Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C. NPS photo.
In honor of Veterans Day, U.S. military veterans, members of the U.S. armed forces and their families will be admitted without charge on November 11th to public recreation lands managed by the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Forest Service.
This annual Veterans Day fee waiver began in 2006, and applies to entrance fees at sites administered by those agencies. Other fees, such as those for camping or additional services, will still apply.
The purpose of this observance is not to glorify conflict but simply to honor those who served when asked to do so by their nation. National Park Service sites which commemorate and honor the service of American veterans span the nation's history, and are located all across the country. The National Park Service has developed a web page to help plan visits to NPS sites that preserve the military and veteran heritage of our nation.
Special Veterans Day activities will be held on November 11th at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, DC. The event will begin at 1 p.m. with speeches, speakers, a color guard and a wreath-laying ceremony. Jan C. Scruggs, Founder and President of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, will serve as master of ceremonies.
"I invite everyone to visit our many national parks that preserve and commemorate the sacrifices and achievements of the men and women who have fought in America's wars," said Mary A. Bomar, Director of the National Park Service. "As we approach Veteran's Day, what better way to learn about the hallowed places preserved in the National Park System and to honor the sacrifices of our veterans, than by visiting a national park."
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
I think this is great, it should be expanded to either year-round or at least the month of November. We do so little honor our military and veteran's who deserve so much.
As a vet, I am not very impressed that entrance fees are waived for one day. Since all other fees still apply, the entrance fees should be waived for any ID carrying vet period.
Do NPS, USFW, BLM, USFS employees always have to pay full costs for their rec time spent on these lands?
I think it is also pitiful that one actually has to mention " The purpose of this observance is not to glorify conflict.."
Asinine. What morons would have thought that?
It's always hard to argue down proposals for expanding veterans benefits, and the one you suggest is especially difficult to oppose on ethical grounds. Who could be more deserving than a military veteran when it comes to freely accessing America's public lands? So, put me in the "yes" column. (I would also cheerfully add actively serving military personnel to the list of the deserving.) But what about policemen, firemen, and others who serve and protect? And wouldn't there be a whole bunch of other constituencies with plausible "me too!" arguments? In brief, where do you stop with the freebies? BTW, I agree that it's asinine to instruct people that they shouldn't confuse honoring vets with glorifying conflict. Who on earth would draw a conclusion like that, anyway?
Truth-in-endorsing disclosure: I'm strongly biased toward veterans benefits. Among other things, they helped me fund my college education and buy my first house.
While we are exempting Americans who have served their country from NPS entrance fees, what about returned Peace Corps Volunteers?
Rick Smith
Wow, some interesting comments on a post that was primarily intended just to let people know about the upcoming opportunity for vets. I hadn't expected to reopen the wide-ranging debate about fees ... but that's ok :-)
I would like to answer one comment from the above:
Based on my personal experience, I'd say "normally yes." I worked for the NPS for 30 years and can honestly say that I never asked for nor received a free ride at any other federal area I was visiting. (Since I lived inside the boundary of places like Grand Canyon, I didn't pay the entrance fee to come and go from home at a park where I was a resident.) That's not to paint me as a saint - I just didn't want to put that entry-level employee at the entrance station in an awkward position. At one point in my career, there were actually some people conducting audits of fee operations by trying to talk their way into parks because they were government employees, or under some similar guise, and if they were successful, the fee collector and the supervisor were formally admonished or subject to disciplinary action. Do some employees flash an ID at the entrance at parks and get in free? Almost certainly so. Similar supposed "perks" occur in almost any private or government enterprise, but I really don't think it's widespread.
Why veterans? How about nurses? Fire fighters? All law enforcement personal? Paramedics? Social workers?
For those who want to skirt the entrance fee for political or other reasons -
It's an interesting question about whether an entrance fee is "double taxation," since taxes are not paying for the services provided by the entrance fees.
I suspect that given their choice, most NPS employees would prefer to eliminate fees completely, if those same dollars could be provided from appropriated sources. (The exception might be the employees who are hired to collect the fees :-) Other than the revenue generated, the other main plus of entrance stations is some element of security at the gate, and a chance to provide information to visitors when they arrive.
Unfortunately, the reality is that the political decision has already been made to squeeze as many dollars out of visitors as possible, with the goal in some quarters to turn the park's into a self-supporting business, run as much as possible by private enterprise. Given the state of the economy, I wouldn't place any bets on the odds of replacing fee revenue with tax dollars, and would guess that fees are here to stay.
That said, under the present system, Congress long ago figured out they could cut funding to parks by charging a toll at the gate, and fee dollars are the source of funds for projects that directly benefit visitors. When visitors (for whatever reason) find ways to avoid paying a fee, what's really being penalized is visitor services.
So ... as long as you don't hike any trails, drive on any roads, enter any buildings, attend any programs, or flush any appropriate fixtures, let your conscience be your guide when it comes to ways to skirt the fee. (I'm having a little fun here, because some of those facilities and services are being paid out of appropriated dollars, but some do depend on fee revenue. I'll leave it to the conscientious objectors to figure out which ones they've already "paid for" on April 15th.)
Beamis - an excellent question!
First, here's why there is no entrance fee at the Smokies:
You can read the full explanation here.
Congress keeps tinkering with the fee program, so it's had some changes since I retired in 2001. I did a little research, and believe the following is accurate, but I'm happy to have anyone weigh in with corrections if needed.
The current version of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA) was enacted in 2004, and runs for ten years. Fee program funds are restricted to designated uses, which currently include "projects to reduce the backlog of infrastructure maintenance; trails; cultural resources projects to rehabilitate historic structures, restore cultural landscapes and protect museum objects; visitor orientation and education through visitor center improvements, amphitheaters repair and replacement of exhibits; repairs of campgrounds; replacement of informational signs; and, backcountry user education."
Parks which collect fees retain 80% of the money for use in that park; the remaining 20% is distributed by the NPS Washington Office. That money goes to parks which don't collect fees, parks which raised limited revenue through fees, and for special projects.
So, parks such as the Smokies can receive part of that "national 20% pot." In the bigger picture, the NPS budget was handled as follows during my career, and I suspect it's still basically the same: Congress appropriates money for park operations each year, which the Washington office then doles out to all parts of the system. That process can be complicated, but factors including fee revenue available to each park help determine how much each individual park receives for the year.
You'll find more than you probably want to know about the fee program at an NPS site and Interior site.
Finally, here's the official explanation for why there is a fee program: "The rationale is that those who use specific services and facilities should pay for a larger portion of the costs, rather than require taxpayers who never use the amenities to assume the entire cost."
I hope that helps!
Perhaps you can help me sort this one out. Why is it that, in all five of the most recent presidential elections, the candidate with the best (or only)record of military service has lost the election? What does this say about military service as something that conditions or qualifies a person for political leadership in America?
I would venture that it's largely coincidence.
I think McCain had two main things going against him:
1) His age. Like it or not, 72 is not perceived youthful, and with the tasks facing the next administration, that no doubt played a factor in many minds. In fact, I think that's what the exit polling indicated, that his age was a greater factor than Obama's race.
2) Sarah Palin. Again, like it or not, she was perceived by many as a drag on his candidacy. Though perceived by some as fresh and vibrant on the political scene, nationally, she lacked the experience one would seek in a VP. She also got off to a bad start with national interviews (ie Katie Couric) and never seemed to recover. Frankly, I think she also exhibited a nasty streak. Whether that was natural or called for, it didn't endear her outside the far right.
As for John Kerry, well, conspiracy theorists no doubt would say his campaign was Swift-boated. Al Gore lost the election in the courts, which, again, conspiracy theorists would have you believe were jiggered.
As for George Bush senior, "it's the economy, stupid!" And Jimmy Carter, well, best intentions....