Editor's note: This updates with Grand Teton's proposed fee increases.
Yellowstone National Park officials, seeking to cover more of their bills, are proposing sweeping changes in their fees, from higher entrance fees to backcountry user fees. If all the proposals were instituted, it would generate roughly $3 million for the park, which currently spends about $4 million a year in existing fees on projects ranging from campground upgrades to road repairs.
At the same time, Grand Teton National Park a short distance down the road also is proposing to boost its fees, with a week-long pass proposed to cost $30 (up from $25).
Yellowstone, though, is proposing the most significant changes in fees.
Under current legislation, 80 percent of the revenue from entrance fees is allowed to remain in the park and used on projects which benefit park visitors. Currently, visitors pay $25 for a 7-day pass for a single, non-commercial vehicle entry into both Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks, with the current cost of an annual two-park pass at $50.
Yellowstone officials are proposing to offer a 3-day Yellowstone-only pass for $30. A 7-day pass good for both Yellowstone and Grand Teton would be available for $50. An annual pass to Yellowstone only will be $60. Those entering the park by motorcycle or snowmobile are currently charged $20 for a 7-day pass honored at both parks. The proposal is to offer a 3-day Yellowstone only pass for $25 and a 7-day pass for $40 honored at both parks.
Individuals who enter the park on foot, bicycle, skis, or as snowcoach passengers currently pay $12 for a 7-day pass. That would be increased to $15 for 1-3 days in Yellowstone, or $25 for 7 days at both parks.
The Interagency Pass rates will remain the same: Annual ($80), Senior ($10), Access and Military ($0).
These proposed changes would result in additional annual revenue of approximately $3 million for Yellowstone, where officials say the money would be used to continue or enhance projects such as Yellowstone cutthroat trout restoration, maintenance for the park’s seven campgrounds, preservation maintenance on park roads, improved restroom facilities, reconstruction and rehabilitation of trails including Tower Falls, and a new North Entrance Station facility.
Additionally, the park is proposing to institute a fee for overnight backcountry permits to help recover costs associated with the park’s backcountry program. In the past, Yellowstone has not charged an overnight backcountry permit fee, but a reservation fee, currently $25, has been charged since 1996.
The proposed backcountry camping permit fee would be $3 per person (age 9 and older) per night with a maximum party limit of $15 per night for backpackers. Stock groups would be charged $5 per person per night with no maximum fee limit. The current $25 fee for trips reserved more than 48 hours in advance would remain the same.
Users would be able to purchase an Annual Backcountry Pass for $25 which would exempt that individual from the per-person per-night fee.
Additional revenue from overnight backcountry permit fees would be used to help to sustain the current level of service that visitors expect and ensure that Yellowstone can continue to provide service at multiple locations throughout the park.
The current revenue stream from advance reservations covers 17 percent of the cost to operate all backcountry offices, while the proposed fee is expected to raise backcountry fee revenue to approximately 43 percent of the cost to operate backcountry offices.
The public is encouraged to attend one of the following public meetings to learn more about the proposed fee changes:
- Tuesday, November 11 in Cody, Wyo.: Holiday Inn at Buffalo Bill Village 6:30-8:00 pm
- Wednesday, November 12 in Jackson, Wyo.: The Lexington 6:30-8:00 pm
- Tuesday, November 18 in Bozeman, Mont.: Hilton Garden Inn 6:30-8:00 pm
Comments may also be hand-delivered during normal business hours to the mailroom in the park’s Administration Building in Mammoth Hot Springs, Wyoming, at one of the public scoping meetings, or mailed to: Management Assistant Office, Attn: Entrance Fee Proposal, P.O. Box 168, Yellowstone National Park, WY, 82190.
Comments will not be accepted by fax, e-mail, or in any other way than those specified above. All comments must be received by midnight MST on Friday, December 5th, 2014.
Grand Teton officials say the proposed increases are part of a larger National Park Service initiative to update entry fees that have been in place since 2006 in national parks across the country. As a first step toward potential fee changes, Yellowstone and Grand Teton will conduct a public open house on Wednesday, November 12, at the Lexington Inn on North Cache in Jackson, Wyoming from 6:30 p.m.–8 p.m. Public comments will help determine how, or if, fee changes would be implemented at Grand Teton. The comment period will be open for 30 days from November 5 through midnight December 5, 2014.
The current Grand Teton fee structure, in place since 2006, includes:
- $25 for a 7-day pass to enter both Grand Teton & Yellowstone National Park by private vehicle
- $50 for a Grand Teton/Yellowstone Annual Pass valid for one-year entry into both national parks
- $80 for an Interagency Annual Pass valid for one year entry to all fee areas on federal lands
- $12 for a 7-day pass to enter both Grand Teton & Yellowstone National Park by foot/bicycle
- $20 for a 7-day pass to both Grand Teton & Yellowstone National Park by motorcycle
Proposed fee changes would include:
- $30 for a 7-day pass to enter only Grand Teton National Park by private vehicle
- $50 for a 7-day pass to enter both Grand Teton & Yellowstone National Park by private vehicle
- $60 for a Grand Teton National Park Annual Pass valid for one-year entry into Grand Teton only
- $80 for an Interagency Annual Pass valid for one year entry to all fee areas on federal lands
- $15 for a 7-day pass to enter only Grand Teton National Park by foot/bicycle
- $25 for a 7-day pass to enter only Grand Teton National Park by motorcycle
Entrance fees are not charged to persons under 16 years of age, or to holders of the following interagency passes: Interagency Annual Pass ($80), Senior Pass ($10), Access Pass or Military Pass ($0).
“National parks have historically provided an affordable and memorable vacation experience for individuals and families. When compared to other vacation or recreation areas, national parks offer a bargain for many travelers,” said Grand Teton National Superintendent David Vela. “National parks have also struggled to keep pace with increasing costs of providing the best possible visitor experience and therefore, we are looking at a modest fee change that will address the expense of providing important visitor services while keeping pace with the cost of doing business.
"Revenues from entrance fees are used for a variety of critical needs at Grand Teton, including trail improvement, road and pathway resurfacing, restoration of wildlife habitat, and stabilization of historic buildings.”
In the past, entrance fee revenues have supported the multi-phase restoration of the Kelly hayfields to improve wildlife habitat for bison and elk, the printing and distribution of park brochures for visitor information and education, road improvement and trail renewal projects.
Anyone wishing to provide public comment about the proposed restructure of park entrance fees should send written comments to: Superintendent, Grand Teton National Park, P.O. Box 170, Moose, Wyoming 83012, or submit comments online at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/GRTEchangestofees. Comments will not be accepted by fax, e-mail, or in any other way than those specified.
Changes to the fee structure are proposed to become effective May 1, 2015.
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
Dear Yellowstoners,
We feel your pain. They slapped a backcountry fee on us in the Smokies so I suggest you follow our continuing legal fight on www.southernforestwatch.org Be aware that they will misrepresent the civic engagement sham, under report public comments and emphasize "resource degradation". It is part of their bs NPS playbook to justify unnecessary fees that will go straight to hiring more staff that will NOT be in the backcountry. Be advised, they have this scam down to an art. But what you really need to know is that this new reservation system will benefit the guide services and concessionaires whom they will use to promote the fee. We just discovered that the concessionaires can log into the system which mere mortals are locked out of. Then the guides etc can book up campsites well in advance to keep backpacking riff raff out of "their park". Don't let them get away with it.
Possibly, but unlikely.
LOL!! No one around Yellowstone really complains about the fees. It's not even on people's radar.. The culture is entirely different then what you find around the Smokies, and so is the type of visitor. Jackson Hole is filled with billionaires, and Paradise Valley is mostly millionaires. It's not even on the same level as a place like Pigeon Forge or any of the communities around the Smokies where some of us jokingly refer to it as "redneck vegas for christians on a buffet binge". And Yellowstone has always had a 25.00 reservation fee to enter the backcountry. Sounds like with this plan, 25.00 can cover the entire year, which is a steal if you ask me. The backcountry reservation fee has been there for a long time.... If you don't like it, then just go to the wilderness areas, which surrounds yellowstone in every freaking direction and has just as much to offer and all you have to do is fill out a permit at a trailhead.
Gary, I would guess the vast majority of visitors to GSMNP don't come from Pigeon Forge, not do the vast majority of Yellowstone visitors come from Jackson Hole and Paridise Valley. Therefore your bigotted comment is irrelevant.
Pigeon Forge or any of the communities around the Smokies where some of us jokingly refer to it as "redneck vegas for christians on a buffet binge"
Wow what an offensive comment to the locals of that area Mr Wilson.
Yellowstone allows free non-reservation backcountry visitation its only if you wish to reserve a site that you have to pay.
Truth can hurt. And EC, no one outside of the locals in the Smokies care about the backcountry fees or even fees. So to apply the same logic to the few towns around Yellowstone and Grand Tetons shows a complete misunderstanding of the regional demographics, especially around the Tetons where a majority of the population is upper class. The target market in that resort is much different too. A day of skiing in the ski resort at Jackson Hole for a family of 4 will run you well over a few hundred dollars, and the ski resort sits on USFS land. Or you can go over to driggs, and ski a bit cheaper, but you're still paying FEES. 30.00 for a 3 day pass at Yellowstone is 10.00 a day. If you buy a 7 day pass, you're looking at 8.53 a day.. There's lots of "free" backpacking and hiking to be had in the northern rockies. Once again, fees are not on peoples radar. People have paid National Park fees and USFS Ski Resort fees for pretty much ever in that region. It's not on their radar, and I guarantee that.. 5.00 increase won't be seen anywhere near as extreme as a 20.00 increase on a ski pass.
And so can biggoted slander.
I don't have a problem with the current or proposed fees in general - that certainly doesn't mean they aren't on people's radar as demonstrated by the volume of comments that have been submitted to the NPS and other forums.
ec -Thanks for your comment. This thread was in danger of sliding quickly downhill and off subject due to more tiring sniping between two regulars from the Smokies.
Meanwhile, back on subject, what does at least one media source from the vicinity of Yellowstone think about the proposed increase? Here's one example in an editorial from a newspaper in Cody, Wyoming:
"A $5 per car increase is justified and, in Yellowstone Park at least, the traffic is there to justify the hike and produce a significant financial impact...."Yellowstone is a place people from around the world want to visit, and no one ever fails to get their money’s worth."
The editorial notes that fee revenue is "a key component to maintaining the park’s infrastructure, staff and programs."
Local business interests stand to be hurt if a fee hike drives down visits to the park. At least this local paper doesn't think that will be the case.
Frankly, that $5 simply keeps pace with inflation over the last 8 years. It's still a steal, and a drop in the bucket of what people spend to go to these parks. Frankly, they should make it $50, and it would still be affordable.
50 dollars for sleeping on the ground. What amenities, Zebulon, are provided by the NPS for that privilege which you think should be comparable to low end hotels?
Just curious where, in the above story or Zebulon's comment, you found anything about "50 dollars for sleeping on the ground"? I believe Zebulon was referring to the proposed increase of $5 per car for a multiday entrance fee. His point seemed to be that he wouldn't object to $50 instead of the proposed $30 per car entrance fee.
In my own view, fee increases are the result of a failure by Congress to provide adequate funding for core operational and maintenance needs in these parks and other public lands. Like many of our fee proposals, they are regressive in nature, those least able to afford them are affected the most.
That's the real issue.
I also resent that those of us outside Yellowstone's immediate vicinity are not allowed to comment without traveling there.
Whatever happened to funding the national parks through our taxes???
Nice sentiment, rmackie.
Carefull there Megaera, Lee will come after you with his "great American entitilement mentality" comment. But then, probably not. You are on "his side" so consistency of the application of that charge will be abandoned for ideology. Too bad, it is probably deserved here.
Yes our taxes go to the basic establishment and maintainance of the parks to make sure they exist. But when it comes to providing interprative programs, signage, road/trail maintance, consessions, etc, it is only appropriate that those that use, pay.
In my opinion, the parks are like most other things. The closer we can get the payers to the users the better.
Megera, you can comment online per the link in the article. I certainly did. I've stated before the entrance fees and other fees have always felt like a bargain to me but it now seems we are being inundated by fee increases at every twist of the trail. In times of stagflation if not deflation, wages in decline these proposals seem excessive. I do share EC's sentiments that the closer to the user paying for the services the better but this needs to apply to more than just the parks. I am still baffled by the lack of fees in the east particularily the smokies. How does that make any sense?
And another thing! (kidding) Megera, I do share some of your frustration that in person comments for all practical purposes require you to live near the parks. This seems to validate others accusations that it is not a genuine attempt to get the true views of the public. I am sure the data is there but I would guess the majority of visitors to any park come from distances not conducive to showing up for what amounts to a town hall meeting. You may as well propose a raise to international visitors but require them to come to the U.S. to give their opinion. I am also wondering what the differences in wages play in opinions. If one lives and works in San Francisco for example a $50 daily entrance fee may seem reasonable to get into Yosemite while someone living in say Mississippi or West Virginia it might seem outrageous. I am not saying there are not wealthy or poor people in every state just what one’s own personal income or economic status will play a large part in their opinion. Toss in average wage discrepancies from state to state and the discussion gets even more interesting. OK, I’ve rambled enough for one night J
The reason there are not entrance fees in the Smokies is because the Tennessee legislature had the foresight to put a deed restriction on Newfound Gap road before giving it to the NPS. That deed says no toll can ever be enacted on this former state road. And I want to clear up another gross, overblown, NPS misrepresentation about the Smokies. The NPS claims 9 million visitors which is absolute, unmitigated bs. That aforementioned road is THE main thoroughfare between North Carolina and Tennessee. It was and still is a critical commercial route between the buffets at Pigeon Forge and the Casino in Cherokee. When the NPS puts their car counters out, they may well capture several million cars. However, most folks never leave their vehicles or step foot in the park. They are not driving the road to enjoy the scenery, hike a trail or fly fish. And many of those purported 9 million visitors are folks who drive that road every day. How do we know this? Well just look at the number of those 9 million who use the backcountry in one year. 79,000. That's it. And how many dayhike trails? How many go into a visitor center at Luftee or Sugarlands? Perhaps a few more.
So to answer questions about padding numbers and why Smokies has no entrance fee, they do now. It's called a backcountry fee. Since they are deed restricted, the one place that garbage law known as FLREA can permit these crooks to back door a tax is in the backcountry. Please note that the NPS provides NO services in the backcountry but in order to justify the fee in the eyes of FLREA they provided us with a wonderful new registration system for previously empty campsites. Now we have the privilege of going to a website that works about half the darn time and requires us to use computer printers to print off the permit and makes us check boxes promising that we will not burn any wood larger than wrist size or burn any paper to start a fire. All this checked a box for FLREA.
As a trail volunteer in the Smokies, I resent being taxed when the work in the backcountry is done by volunteers. There is a story on NPT today about trail work on the Chimneys. The money for that was DONATED, 100% by the Aslan foundation. Not the NPS. So if folks who use services aren't getting taxed, like equestrians who rip up trails to no end and innertubers who dam up the rivers and creeks for their little whitewater enhancement projects don't have to pay, the NPS will just go through FLREA and start charging people to view fireflies. Nickel and dime stuff. What do you think Teddy Roosevelt and John Muir would think of this? How about Mather and Kephart and the Rockefellers who donated a huge chunk for the Smokies. FDR said, upon dedication of the Smokies, "I hope the use of it will not be confined to people who come hither on Government specified days and on Government directed tours." " I hope that roads and paths and trails will still be built in the cause of the liberty of recreation."
"What shall we be defending? The good earth of this land. our homes, our families-yes, and far more. We shall be defending a way of life which has given more freedom to the soul and body of man than ever has been realized in the world before, a way of life that has let men scale whatever heights they could scale without hurting their fellows, a way of life that has let men hold up their heads and admit no master but God".
The NPS has assumed the role of God in this country's public lands. They have lost their way and FDR, like the TN legislature, must have seen it coming.
Brace yourselves folks. This is likely just the beginning of fees for many things in many places besides the national parks. There are growing pushes in several states for making new (and sometimes existing) highways into toll roads. Texas is considering tolls for a new highway. So are legislators in south Florida, Virginia, Michigan and Indiana. There are some rumblings in Utah.
A couple of major highways in San Diego have been turned into toll roads where there are no toll booths. Instead, license plates are photographed and drivers who fail to remit a fee via internet are slapped with serious fines. Many out of state drivers, unaware of what they had gotten into, have had some rude awakenings when slapped with collections action.
https://www.facebook.com/kslcom/posts/10152764957034172
If those who partake of a favorite English beverage have their way, we may all be paying fees for virtually everything we've come to accept as privileges of citizenship. But at least we won't be paying those awful taxes.
Oh, you mean the great American entitlement mentality that you rail against? I guess that mentality is OK if it is something YOU feel entitled to.
Reality is that Yellowstone has a lot of roads and trails that constantly need repair. I know that the rim trail along the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone has erosion issues, and is becoming a potential hazard. There was an article, I believe posted on this site a while back showing that part of the trail is about to slide off into the canyon. That takes money, crews, and time to repair. And countless thousands hike that trail every year to get up close and personal to those falls.
I remember when Tower Falls closed because of erosion due to a massive flooding event around 2005. I don't believe that has opened again because the repair costs were too high. Now you can only walk about half that old trail. And let's not forget the geothermal activity that ate the roadway surface along the firehole drive. That occurred just this year. Those are just a few frontcountry features that are in need of repair and cost money. The trail crews there have to also constantly maintain blow downs in the park. Anyone that has hiked the trails leading through the burn areas can see the trail crews work year after year. And yes, there are trail crews, and very much backcountry rangers in Yellowstone that should earn a wage to do their work. Yellowstones trails are in a lot better shape, and better maintained than the USFS trails found outside of the region. I know that for a fact, because i've hiked many countless miles in both areas. Hence, the difference between a National Park that has a gate fee, and a protected wilderness area that does not is quite noticable. The wilderenss areas that don't have subsidiary funding through fees don't have the infrastructure in place to rehab trails year after year. The NPS at least can support those services better. But then again, Yellowstone gets roughly 4 million visitors a year, while places like the Absoraka wilderness recieves thousands of visitors.
Lots of great comment, but again $30 for 7 days is really not that much. And in constant dollars, it's exactly the same as $25 when it first came into being. I'm a cheap bastid, but those entrance fees are really not that much for what you're getting, and are certainly a tiny amount in the overall vacation budget.
Now, it'd be great if it were free, but it does no seem realistic these days.
One doesn't have to be a local to comment. NPS provides online comment ability for any of their projects here: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/.
For the Teton Fees, which are currently in comment period, try here: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=68&projectID=55302&docum...
or at Kurt's link in the article. There is still 25 days to comment.
As for fees, many state park systems charge fees, many of them greater than the National Parks. Texas charges up to $5/day/person; a couple would pay $70 for a week. Wisconsin charges $10/car/day; a couple would pay $70 for a week. Florida charges around $5/car/day; a couple would pay $35 for a week. The National Parks are cheap by comparison.
I generally don't have a problem with the fees but don't know that it is fair to compare fees on a weekly basis. I would guess most people are only staying in a park for a few days and many for only a single day.
I don't think the state vs NPS comparison is a fair one. In Wisconsin a couple could purchase an annual pass for $25 and both (or an entire family) enjoy all of the state parks for the entire year. In TX they could purchase an individual annual pass for $70 with additional passes available for $25 for residents of the same household. The annual state pass gets you into all of the state parks vs a single National Park. The other thing missing from the comparison is the portion of taxes paid to support both state and national parks which would be interesting. I too am a fan of user fees vs a tax. In the case of the parks (both state and federal) I get the bennefit of all those paying to support the parks but do not use them.
I compared the state and national park fees because people were complaining about the fees. In Texas, one can pay $70 for an annual pass for access to all parks; one can currently purchase a National Parks pass for $80 for access to all parks. Personally, I think the NPS pass is a better value - I can use it all over the country.
As for day vs. week, in Big Bend National Park, a family of four (2 kids, 13&16) can spend a day in the park for $20. The same family will spend $20 to experience Big Bend Ranch State Park for a day. However, if they decide to come back for a second day, in the NP, it will be free; in the SP, it will be an additional $20. The family will have to spend 4 days in the SP to make the annual $70 worth it. And they will spend $70, rather than the $20 they spend to visit the NP for the same amount of time.