrow and old roads. I consider myself lucky to have a Senior Pass. However, I see nothing wrong with seniors paying a smaller NP entrance fee. Costs for everything else have risen and we pay the extra money - this fee would be for such a good cause.
OMG, Sally G! An American who isn't a demanding cheapskate and, instead of whining about absolutely everything and wanting it all right now and for free, thinks it's okay to plan her vacations in advance, is willing to make advance reservations for her park stays so the NPS can have a fighting chance to manage the crowds, and, then, to top it all off, sees nothing wrong with paying a little extra to help cover the rising costs of properly maintaining our national parks, which she thinks is a good cause. Oh, be still my beating heart. It's a miracle. Will wonders never cease?
Ease up on the poor lady, Humbert,She is saying all the right things but I'm afraid your frabjous joy will scare her off.
Responding to the comment above regarding business models that rely on ever-increasing volumes of visitation, there is some truth to that, but there are tremendous advantages to shifting to a model more reliant on sustainability and moderation. Reservation systems can help disperse visitation over time, reducing seasonality and smoothing out cash flows for businesses. That dispersion can even yield an increase in total visitation, just spread out temporally. Reservation systems provide certainty for visitors who can then circulate more freely in the destination instead of wasting time in line. This can increase demand for more visitor experiences and services, a business opportunity. Many destinations also reach a point where increasing tourism volume is self-defeating – individual businesses may see profits, but the aggregate costs to the community in terms of utilities, emergency response, infrastructure, congestion (a serious economic cost), etc. result in a net economic and social loss.
Bringing some rational management and predictability to tourism can give a community the breathing room to diversify the economy, a smart move given tourism’s susceptibility to shocks (recessions, pandemics, etc.). Of course too much tourism brings environmental and social harms, which can damage the reputation of the destination (not to mention the quality of life for residents) and actually discourage visitation, especially from high-yield tourists. High tourist volume also requires lower quality supply chains (quick-turnover fast food restaurants; generic corporate lodging chains; big-box retail) as businesses are pressured to increase efficiencies and maximize supply. Does a community want to become Pigeon Forge, optimized for mass tourism? Or does a community want to work for its residents while accommodating high-quality visitor experiences, across a range of price points, compatible with resource conservation? There’s a strong business case for a sustainable tourism model that incorporates visitor management tools like reservation systems.
A couple comments.
I hope the RMNP reservation system works. As explained to me in emails from the Park, while the RMNP reservation system requires you to enter the Park during your two-hour time slot, once you have entered (I assume you reservation gets stamped) you can exit and re-enter throughout the day. Also, you can enter without a reservation before and after the time frame established by the system. The reservation fee is only $2, so making a reservation and then not entering because of weather, etc., seems to me to not be a burden. One big down side, however, is that the weekly pass is not available; you have to pay the $25 per day entrance for for each and every day, unless you buy an annual park/parks pass.
For busy parks I favor a hybrid system: advance reservations for those who plan ahead, shuttle buses for those who don't. If you don't have a reservation, you park in a large parking lot outside the park, pay an extra fee, and ride a shuttle bus (The extra fee should cover the cost of operating the shuttle system.). It seems to me that for many touristas riding the shuttle would be the better option, because they, generally, are on a one-day whirlwind visit, only want to see the BIG sites and wouldn't have to hassle with parking. ALL those on tours would have to disembark from their buses and take shuttles. Furthermore, no BIG RV's and fifth wheels would be allowed on park roads or in park campgrounds; if you bring your house with you, you have to live in it outside the park.
Regarding the impact on local businesses: The Antiquities Act of 1906 (https://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/anti1906.htm) sets up the National Park Service and charges it with managing the parks for the enjoyment of the American people and their preservation for future generations. It says nothing about local businesses, and as far as I know there is nothing in either law or reguation that directs the NPS to take the profitablity of local businesses into consideration when executing its respsonsibilities to the parks and the people (Congress could change this. I suppose Trump might try by executive order.). This is (supposedly) a capitalist, free-market economy. During my working life I worked for two businesses that went bankrupt. That's life. Get over it.
Arches N.P. tried to implement a reservation system and the businesses in Moab raised such a stink that it was squashed like a bug.
Greg, regarding your point about the relationship between NPS and local business – absolutely, that’s what the law says, and the Supreme Court has agreed with the prioritization of preservation considerations over economic concerns (which I completely agree with). The reality is more complicated and political. Introducing a reservation system at the scale of an entire park is going to require support from adjacent communities (the level of support necessary will vary based on the political temperature of the day). Acadia engaged extensively with state and local officials, community members, and other parties on the way to launching its current transportation plan, which includes the introduction of reservations for accessing three areas of the park. Arches, as Marie notes, in recent memory released a plan for a reservation system that was very quickly scuttled due to community and political opposition, sending NPS back to the drawing board. Rocky worked closely with Estes Park for the current system. The issue doesn’t have to be framed as being just about the profitability of local businesses. It seems more constructive to consider environmental, social, and economic concerns both continuously (through a park’s ongoing relationships with community leaders and organizations) and through civic engagement when going through planning. Better and more sustainable conservation and visitor experience results are reached when communities are park advocates, not adversaries. Regardless of what the Antiquities Act says, it’s helpful to make the business case for tools like a reservation system in order to get the community and political support they need. Doing so will actually help NPS not “bow to the demands of mass tourism but…shape that demand,” in the paraphrased words of Joseph Sax.