Paying to Enjoy The Parks

That Chattahoocchee article was important. So was the one I posted the day before from SW Oregon on the Wild Wilderness blog --- and so is the discussion folks were having about Kachess Lake Campground in WA state. The three are all related and together they point to the future.

While people are focusing on FLREA and the affect of recreation fees per se, the truly important action is with Granger-Thye and defacto privatization.

In order to make privatization work, the public had to be denied the opportunity to recreate elsewhere on the forests and to do so for free. If forest visitors had opportunities available to recreation for free, then privatized recreation could not compete. Lynn Scarlett's Reason think-tank has made that point repeatedly.

The recreation industry doesn't get a penny from entrance fees charged under FLREA --- not one red cent. The recreation industry did not give us pay-to-play in order to enrich the agencies. The recreation industry did not give us FLREA in for its "Standard Amenity Fees". Whatever money the industry will make directly from FLREA will be derived through the provision of special, commercial, services for which "Expanded Amenity Fees" are charged.

In contrast to FLREA --- the recreation industry gets to keep 85 cents on the dollar charged under Granger Thye.

For the National Forests, the future is the privatization of access and the retention of fees under the authority of Granger Thye

I think if have all that money to give away, and is are tax dollers. For WARs that are needless. We should NOT PAY one penny. to use parks that was payed for with tax dollers !!!!

Joseph:
Jus' to let ya know, TAXES were originally set up by our founders to be paid towards one thing and one thing ONLY...DEFENSE of this great nation. So don't complain....
Granma

I happiily pay the Annual Pass fee yet there are still parks that don't honor the pass for various reasons. Cave parks rarely honor the pass, and those with museums or historic homes as the focal point of the visit also often have separate or additional fees. I want a single fee card, whatever the price is, that will let me in everywhere. I wonder what the National Park Service would charge for such a card. $150? I'd happily pay that much, especially if it also includes all the federal lands like National Forests and BLM lands.

I'm curious. Should others have to pay those fees? Or, is your being happy to pay them sufficient to make it reasonable?

Jim Macdonald
The Magic of Yellowstone
Yellowstone Newspaper
Jim's Eclectic World

As a way to avoid the "this park only" fees, which by themselves are rather steep, I happily pay. Of course I'm visiting 15-20 parks every year, whereas most famlies are visiting one or two, if that, so for them I'm sure it seems unreasonable for some parks. Then again, some parks still have no entrance fee at all.

Frequent park visitors should get a price break (or there should be a point at which you stop paying additional fees once you reach that annual total). If the annual fee is currently $80, you shouldn't have to pay $25 + $20 + $10 + $25 +$5 + $10 + etc. if you saved your receipts. You should be able to turn them in after you reach the $80 total and get an annual pass for the remainder of the year.

The way I look at it, the parks are underfunded so I give them more than they're asking for. Every park and monument I visit with the plexiglas donation box gets an extra $5 from my kids. I make a point of handing them the money and have them put it in the box. Future park stewards in the making.

So, is it your responsibility to fund parks that are underfunded?
Is it fair to those who would like to see multiple parks but cannot afford the fee (on top of the other costs of travel) to pay, even if you are happy to pay?

Jim Macdonald
The Magic of Yellowstone
Yellowstone Newspaper
Jim's Eclectic World

For something that's important to me, sure. If I feel the government isn't doing its job I try to step up through things like volunteering to plant apple trees on historic battlefields, picking up garbage along the C&O Canal towpath, or dropping a few extra bucks in the box at the small parks with no entrance fees. There are many ways to make a difference. Changing legislation and federal funding is just one of them. Writing to your elected representatives or chaining yourself to a redwood tree are others. My two children are hopefully becoming staunch advocates of our national treasures. The first step in saving our parks is getting people to appreciate them (and stop trashing them) in the first place. If we can accomplish that, I believe the rest will take care of itself. I see the parks primarily as a responsibility, not just a right.

What's fair is that everyone has the right to their opinions and the right express themselves. I see people wasting money on a daily basis on unnecessary things -- cigarettes, alcohol and drugs, toenail polish, i-pods, tanning salons, cell phones, exercise gyms, perfume, gold necklaces, cable television, body piercing (and the attendant jewelry to plug up the holes they just made), professional sports events and the team clothing they feel is necessary to buy, gas guzzling behemoths, Hyundais with fancy hubcaps and foglights, 4-person families in 5-bedroom, 3-bath McMansions pumping thousands of cubic feet of air conditioning all summer long, sprinkling perfectly good drinking water on their lawns and driving their lawn tractors around as they drink bottled water and don't take the time to recycle that plastic bottle but instead send it to the landfill. If people get their priorities in line, the vast majority of them can afford a trip to the park.

As a homeschool parent who pays thousands of dollars to the public school system each year but wants nothing to do with it, I feel your pain. It also annoys me that for-profit entities are grabbing up pieces of our national heritage. Bad bad bad.

"as they drink bottled water and don't take the time to recycle that plastic bottle but instead send it to the landfill"

If it is recycled, chances are it'll be shipped (using fossil fuel) to China where it will be incinerated and send back to America as particulate matter via the jet stream. Almost better to bury it. Best not to buy plastic at all. Right.

Oh yeah, and paying to enjoy the parks: this blog seems fixated at the least and obsessed at the worst on park fees. Search for "fee" and you'll get over 100 results including:

Fee Creep In the Parks
Entrance Fee Hikes: Time to Say No?
Entrance Fee Trivia
Poll: $80 ATB Fee is Too High
How Much Will it Cost to Attend A Campfire Talk?
Zion NP Raising Entrance Fees
Placing An Economic Value on National Parks
Your National Parks Pass Doesn't Always Cover Your Entrance Fee
Fee Creep Reaches Olympic National Park
Entrance Fees and National Park Attendance

That's just the first ten. And they all say the same thing: fees are bad. Ok. Point taken. This latest article is a regurgitation of other fee articles on this site. I look forward to reading more articles NOT about fees.

It's easy to not be bothered by increases in fees when you can pay them. Many Americans can't. There was a time (not all that long ago) when the parks were havens for overworked, underpaid families who were allowed a bit of nature to refresh and heal. Now they can't afford it. The middle class are getting squeezed out of the parks and lower income people?... forget it. This is a travesty considering that the National Parks should reflect the democratic ideal of being "public parks."

This is why the discussion of fees matters. We aren't talking about people not being able to afford entering Tahoe or Aspen, we're talking about the nation's parks which belong to the people.

We're now experiencing the Republican way -- lower those taxes but raise the fees. The Democrat way, at least in the past, is to lower the fees and raise the taxes. Everything costs money to maintain. People want to enjoy the parks but don't want to make the hard choices necessary to keep them up. Let's see, entrance fee for Yosemite or that Barry Bonds replica jersey? Gasoline to pay for the drive to Yellowstone, or a year's supply of cigarettes? Should I drop that soda can on the ground and let the NPS maintenance guy pick it up, or should I shove it back in my bag and leave no trace? Sadly, most people choose in favor of short-term gratification or convenience and don't think long-term or globally. We are a nation of short-sighted materialistic opportunists who for the most part don't care enough about the world that our great-grandkids will inherit. That's what we're up against, our own self-centeredness. People need to care first before they'll act.

The parks are up against a myriad of businesses, services (and scams) that Americans are made to believe they must have: cell phones (and now i-phones), text messaging, internet connections with online shopping, cable tv, sports cars, Hummers, satellite radio, a tv and pc in every room, a guest room in the house, more bathrooms than people living in the house, a riding mower because yard work is tiring and a gym membership because there's no time for exercise elsewhere, chemicals to kill clover because we've been brainwashed into believing it's a weed... the list goes on, and on, and on. This is why people don't have money to visit a park once in a while -- their wallets are being bombarded on a daily basis with convenient ways to empty them out. We're not savers, we enjoy spending. We can't say "no". We have no self control.

-- Jon Merryman

Jon,

The problem with your argument is that you are making a generalization about all people who don't have means to enter the Park. From the fact that some people don't spend their money wisely, you come to the generalization that park fees might be afforded by all people if they only made different consumer choices. At least that's how I'm reading your argument...That's first of all not true of all people. Secondly, even if it were, it would still be an equity issue since people with means would still be afforded the right to make the same stupid consumer choices and afford the price and subsequent user fees for the parks. No matter what, there is an equity issue. That's why I asked you whether you believed your willingness to pay for a shortfall through user fees was a justification for everyone.

I think the user fee issue when it comes to parks is relatively lightweight because the parks have long squeezed out lower class people (except of a certain type - and they are forced into working in the parks to get in - an ironically good deal, but still a forced choice; people of means can either work or not work). When it comes to transportation costs (for instance, public transportation), health care, utilities fees (heat for instance on the Pine Ridge Reservation costs more in the winter than the entire per capita income of Lakota Indians), user fees of various kinds are already creating vast inequity discrepancies among values most people hold to be values in common. What's happening in parks, which applies more to the middle class, is squeezing people there, and we only push the inequities further when people who can afford to pay the fees do so because they can and are happy to do so. My point is that's not the only issue here, and it's not sound reasoning to raise the spending choices of some poorer people as though we are all born with equal opportunities or as though those choices always apply and are always relevant.

Finally, for those concerned about privatization, it's not at all hard to see why this is a step toward privatization, not simply because underfunding produces the impetus to say that public control isn't working, but because the park consumer has been re-defined to mean those having the means to consume. That creates a profit motive, which is best exploited by private enterprise. While that proves an efficient mechanism for those most able to afford the new reality, a lot of people are entirely left out, often through no fault and certainly no choice of their own.

(By the way, on another matter, the Yellowstone Newspaper feeds are live for anyone interested).

Jim Macdonald
The Magic of Yellowstone
Yellowstone Newspaper
Jim's Eclectic World

We live in different parts of the country and I'm probably expressing my disgust with the locals here. Regardless of income level, they still have cell phones, they still drive fancy cars, and I could probably pick out a half dozen other major things they waste their money on.

I would hope people who are better off would be willing to pay their fair share in taxes to support our national parks and indirectly support those who can't afford an entrance fee for whatever reason. People are generally lousy money managers. Agreed, some people are so far down on the totem pole they have nothing to cut back on, but I'd bet those same people are more worried about putting food on the table and keeping their kids in school than making a trip to the Everglades.

I see people coming into this country with absolutely nothing - don't speak the language -- a total disadvantage. Yet after a single generation their kids are attending college and doing well. Then there are others that grew up here -- speak English -- are given plenty of opportunities to make something of themselves, yet get sucked into the abyss of culture over common sense. It's completely exasperating. Yes I believe that in this country we are all in charge of our own destinies. Many are admittedly trapped or severly handicapped, while still many others opt to remain trapped by their own choices.

I've made plenty of sacrifices to be able to travel to as many parks as I want with my wife and children before they grow up too fast. A smaller house closer to work, a much smaller car, a job that's not my passion but pays the bills, no cable tv, I don't buy music - I listen to the radio, I referee high school sports to make additional income. Still think if it's important to you - you can make it happen.

-- Jon Merryman

What irks me, we the middle class sacrifice so much for this great nation: The excessive burden of taxes, the blood for Bush's war in Iraq, and the heavy laden of labor that moves this great country of ours. Are goverment rewards us with a National Parks system that's dilapidated with huge needs for infrastructure repairs, a short professional staff to maintain it, and a budget that's a pittance that bares shame...if not sever ridicule! If we the people care enough about our National Parks, let are voices be heard and vote green in the next election in 2008. We all deserve better than are present do nothing administration.

Why anonymous? To avoid hate mail.
Yes, fees are a threat, but there are much bigger threats, like unrestrained development and environmental degradation caused by autos and fossil fuels.

"It's easy to not be bothered by increases in fees when you can pay them. Many Americans can't."
I don't know about "many", but the Americans who can't afford to pay entrance fees also can't afford $75 in gas to get to and from the nearest national park. The fee itself is inconsequential in this scenario. I don't think it's the entrance fee keeping people out as much as it is the cost of gas and lodging, especially in the parks like Crater Lake where a hotel room (in a hotel tax payers spent $17 million to rebuild) goes for up to $260 a night.

And there are plenty of ways for poor folk, like myself, to avoid paying fees if they can afford the gas to get to a park: 1. Enter after the fee booth has closed or before it has opened. Exit at the same time. 2. Enter on foot. 3. Get yourself a disability and get the Golden Access card or whatever it's called now. 4. Look up the name of an employee in the park and say you're there to visit that person. These are all sneaky ways in that should be used only by the most financially bereft.

The Park Service receives more funding per acre of land than any other conservation organization in the world. The money is misallocated toward unnecessary road maintenance, new construction, and maintaining the bloated salaries of incompetent, do-nothing managers.

If you want fee-less national parks, stop using parks' toilets, roads, pay phones, ATMs, lodges, shuttles, visitor centers, soda machines, cafeterias, and the plethora of other unnecessary development that has drastically impaired and Disney-fied our national parks and prompted recent fee increases in such parks as Crater Lake and Lava Beds.

I use the campgrounds in the parks when available and sleep in cheap motels in rinkydink towns between the parks I'm visiting... Why? Because I'm worth it...! Actually the best accomodations have gone something like this:

Our scene opens at the entrance gate of a major national park...

Stranger: Welcome to Goldenrock National Park...
Me: Hey, do you know where I might locate Sally Sawtooth? She and I used to work at Grand Canyon together and I think she's working here this summer.
Stranger: Yeah I know Sally from Ranger Skills class two years ago. I know she's here -- at the northside visitor center I think, but she's off fightin' fires in the National Forest this month.
Me: Aww, man, and I travelled all this way to see her. Well, and the park too of course.
Stranger: So where were you planning on staying, at Sally's?
Me: Not sure, I was gonna figure that out when I caught up with her.
Stranger: Heck, you're welcome to crash on my sofa for a night or two. Any friend of Sally's can't be all that bad. Just meet me here when I get off at 2pm and you can follow me to my cabin.
Me: That's so cool -- thanks. See you at 2... [sound of car pulling away]

-- Jon Merryman

I've used my share of back entrances, friends' couches, etc. to get across the country and into and through parks and around various kinds of user fees. That kind of solution can only work for a demographically narrow group of people. It's also only evidence that Titanic America has different class levels on its boat. As much fun as it is to hitchhike sometimes (one of my best experiences in life was hitchhiking to Jackson and back), meet strangers, and do this sort of thing, it's: 1) still evidence of one's own privilege (it's not for everyone; I couldn't imagine large families - especially many people of color willing or able to take the same kinds of risks around regulations to visit a park - which leads to some of the absurdities surrounding people's attitudes toward immigration, but that's another matter altogether); 2) evidence of a limited range of options (I've seen relatively wealthy people do the same thing in and around parks in order to have romantic and exciting adventures - yet, the same people can still make other choices while poorer people are told they should make do). I definitely wouldn't discourage people from traveling on the cheap and being creative; that's awesome. I just hope it wouldn't blind us, though, to owning up to our own privilege and standing against class inequity in the parks (and elsewhere). User fees for public goods are just one manifestation of that; it's a regressive burden that already exacerbates a regressive class situation. And, even if I myself can find a way around it, I should not presume that what I can do implies a general rule for everyone at large (take that Kant!)

Jim Macdonald
The Magic of Yellowstone
Yellowstone Newspaper
Jim's Eclectic World

I recently got one of the new National Passes. Happy to pay $80 toward the parks. For years I've paid parking fees, etc. at climbing spots, hiking parking, etc.

The interesting thing is my new national pass doesn't work at Federal sites in Colorado (the state I'm currently visiting). 3rd party "concessioners" are operating the bulk of the National Forest sites I'm trying to visit, they know nothing about the pass, and they all want additional fees. One worker went so far as to tell me the pass only gets 50% off. I showed him the information pamphlet given to me by the Forest Service folks who sold me my pass, and he wanted nothing to do with it.

Reading through prior comments I know there's a lot of debate. I'm skipping past all of it, to ask a simple thing. Can we get an explanation of what the new pass really offers? It's vague and cloudy to say the least. The regional Forest Service offices I've called declined to give me an answer, as I identified myself as a travel writer for several magazines (which I am). What I know is simple. Sites with Forest Service Signs are declining the pass in Colorado!

I think there should be placards below the forest service signs stating, "Under New Management" to identify non-participating sites.

Looking forward to some thoughts and insights from folks here.

Thanks for taking the time to read my comment.

Rich