A much anticipated hearing before the House Natural Resource Committee arrives Wednesday, and the outcome could be higher fees for national park visitors.
Among the potential outcomes outlined in the draft legislation written by U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-UT: motorcyclists and snowmobilers in national parks would face the same entrance fees charged motorists; shuttle buses such as those in Zion and Acadia national parks that now are free to ride might require a paid ticket, and; "destination" visitor centers or interpretive centers on national forest lands could charge a fee for entrance.
However, if Congress does not pass the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Modernization Act beyond the current law's scheduled expiration date of October 2017, fees collected by the National Park Service would go directly to the U.S. Treasury, not to the Park Service for use in the National Park System.
Among other provisions of the draft legislation (attached below), one would restrict permit fee charges to no more than 3 percent of the permit holder's annual gross revenue from their business. The legislation also directs the federal land-management agencies to look into technology and automation that could "increase accountability, efficiency, and the convenience of paying recreation fees." (e.g., an E-ZPass system for entering national parks).
Along with requiring the land-management agencies to seek public comment on proposed fee increases, as currently is done, the measure if enacted would require the agencies to seek comment from gateway communities as well.
Foreign visitors would no longer be able to purchase an America the Beautiful -- the National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass under the legislation. Too, the cost of the passes, currently $80 for most, would be recalculated every three years to reflect changes in the Consumer Price index. Language in the measure also would give the Interior secretary the authority to provide passes free to members of the U.S. military.
In testimony it was drafting for Wednesday's hearing, National Parks Conservation Association officials were supportive of many of the provisions, yet expressed concern for many others. Among those it expressed concern with were:
* Wording that required Congressional approval for any new or increased fees.
* A change that would alter the current 80-20 fee revenue split -- 80 percent remains in the park where the fee is collected, while 20 percent is sent to Washington, D.C., for redistribution to parks that don't collect fees -- to a 90-10 split.
"This proposed shift in the funding formula would likely benefit fee-collecting parks, but at the expense of the competitive account that benefits parks that cannot collect fees," NPCA's draft said. "Since less than half of park sites collect fees, we fear this formula change would reduce opportunities to enhance recreation and visitor programs and improve infrastructure in the over 200 parks that do not currently collect fees."
The legislation, would, however, reduce the amount agencies can spend on administration of fee programs from 15 percent to 5 percent.
* No consideration of increasing the Senior Pass fee from its current $10 charge, which provides for a lifetime pass.
"A modest adjustment to this fee has the potential to leverage important revenue. Today, approximately 400,000 to 500,000 Senior Passes are sold every year at national parks. The US Census Bureau projects the nation’s 65-and-older population to reach 83.7 million in the year 2050, nearly doubling the size of that population from 2012; this growth would likely lead to a growth in seniors visiting parks," said the draft testimony. "A modest modification of the Senior Pass would foster additional fee revenue that could provide additional recreation benefits to seniors, among other park visitors."
* A provision that would allow concessionaires to extend their seasons at their own discretion. In their draft NPCA officials cautioned that, "...such actions may inevitably pose a risk of unforeseen negative impacts to under-resourced park staff and/or to park resources."
The hearing is scheduled for 10 a.m. Wednesday.
Stories about:
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.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
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
First, if Rob Bishop of Utah is involved, watch out!
Second, it's almost amusing to watch as the Party of No Taxes convulses in its efforts to raise money to cover essential services without using the obscene "T-word."
But it takes money to run our parks and if this is necessary, then so be it.
Instead of requiring the NPS to take public comments, then summarily throw them in the trash, how about passing rules to require the NPS to actually incorporate public comments. Eveyone knows the NPS checks a box on the public comments then dismisses them only to march blithely on to their predetermined agendas. It is smoke and mirrors that gives free reign to Jarvis cabal of dishonest superintendents. How many times have public comments disagreed with a policy only to see that policy enacted with no change? All the time. What a bureacratic scam.
SmokiesBackpacker's level of cynicism once again distorts the reality of the integrity of park officials. Only yesterday i received a letter from the park service in response to public comments on a national park in Hawaii, at the same time news articles went out where the park service backed away from proposed boundary changes and park management changes BECAUSE of public input. Perhaps SmokiesBackpacker should consider that the reason the park service did not accept SmokiesBackpacker's comments is that they either were inconsistent with the policies governing national parks, or not good for the Great Smokies. Public comments are VERY carefully considered and even argued through before decisions are made, and a great deal of scrutiny goes into such decisions, not only by the park managers involved, but by Solicitors who do not work for the National Park Service and by the supervisors of managers and independent professional divisions. It would be so much more effective of SmokiesBackpacker to learn how to participate effectively in the rule making process than shake her/his fist at the sky, and calling names of the Director of the National Park Service and park superintendents because of her/his own inability to participate effectively.
..the reality of the integrity of park officials?" Like Jarvis brother who lobbies the NPS or the Supt who cut down trees for the football team or the Super who shut down the Indian trader and ruined a man's life? Yeah, tell me about integrity in the NPS, it doesn't exist at that level.
Not familiar with that party - must be another one of your strawmen.
Its almost amusing to watch as you, you have advocated for higher fees, now convulse because someone with an R after his name is proposing them.
Tax the rich.
Nope. Not convulsing at all. Fees are needed because taxes are not being used wisely. It would be far better to see Mr. Bishop and his buddies working to wisely use government funds instead of tossing them out as bait for more campaign contributions.
Why can't (or won't) they simply be honest about what they are doing?
Yup. Obvious answer. They'd probably lose the next election.
It's unfair to say taxes are not being used wisely....there simply isn't enough in the park service budget to provide the level of services park visitors demand. The parks are being loved to death. Fees create parks that only the rich can afford to visit.
because taxes are not being used wisely
I would agree with that but I suspect we would have different views on what using them wisely would entail. Believe it or not, lke you I would allocate more to the parks. Our difference is who we would take it away from.
But in general, I have not problem with the fees. The closer we get the payment to the beneficiary, the better off we will be. And that applies to more than just the parks.
No, I don't think it's at all unfair to think that taxes are not being used wisely. (I didn't mean the Park Service is using them unwisely.) When Congress insists upon production of a new fighter aircraft that the Pentagon had to be strongarmed into deploying, and that still doesn't work well at all with new problems cropping up nearly every day -- that's what I mean.
As for parks only the rich can afford -- heck, that's right in keeping with all the rest of the current economic trend. The party of Grand Old Plutocrats should be delighted. Their policies are tinkling down upon the rest of us.
The NPS uses fee money for many things, and I believe there needs to be more accountability. Fee managers sometimes act as if they are big bankers and forget they are trusted public servants. I say send it to Treasury.
From today's Salt Lake Tribune:
http://www.sltrib.com/home/3120399-155/rob-bishop-taking-hits-for-blocking
I would like to ask Ms. Julie Peck-Dabling why she believes that someone else should be funding her local trail or some rural park or playground.
Someone else, EC? The LWCF is funded through off-shore drilling fees, not taxpayer dollars. Seems to me the sponsors of the legislation passed back in 1965 got it right. Use those fees to help Americans from coast-to-coast enjoy recreational amenities, whether it be the Bonneville Shoreline Trail or city parks or river trails.
Would you rather the fees just went back into the general treasury for Congress to decide what to do with the money, instead of communities across the country benefiting from it?
I think/hope you'd agree putting the dollars to work for the designated purposes behind the LWCF is better than letting the whims of Congress decide how to spend the money, no?
Are those fees not paid by "someone else"? You know where those fees show up? In the price you pay for gas. I ask again, why should "someone else" pay for her local trail or some rural playground?. Where is Lee with his "entitilement" tirade?
ec, you're doing a pretty good job of demonstrating it. I doubt any of us who read Traveler regularly will have much trouble conjuring up visions of how loud and pathetic your wailings would be if you didn't have recreational opportunities that are certainly paid for by others.
How about making a list of all the public facilities, trails, forests, rivers, roads, sewers, water pipes, bridges, police agencies, fire departments, streetlights, city parks, and more that you will never ever use again because they are paid for by others?
It reminds me of the recent photo of the man wearing a Don't Tread on Me t-shirt who was thanking a couple of fire fighters for saving his home in one of the Washington or Oregon wildfires.
I can confidently say that there are none for which I haven't contributed.
And so can all the rest of us. The key word there is "contributed." That makes you a socialist like everyone else.
So stop complaining. When you complain, you're demonstrating your entitlement mentality.
Smile, tovarisch
Lee, your high school civics class failed you. Contributing to something you use is neither socialist nor entitilement. Expecting some one else that does not use the service to contribute represents both.
Well, I'm sure other readers will be able to judge who actually passed or failed high school civics here.
Иметь хороший день, товарищ.
Apparently your Russian class failed you as well. LOL
What hypocrisy. The constant crying from NPS affiliated people to taxpayers that we should continue to pay in addition to our taxes for the "privilege" of using public lands. It's like going to the library and having to pay to check out a book. We pay for the library but some bureaucrat thinks we need to pay them again to fund their eternal retirement. That is the greatest example of "entitlement mentaility" in existence.
Have to disagree with you Smokies - I have no problem making those that use the parks contribute more than those that don't. We have many services that are provided by government but still have usage fees associated with them.
EC, you didn't answer my question. Would you rather have these fees go to the general treasury and have Congress decide where to spend them, or would you rather have them dedicated to recreational pursuits across the country?
I'd rather there not be the fees in the first place but if there are, they should go to the general treasury and be spent on powers enumerated by the Constituion. I don't think the "peoples" money should be spent on local projects.
I'd rather there not be the fees in the first place but if there are, they should go to the general treasury and be spent on powers enumerated by the Constituion. I don't think the "peoples" money should be spent on local projects.
BP wrote: "The constant crying from NPS affiliated people to taxpayers that we should continue to pay in addition to our taxes for the "privilege" of using public lands. It's like going to the library and having to pay to check out a book."
I've asked him before and there has been no answer, I challenge him again to answer one question: The national park budget represents something like 0.001% of the Federal budget. BP, pull out your income tax return from last year. Multiply the amount you finally paid after all deductions by 0.001. Now tell us just how much YOU personally paid in taxes to support our parks.
I'm sure we we'll all be waiting to see your numbers. If you don't reply, it will be prima facie evidence that you paid an embarrassingly small amount. I'll bet it's far less than $15.
Second, there are any number of public libraries around the country that are in dire financial straits. Some are already charging fees; some charge an annual fee for library cards; and some are simply consolidating or closing entirely. Bad comparison there.
Depends upon what part of Russia you come from. Down in Southern Russia, they have kind of a drawl. Or what kind of job Google Translator does . . . . .
So, cheers, comrade!
Enjoy your next hike on one of those Colorado trails that I paid for. We taxpayers here in Utah are checking to see if we can start charging toll fees for all you Colorado types who trespass on the trails we helped fund over there every time we filled our tanks.
Have a smiling day!
EDIT : Just did a little research. Apparently there really are different spellings in some areas an then there is the plural form. Here's just one source I found http://www.memidex.com/tovarisch
Gee, y'just never know what you're liable learn from Traveler!
So tell me Lee, which Colorado trail did you pay for?
Well, Comrade, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act has pumped about $698,000 into Summit County in Colorado. Projects cover a wide range and variety of outdoor recreation for the City of Breckenridge and the rest of the county.
I probably contributed maybe a quarter or perhaps even as much as fifty cents to your recreational facilities.
Most likely about equal to what you contributed to the Fund for use in Weber County, Utah.
Nowhere near the value of the projects to the residents of our respective communities. Believe it or not, there are some values that can't be measured in dollars simply because they are priceless.
I hope you and your grandchildren are enjoying my donation to your parks and on behalf of my neighbors here, we thank you for your assistance to us.
I will never hike a trail in your hometown, but as a proud American Patriot, I'm glad to be able to help make our nation even a little bit better for all of us.
So far this past year, I've paid a couple hundred dollars to sleep on bare ground in the Smokies with no amenities provided by the NPS on land donated to the federal govt by TN and NC residents, whose ancestors sorely regret the gift. So I think I have paid more than my fair share to the govt to use govt land with no amenities provided. Which is bull. So you NPS folks can whine all you want, I suspect that the Natural Resources Committee will get quite a bit of feedback from the public. I already heard what they said about backcountry camping fees in the NPS. The head of the committee derided it so they are definitely getting an earful from folks NOT AFFILIATED with the NPS like you sycophants.
Let's please try to make our points without casting insults and names about...
Lacking any citation, I will have to take your word for it. So in 50 years, it has averaged $1,396 per year. Given 100 million people are paying into the fund, your share is minute fractions of a a penny.
And here is the funny part. The average home in Breckenridge sells for more than $850,000 and the Town (not city) of Breckenridge has an annual budget of $60 million. $2.5 million of that goes toward acquiring and maintaining open space. (http://www.townofbreckenridge.com/index.aspx?page=1596) The total county government spending is in excess of $100 million with even more millions going into open space. Does Summit County need $1,396 from the LWCF? No. And there is no reason you or anyone else should be paying for our parks and trails.
Does that mean there are no parks or trails that warrant Federal money? No. Multistate trails such as the PCT, Continental Divide, AT and parks of national significance (including the NPS) do warrant Federal monies because they appeal not only to the locals but to a large population of non-locals.
Local trails, parks and playgrounds are for the most part for locals and should be paid for by the locals. Noone is entitled to have their local trails, parks and playgrounds paid for by someone else.
Well, SmokiesBackpacker, I have spent a few thousand $$ this year recreating on public land. And ECBuck, I have spent a few thousand $$ more recreating on state and local land. Chances are I have been to parks all over the country that were funded by LWCF. I don't think I have paid more than 'my fair share' and I am grateful that all those lands with parks and hiking trails exist. For any one person to believe that they have a right to pick and choose what is worthy is ludicrous. This same argument has been going on here for the three or so years I have been a member.
Personally, I regard the parks the same way I regard the highways, police, firefighters, military, and any other 'socialist' funding - I may not use them all but I am glad they exist in case I want or need to.
Its not whether they are worthy, it is who should pay for it. I don't expect you to pay for my police, fireman or roads either. Now interstate highways and military are another matter because those are national, not local assets.