With National Park Service sites aiming to standardize entrance rates across the country in 2018, another wave of proposed fee increases is now open for public comment.
At Pinnacles National Park in California, the cost for vehicle entry would go up 67 percent, from $15 to $25, and the park’s annual pass would double from $25 to $50. Motorcyclists, hikers, and bikers would also see their rates increase.
According to the park, additional revenue generated would fund projects such as the rehabilitation of the Bear Valley School, the construction of vault toilets to replace portable facilities, and the building of a new entrance station in the east side of the park.
At Glacier National Park in Montana, officials are seeking a modest increase by comparison. The park, which drew nearly 3 million visitors last year, proposes raising the cost of its annual pass from $50 to $60.
“The funds raised through entrance fees including passes are critical to improve facilities and infrastructure, and to provide an enhanced level of visitor service,” said Park Superintendent Jeff Mow.
Park entrance and campground fees have supported a number of projects in Glacier, including a portion of the Many Glacier Hotel restoration, new interpretive exhibits at visitor centers, trail repairs, and winter snowshoe walks.
Back in California, Cabrillo National Monument proposes raising entry for vehicles from $10 to $15, for hikers and bikers from $5 to $7, and for motorcyclists from $7 to $10. In addition, the park’s annual pass would jump to $30 from $20. This would be only the second entrance fee increase in 31 years at Cabrillo.
The park says it plans to use the additional fees for installation of 38 new wayside exhibits, repair of the damaged Bayside Trail, production of a new signature film for Cabrillo, improved accessibility to park structures and resources, and an upgrade of informational displays for the World War I and World War II bunkers.
This fee proposals and civic engagement process are part of a review of the Federal Land Recreation Enhancement Act at parks nationwide. Following the public comment period, feedback will determine how, or if, a fee increase will be implemented.
To comment
Pinnacles National Park
- Deadline: September 28, 2017
- Online: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/pinn
- Mail: Superintendent; Pinnacles National Park; Attn: Proposed Fee Increase; 5000 Highway 146; Paicines, CA 95043
Glacier National Park
- Deadline: September 30, 2017
- Online: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/GNP_fee_proposal_2017
- Mail: Glacier National Park; Attention: Glacier National Park Annual Pass Fee Increase; P.O. Box 128; West Glacier, MT 59936
Cabrillo National Monument
- Deadline: September 30, 2017
- Online: https://parkplanning.nps.gov/cabr
- Mail: Park Superintendent; 1800 Cabrillo Memorial Drive; San Diego, CA 92106
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
HA! HA! HA! A little NPS humor there. Of course these will be implemented. Public input is just theater, it has never had any impact on the final decision and won't this time either. Just another small step toward making the parks available only to the wealthy elite like they were in their earliest days.
Kitty is right. These fees will be implemented and it matters not whether 8 million people voice their opposition. This drip drip of double taxation has become so palatable that folks don't bother to resist anyway. When your children are priced out of public lands, its too late. Heck, it's already too late. In the Smokies, you cannot get through the thoroughfares for people of differing nationalities. I'm surprised Trump hasn't thought of charging Non American's double. I have to pay double when I visit parks in other countries. But I still don't support this. Public lands have already been paid for, over and over. Yet the lollipops and fairy crowd never ends their fairy tale dreams of the "underfunded park service."
BS.
I have been through this in other countries. It was at a time when there was a difference between "tourist money" and "peoples' money" and the price was based on paying in each currency even though they were supposedly equivalent. I thought that I saw some mention of foreign visitor fees that were higher.
About the one think I can think of is that the senior and disabled interagency passes are only allowed to be obtained by US nationals and permanent residents. However, international visitors are perfectly welcom to get the regular interagency passes.
"In the Smokies, you cannot get through the thoroughfares for people of differing nationalities."
The word you are demonstrating and defining is "xenophobia".
Re-Public Input not being considered.
I was heavily involved in the price increase at a small park three years ago. We did monitor public input closely. Public input was about 90% in favor of the increase. In addition to PEPC (85% in favor) we solicited Facebook comments (100% in favor), email, mail and phone coments via our web page and press releases (about 90% in favor), and public comment at a local meeting (100% in favor). Admitandly, some of this (especially FB) was preaching to the choir, but we gave opponents plenty of time and opportunity to voice their complaints. While quite a few voiced their dissapointment that we needed the fees, support was overwhelming for the decision to increase.
When GSRM collected public comments on the backcountry fee, it was OVERWHELMINGLY opposed in public comments by a talley of 85%. But the NPS just kept changing their rationalization and justification for the fee and like Kitty implied, it was implemented anyway. PUblic be damned. The NPS is just putting lipstick on a predetermined pig. Just watch and see what happens with these proposals. THey will get instituted. We pay taxes for use of public lands. Charging taxpayers to use lands for which they have already paid is double taxation. I don't care what NPS people think. If we have to pay several hundred dollars to climb Denali, which I did years ago, why should someone from Japan pay the same amount when I pay taxes in the US for the NPS budget? If I want to climb in the Himalaya, foreigners pay a disproportionate amount and that is the way it is across the globe. I'm all for subsidizing outdoor experiences but don't hit me twice when I am a citizen.
It would be nice if along with increased entrance fees, we would get an increase in funding from congress. I understand user fees help defray costs by the ones who use the parks, but we all own the parks and when we pay taxes, some of it should go to take care of our Parks.
How much of this border wall funding would solve the entrance fee issue? And Trump just decided to amp up the Afghanistan mission. Six months of that debacle would solve the entrance fee problem permanently. But hey, whatever gets his mineral drilling buddies into the Lithium over there, right?
Some Americans continue to loudly demand more and more services and infrastructure while simultaneously crying for less taxation and lower fees.
Can anyone explain just how that is supposed to work?
It works like a library does, Lee. You pay for it with taxes. You don't have to pay again when you check out a book. Nor should you. I don't want any special services. If someone needs a sewer hook up, then no one says they shouldn't have to pay. But your analogy is like paying the president extra every time he insults someone.
I see your point, Smoky, but I'm afraid that's too simplistic. I just checked and discovered that nearly $40 of my annual property taxes go to our local library system. But less than $2 of my federal taxes go to our national parks. Congress has chosen to spend our tax money on other things --- like $400,000 pilot's helmets for F35 pilots --- instead of our parks.
The point I'm trying to make is that Americans seem to expect -- even demand -- more from our government while denying any responsibility to pay for what we want. Is that realistic?
In the end, though, someone is gonna have to pay. Or do without. Or put it on the national credit card again.
The land is free.
The Park Rangers, roads, programs, visitor facilities, clean up, rescues, etc. are not. All in all, a great bargain.
PS Buy an annual pass.
I am not opposed to raising fees provided they are in line with inflation or needed due to some extraordinary circumstance. It does feel like many of the increases are far beyond the rate of inflation. It would serve the Park service well to put some perspective behind the increase requests (like in the Carrillo example only with more detail). I.E. the fee hasn't increased since 19xx when it was only xx. Then of course there is the problem of vision and what the money will be used for. Is it to build more roads, parking lots and visitor centers so as to attract the greatest number of people possible? Or is it to address the maintenance backlog? I understand the argument for charging foreign visitors more since they are not paying taxes here but I'd rather see one flat fee for everyone. I am fortunate enough that paying a few dollars more is not a big issue for me but it feels very welcoming to be charged the same as a local resident, be it of a county, state or country, as opposed to being made to feel slightly unwelcome when you are charged more. I was curious as to the history of fees in the parks and came across this which some of you may find interesting. https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/mackintosh3/fees1.htm
The parks area bargain at twice the price. why shouldn't someone that uses them pay more than someone that doesn't. I'm in agreement with Lee. ( is that a pig that just flew by?)
By the way, except for the smoke, now is the time to be in Yosemite. No crowds, no traffic.