Editor's note: This updates with reaction from National Parks Conservation Association and U.S. Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva.
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke moved Tuesday to find a way to boost funding to address the National Park Service's maintenance backlog, proposing to substantially increase park entrance fees during the "high season" for vacations. It's a move that seemingly would do little to address the backlog, estimated at roughly $12 billion, while hitting families with school students hardest.
“Secretary Zinke would rather take money directly out of the pockets of hardworking Americans instead of coming up with a serious budget proposal for the National Park System,” said Rep. Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat. “More than doubling the vehicle entrance fee at Grand Canyon, as this proposal would do, or any other park is not a sustainable funding strategy. We should be encouraging more people to get outdoors and enjoy our great natural wonders instead of discouraging them by raising park entrance fees. Whether it’s healthcare, tax cuts, or now access to our national parks, the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress just don’t seem to care about everyday American families.”
Under the fee proposal laid out in a press release, "entrance fees would be established at 17 national parks. The peak season for each park would be defined as its busiest contiguous five-month period of visitation."
During the peak season, the release explained, a seven-day-long "entrance fee would be $70 per private, non-commercial vehicle, $50 per motorcycle, and $30 per person on bike or foot. A park-specific annual pass for any of the 17 parks would be available for $75."
Parks to be affected by these rates, if approved, are "Arches, Bryce Canyon, Canyonlands, Denali, Glacier, Grand Canyon, Grand Teton, Olympic, Sequoia and Kings Canyon, Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Zion national parks with peak season starting on May 1, 2018; in Acadia, Mount Rainier, Rocky Mountain, and Shenandoah National Parks with peak season starting on June 1, 2018; and in Joshua Tree National Park as soon as practicable in 2018."
“We should not increase fees to such a degree as to make these places – protected for all Americans to experience – unaffordable for some families to visit," said Theresa Pierno, president and CEO of the National Parks Conservation Association. "The solution to our parks’ repair needs cannot and should not be largely shouldered by its visitors.
“The administration just proposed a major cut to the National Park Service budget even as parks struggle with billions of dollars in needed repairs," she added. "If the administration wants to support national parks, it needs to walk the walk and work with Congress to address the maintenance backlog."
If implemented, Interior officials said, the higher fees could be expected to raise $70 million a year. Eighty percent of the revenues raised would remain in the parks where they are collected, with the remainder to be distributed elsewhere in the National Park System.
Not mentioned in the release was how the proposed entrance fees were calculated, or how significant of an impact the additional revenues would have on the maintenance backlog.
“I think the proposal speaks for itself. I don’t think we’re going to speculate on what is a good amount of money, or what is enough," said Park Service spokesman Jeff Olson.
Public comment on the proposal will be open from October 24 to November 23. You can find details on the proposal and leave your comments at this site.
The proposal comes in the wake of the Trump administration's desire to cut the National Park Service budget by roughly $400 million and its staff by about 1,200. It also comes as Interior is raising hundreds of millions of dollars from off-shore oil and gas lease auctions, a source of revenues Mr. Zinke earlier this year said could be used to address the park system's maintenance woes.
But the Interior secretary almost from the start of his tenure at Interior has said entrance fees need to be adjusted upward.
"About half the parks don't charge. Which is interesting," he said during a media call in May. "We have a tier system (for entrance fees). A number of parks chose not even to follow the tier system. So, we're concentrating on where are revenues, and shore it up."
The tiered approach to fees, if enacted, likely would hit hardest families whose vacations are governed largely by school schedules, as school vacations typically coincide with the high seasons outlined by the release.
This past summer senior citizens, not the appropriations system, were looked to by Congress to raise more money for the Park Service. On August 27 the price for a lifetime senior pass to the parks, which had been just $10 for years, jumped to $80. Park Service officials could not say Tuesday how much revenues were generated by that increase.
Yet to come is a proposal to adjust entrance and permit fees for commercial tour operators. "The proposal would increase entrance fees for commercial operators and standardize commercial use authorization (CUA) requirements for road-based commercial tours, including application and management fees," the Park Service release said. "All CUA fees stay within the collecting park and would fund rehabilitation projects for buildings, facilities, parking lots, roads, and wayside exhibits that would enhance the visitor experience. The fees will also cover the administrative costs of receiving, reviewing, and processing CUA applications and required reports."
Unlike entrance fees for park visitors, any proposed increases in CUAs would take effect following an 18-month implementation window, the Park Service said.
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
Incredible. This would more than double the entrance fee for Zion, and nearly treble it for Arches. If Mr. Zinke manages to push this through, I'd like to see him do a week-long stint in an entrance station to one of these parks, so he could explain to stunned vacationers why they have to lay out so much to see their landscape heritage.
Why would someone buy a park-specific annual pass for $75 when they can buy an all-access pass for $80?
Answer: only if they are an idiot and/or flunked out of Econ 101. Clearly this is going to put intense upward pressure on that $80 all-access pass price, so look for that to be next - and by a hefty amount. Keeping it where it is while raising the daily fee at the Parks that bring in 70% of entrance fee revenue to $70 is completely unsustainable. If you don't have an ATB pass already you need to get one.
This proposal is obviously aimed at one primary purpose: to keep Americans from visiting their National Parks. America's best places at the most desirable seasons will only be available to the wealthy few. And holding only a 30-day comment period during the shoulder season shows that they are hoping for as few people as possible to weigh in. Which doesn't matter because they plan to ignore public comment anyway. If this REALLY concerns you, don't waste much time commenting to the NPS - go directly to your elected Representative and Senators!
Rep. Grijalva is from Arizona
Many thanks, KmcK. It's fixed now.
This also seems like a backdoor ”foreigner” surcharge - which has been an obsession of right-wingers forever (see: lots of comments here by certain suspects over the years). The Annual Pass is available to anyone (for now) but all the other recreation passes are for US citizens and permanent residents only.
Plus, the majority of Johnny Foreigner visitors to the flagship parks are day-tripping from SF or Vegas and looks like the gamble is that they still won’t buy the Annual. That’s for the hardcore (wealthier) types who are road-tripping across the US.
So, a proposed fee increase that disproportionately impacts younger and poorer Americans and casual (and, thus, usually younger) foreign tourists to the benefit of older, richer people from wherever. That harms local economies based on catering to mass-tourism by people of moderate means versus big tour companies. I wonder what this says about the prioritlies of this administration and its party.
Charge the increased fee (or even a higher one) to non tax-paying foreigners that clog these parks, but keep the fee reasonable for US citizens that are already directly supporting the NPS through their federal taxes. (And, no, I'm not a Trump fan, anti-foreigner nor right wing - just a regular NPS user/visitor (with a well used lifetime pass) looking at the real picture.)
A reasoanble way to implement this would be to make a nationwide NPS "discount" pass available to US citizens (either free or at a low cost) - rather than using an all-too-trumpian citizenship check at each NPS entrance gate.
I thought he was the one who decided how much money the parks got. It would be so much cleaner to simply increase their budget to somewhere closer to what they really need.
Although I generally like costs being shifted closer to the user, this increase does seem a bit steep. On the positive side, $70 for a family for a week still is cheap relative to most other recreational activities. In addition, it will pull more dollars from the international crowd. Finally, since the higher fees are during peak season, it could help shift the crowds to lower use periods.
That $70 is an entry fee only. You still have to pay for a camp site! Good way to make sure families can't afford to get their kids out in nature!
I agree. I thought it was an odd statement that the people who use the park shouldn't be the ones to pay for it. Try applying that logic to anything else in life.
You're also right about using a peak season model to shift use to different times of the year. Although the article did make a good point about family vacations revolving around school schedules. But I don't see a problem using a little economic stick/carrot to solve over crowding at places like Yellowstone.
My husband and I , from NH, just returned from 2weeks traveling through Utah. One week in a condo in Brian Head and one week camping at BLM sites (we had our minimal impact camping gear in carry on backpacks).
Enjoyed the trip, but Zion was a Zoo, wouldn't go back. I told my husband it was like Disney, then tonight listening to the NPR discussions of parks and the many points made, one of them exactly "Disneyfication"
Some of the points made that impressed me:
1. Getting more Americans to come into the park. - i don't know where they're going to put them. Zion, it was said 4 million\ per year visiting -now-calculate that a day. No matter how much $you give end-to-end there is only so much space! Who wants to share that???it was said that poorer Americans should be visiting. My parents weren't able to visit most of these parks and I wasn't able to visit til I retired, guess that's how "bucket lists" evolved. Most families, I feel who are limited to travel time and money aren't going to be able to plan cross country traveling. Traveling to areas close to home yes. It's not just about National parks but national forest and BLM sites, state parks etc. The bigger places are sometimes not as interesting and accessible as the state parks.
2. Next point , "Millenials" it was said, don't feel that the parks hold relevance to them? Guess that's why there has to be cell phone service to keep them interested?
3. Parks are 12 billion behind in maintenance work. This is a sum that has been adding up for a lot of years-a lot of administrations.
Will increase in fees this year help, maybe over a lot of administrations. It was mentioned that getting possible funding from private sources such as GE, could improve some infrastructure. Sad, to think that maybe you'd see "brought to you by......" , but NPR is supported by funding!
4. my husband and I had several observations - there is limited space in these parks, resources and growing number of people traveling. I think the growth is retirees (baby boomers are everywhere,and usually with campers and their toys) a lot of foreigners this time of year. No matter how much money you can't make the parks bigger without impacting surrounding towns, parking etc. It looks to us like traveling in winter and in lesser known areas is key.
Well, somebody has to pay for Zinke's private jet trips. C'mon.
$70 for a week for an entire family is more than affordable and appropriate. It costs more than $100 per day per person for a Disney visit. If NPS keeps the revenue, this is a fantastic idea. If we care about our parks we need to financially support our parks. Trails and roads don't fix themselves, and NPS employees need to be paid. Heck, you could triple the annual pass fees and I think it would still be by far the best value in America!
Bill. You are obviously unaware that taxes pay for these lands. The NPS isn't disneyworld, a private, for profit enterprise. Take off the Mickey Mouse Ears and get off the small world ride. It is neither affordable nor appropriate. Should we pay for a library book every time we check it out or a road every time we drive on it or the police whenever they work an accident?
entirely reasonable approach, might alleviate overcrowding a bit during the summer months. much more preferable than a reservation/ quota system which would inevitably lead to corruption. suspect an annual pass might go to $125/ 150, still a bargain. yes, taxes paid for the preservation of the parks, but not necessarily your annual visits: a good rule of thumb is that people will pay for what they truly value!
This is a bit inside-baseball, but I think that the bigger issue wth this proposal is whether Congress will change the law on what RecFee (entrance fee) income can be spent on. The current law is only projects (not ongoing operations), only projects with direct impact on visitors (no long-term resource management for future generations), no permanent federal positions (although permanent subject-to-furlough employees can be paid for projects during their otherwise unpaid furlough pay periods), no spending in advance nor carrying over more than 20% of annual income (so no big projects that require multiple years of receipts for that park).
$70M/yr isn't much against $4-5B of non-highway deferred maintenence, but it is almost irrelevant under the current restrictions on hwo it can be spent. At the least, can they get Congress to allow any amount of RecFee receipts to be spent on "maintenence backlog", including either saving up for large projects or "borrowing" from other parks against future income, so that large projects are possible with this funding? If not, that $70M will do even less.
Also, Zinke doesn't know about Everglades?! Or Acadia? Those are the 2 most obvious Eastern "destination parks" for his market-based admission fees that he didn't include. By law Great Smoky Mountains NP can't charge admission (although, as SmokiesBackpacker emphasizes, they can and do charge for back-country camping permits and other add-ons).
And maybe the smaller cultural National Monuments like Brown v Board of Education, Gettysburg, etc., aren't on Zinke's radar? There's a reason those aren't on their "tier" entrance fees. Zinke should visit Chiricahua NM in Arizona. He'd enjoy it (on his horse with his boots & hat), and the Superintendent can explain why the cost of collection wasn't worth the entrance fee receipts, so the tier entrance fee was abolished.
2 more things:
1) Do both! Submit comments on the NPS planning website AND contact your representative & senator!
2) "Foreigners" visiting parks for a day or less tend to be on commercial organized tours that pay a flat fee per big bus (Grand Canyon, Zion, Yosemite, even Yellowstone).. This proposal doesn't affect such commercial entrance fees. It _would_ affect the foreign visitors who cmoe to spend multiple days in 1 or 2 parks on their own. And it does affect many residents who do the classic summer vacation of visiting grandparents & seeing 1 or 2 National Parks on the same roadtrip.
The fee law does not prohibit tha NPS from spending fee money on operations. It is NPS policy to use the entrance fee money only for "maintenance backlog." Here is the law requirements:
118 STAT. 3389
PUBLIC LAW 108–447—DEC. 8, 2004
(3) shall be used only for—
(A) repair, maintenance, and facility enhancement related directly to visitor enjoyment, visitor access, and health and safety;
(B) interpretation, visitor information, visitor service, visitor needs assessments, and signs;
(C) habitat restoration directly related to wildlife-dependent recreation that is limited to hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, or photography;
(D) law enforcement related to public use and recreation;
(E) direct operating or capital costs associated with the recreation fee program; and
(F) a fee management agreement established under section 6(a) or a visitor reservation service.
For whatever it may or may not be worth, KSL News in Salt Lake just reported on this proposal and said that one of Utah's Congressional delegation, Mia Love, has come out in opposition to this.
Thanks to tomp2 for all your posts! The restrictions outlined above on fee spending would almost seem to be designed to increase, not decrease, the NPS multi-billion maintenance backlog, If Zinke's fee money can't be used to clean restrooms (operations at its most basic), but only build new ones, for example, then those 'visitor improvements' sound like more development in lieu of maintenance, in addition to proposed cuts in staffing..
"...park-specific annual pass..." available for $75. This is in addition to what? The regular annual pass, currently for $80, which I assume would no longer grant you access into any of those 17 parks? So, if you already owned an annual pass for which you paid $80, you'd still have to fork over an extra $75 for each one of those 17 particular parks you might visit in a year? The government seems to be a little vague on that wording.
As SmokiesBackpacker put it, the NPS is not Disney, a for-profit corporation, so paying that rather drastic fee increase for entrance into a PUBLIC land, the upkeep of which is already supposed to be funded by our tax dollars, is not still cheaper than an entry fee to some other recreational/entertainment (for-profit) entity. Look, I understand the need to increase fees. The cost of everything has gone up over the years, and an increase in fees (IMO, a definite increase in those damned tourist buses is needed) might help - to a very, very small extent - with infrastructure and payroll costs. However, I don't really trust the NPS to apply the funds in a wise manner; this agency seems to be adept at mishandling things ranging from funds to sexual harrassment issues. And an increase really will price out much of the population of all ages. The current administration seems to be hell-bent on doing so, and this passive-aggressive increase in fees from $20 or $30 to $75 would definitely accomplish this mission, leaving only the well-off to enjoy what are still - as far as I am aware - public lands, open to all.
Smokies, your contribution to the Parks via taxes is minimal, certainly far less than even the current entrance fee. And of course foreign visitors, which make up a large part of the attendance contribute nothing in taxes.
For Bamboolyn, camping fees (which aren't going up) are $10-20 a night. Trying finding a motel for that.
The magnitude of the hike is disconcerting but overall still a bargain. If the NPS didn't exist until today and there was a press release announcing these amenities and prices people would be screaming "what a deal".
I think there is another reason to raise entrance fees, by keeping out the common folk, over time the majority of people will slowly forget about the parks, then the government can do what they want with them, sell off, drill, what ever the agenda is, just like now shrink or get rid of National Monuments, give back to states...........
I have a degree in outdoor recreation management and this is something we have discussed and my professor and I think this is the lowest anyone could go, as it is a form of discrimination.
On the other hand, why not? lets discriminate against the poor because we have a rich bully as a president and the most millionaires in the cabinet of any president in history. Oh, lets have polluters go free and the banks get their freedom back to screw us again to make it better.
Not surprising that the resident rich, white GOP donor drone is a-for it. I'll grant that he's usually for fee increases because he doesn't care about people who work for a living rather than working the casino of Wall Street and real estate.
At least at Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Sequoia, and Joshua Tree, the majority of foreigners may enter on tour buses but for every tour bus of 75, there a dozen rental cars with individuals or couples. This is a disaster for "casual" and young tourists.
As for Yellowstone, Rocky Mountain, and Glacier, it's not possible to apply a carrot and stick any further (unlike Grand Canyon and the desert parks). There is literally no way into most of those parks for over half the year for anyone who is not a fairly experienced winter recreationist. The others (Yosemite, Sequoia, Mount Rainier, and Olympic) could do with some additional winter tourism but have enormously reduced staffing, road closures, and other challenges that this money could not fund. Even if it was sufficient.
Finally, even granting the "Disney model," Disney does not double entry fees in a single year. No one in the tourism industry would do something in a way that would so adversely affect their business. If these guys really were about running the parks as businesses, they'd have constant fee growth that does not induce sticker-shock. But this is obviously meant to paper over (some) of the proposed cut to the system while proceding apace with gutting those lousy government workers.
Toxie the fact you don't understand the difference between the economic models of a casino and that of wall street and real estate explains alot about your comments here.
For Argalite, Discriminate against the poor? How many of the true "poor" visit the subject parks today? I am willing to bet it is a tiny fraction. In the scheme of a family vaction to one of these parks, an incremental $40 is nothing and hardly in Toxie's words "a disaster for "casual" and young tourists."
Folks have been complaining about parks being overrun by visitors in the summer. That should alleviate the issue.
Please, no fee increases for US citizens. Raise the fees for foreign visitors to make up the needed funds. Please, no discounts for any tour buses either. The Parks are for the enjoyment of the American People and not for foreigners who pay no income taxes and enjoy our Parks while making the Parks overcrowded for the American People.
I would just like to encourage all who read here remember the scorn that the affluent and demonstrably selfish of the Trump supporters here and vote in the mid-terms. Don't bother arguing with them here when they troll, as they are highly resistent to anything but their own "alternative facts".
In response to CJ:
My understanding of the current NPS interpretation of the law is that the only "direct operating costs" allowed are under E for building and staffing entrance stations to collect the fees. You can't spend to clean bathrooms & empty trash cans under any of those; A - D are the direct benefit to visitors, E&F are costs of collection. The current NPS policy on top of that law is that at least 55% must be spent on things that qualify under 3A of the law that are _also_ counted in the maintenence backlog.
For the broader discussion:
As background for the fee increases, here's the DOI IG "Final Audit Report Review of National Park Service's Recreation Fee Program" report from 2015:
https://www.doioig.gov/sites/doioig.gov/files/CINNPS00122013Public.pdf
"We found several areas in which NPS is missing opportunities to maximize its fee revenue"
Look at the "figure 3" table on page 12 for America the Beautiful Passes. 500K senior passes vs 263K paid annual passes in 2012, long before the "beat the increase" rush: I would have bet against that. That might explain why the first congressionally-mandated increase was the lifetime Senior pass to $80. Page 13 seems to state that NPS has the authority to raise the cost of the $80 interagency annual pass. If Yellowstone & Yosemite go to $70, I expect the interagency annual pass to go up substantially unless there was something in the FLRA reauthorization legislation. [In a cynical moment I can think of free admission with your hunting or fishing license. And the IG wants new fee structure for commercial tours.
Here's a 2015 GAO report: https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/674187.pdf
So far we've thought about setting fees to maximize or at least increase revenue, and about how setting high fees affects the socioeconomic mix of the visitors, pricing non-rich out of parks, at least at peak times.
A slightly different way to think about the entrance fee schedule: it shapes the kinds of _visits_ parks receive as well as who the visitors are. In (almost?) all parks with entrance fees, the fee is good for a full week. For Yellowstone, Glacier, Denali, and most large natural resource parks, that makes sense in (slightly) encouraging extended rather than rushed visits. Not so much for Tuzigoot or Cabrillo that close at 5pm, and have smaller sets of features of interest.
Yes, $70 for a week at Yellowstone or Rocky Mountain NP is still a bargain. But how many visitors spend a full week there? I don't have average visit durations for those parks (not sure if such information is even available), but I suspect the majority of visits are 1-2 days, especially for Rocky Mountain NP. $70 for a day is a bit steep.
The same tradeoff happens at a group 1 (tier IV) park like Cabrillo National Monument, just at a different scale. When the entrance fee was $5 per car, good for a week, the median and average visit duration was under an hour. Lots of folks brought out of town visitors out to the park for the view, and maybe looked in the visitor center or the lighthouse. The target fee for tier 1 is $15 per car. That's going to reduce the quick visits less than an hour to see the view, but not do much to the 2-6 hour visits where folks might hike the trails and visit the bunkers as well as the lighthouse (no camping & park is only open 9-5). The interim fee of $10 per car has only slightly affected numbers of visitors, so revenue is up substantially. The mandated $15 is more likely to decrease visitation, but still increase net revenue.
Should the park keep the fee low to promote larger numbers of visitors coming out for the view, then maybe coming back later to see the rest of the park's features they didn't know existed? Or should the park go ahead and raise the fee and promote slightly fewer but longer, higher-quality visits taking in more of what the park has to offer? Cabrillo can be quite crowded on weekends & holidays, and draws around 1 million visitors per year. I don't have an answer for those questions, but I think they should be part of the consideration at least as much as maximizing revenue.
tomp2, interesting post. as I am still occasionally employed on an emergency basis as a PIO in the park, I understand some of the visitation figures for Yosemite, not all, and am not sure how much, on a daily basis, are vsitors from other nations, but it is sizeable. in any case, day use accounts for roughly 80% of park visitation. Average length of stay is 2 to 3 hours. Yosemite is a World Heritage site, popular both in America and World wide, As overhight accomodations and campgrounds are difficult to get, many visitors stay outside the park in the gateway comunities. Parking in Yosemite Valley, Galcier Point and Tuolumne Meadows is almost impossible to find on 70 to a 100 days during peak visitor season. It is a situation that is both frustrating to visistors and employees. The parks infrastructure is on overload, it simply cannot handle current visitation levels. Solutions vary including raising fees during peak periods, many think it should be a 100 dollars a day (this suggested by a former CEO of a concessionaire), rasing fees is on the table. Others feel a "little" congestion is no big deal. A tough call for the NPS, but my own opinion is that a reservation system is the best approach. As Doctor Runte has pointed out, we pay a price for population growth, we must either set some limints (I do not think pricing people out is the answer, could go on and on about this option), or we must build to accomodate and there is no end in sight with that alternative. By the way, we now have roundabouts in Yosemite Valley.
I‘m glad I had the chance to work and live in a few of these iconic national parks (1966-71) before the crowds hit big time. A fee of $70 per car per week seems rather steep. But, I’m glad I now live in East TN where not a single NPS unit has an entrance fee (via their enabling legislation). However, if entrance stations were to be constructed and staffed, and if a similar fee were to be charged per car for the Great Smoky Mountains and the Blue Ridge Parkway, I can only imagine the outrage that would occur. In the best of all worlds, Congress should support park operations at all locations.
Does the entrance fee impact park visitation? You bet it does! Just compare the annual visitation of Shenandoah (where there are entrance fees) to the Blue Ridge Parkway (where there are no entrance fees). Yet, look at the close proximity of Shandoah to the greater Washington, DC region.
In terms of peak season overcrowding: I see only three solutions (1) higher entrance fees (which most certainly will impact visits, especially visits by families on a travel budget), (2) implementation of a reservation system, or (3) produce lots of negative publicity about the impacts of overcrowding, crime in the parks, etc. I prefer the second alternative, and thus, I totally agree with Ron Mackie. The third option, negative publicity, will ultimately impact the overall perception of the importance of parks by the public, and will likely translate into less rather than more Congressional support.
ecbuck, if you don't know something, why talk about it?
The $70 million or so entrance fee increases that will go directly to the affected parks is more than offset by the $400 Million that the Trump Administration proposes to reduce the NPS budget. It is the responsibility of Congress to correct this budget proposal and adequately fund the Parks. Additionally, would all of that extra $70 million actually benefit the individual parks? I've heard of budget people reducing the funding of a particular park by the amount of extra money it takes in. Can a knowledgable source confirm if this really takes place?
reply
Would you care to explain that that is supposed to mean?
reply
How many of the true "poor" visit the subject parks today? I am willing to bet it is a tiny fraction.
if you don't know, why talk about it? and it is a shame I have to spoon feed you this stuff
Argalite, apparently you don't know either since you did not answer the question. How revealing it is that you think a question is inappropriate to a discussion.
BTW, the answer is about 5%.
The proposed price hike seems like an eminently reasonable solution to the well-documented issues of peak season overcrowding, deferred maintenance backlog, and "free-riding" foreign tourists.
The responses from the NPCA and Rep. Grijalva are typically disingenuous and self-serving. Obviously, "hardworking Americans" are paying for the parks either way. User fees simply shift some of the burden from the middle class family in Minneapolis (who pay taxes and live 1,000+ miles from any of the major parks) to daytrippers living in the SF Bay Area, Southern California, and Vegas and international visitors.
Anyone who has budgeted for a trip knows that National Park entrance fees are a minimal consideration compared to transportation, lodging, and dining (especially at the prices set by NP concessionaires). I'm sure there are a few scenarios where a $70 entrance fee would make a budget-conscious family think twice about visiting, but I suspect that the issue is more emotional than economic.
<sotto voce>And most of us would prefer that the word not get out to the general public, but some of the other 400 parks in the NPS system are better than the 17 marquee parks listed above.</sotto voce>
Heard an interesting callin on local Denver talk radio re RMNP. Trail Ridge road is a popular motorcycle day trip and the new fees at $50 a bike could be quite uninviting, even for the "rich". Seems like there could be some compromise by offering 1day passes at maybe 1/2 the price of the 7 day pass.
From today's Salt Lake Tribune:
http://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2017/10/27/will-paying-more-to-se...
ec--
ROMO is one of the few rec fee parks that already offers a 1-day pass option to the standard "good for 7 days" passes. But the discount isn't that much. For instance, the current cost of a 7-day motorcycle pass is $25, but the 1-day motorcycle pass is $20.
https://www.nps.gov/romo/planyourvisit/fees.htm
[replace the romo with the 4 letter code of any other park to see their entry fees.]
Argalite, apparently you don't know either since you did not answer the question. How revealing it is that you think a question is inappropriate to a discussion. BTW, the answer is about 5%.
Ecbuck, I just wanted you to write about something you knew, instead of guessing. I never used the word innappropriate.
Next time I will not spoon feed you, you can figure it out or not, clueless
Argalite, you didn't speculate you just said something that wasn't true and you haven't spoon fed a thing.
An interesting fact, the percent of "poor" going to National Parks, that charge fees" is not statistically different than the park system as whole, much of which charges no or only minimal fees. Those numers suggest that something other than the fees are driving the low attendance by the poor.
tomp2, I was unaware of that. Never saw or was offered a one day option when I entered the park.
Question: Does anyone know if the funds collected from the gate (day, week, or annual pass for 1 park) go to the same budget pool as the all parks annual pass (ATB)? I know congresss controls the ATB cost and the DOI/NPS controls the others, so it makes me wonder if the funds are separated as well.
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/bagley/2017/10/27/bagley-cartoon-arch-cons...
Actually congress does not control the ATB annual pass price, only the Senior/Disabled price. The agencies that sell/accept it collaboratively set the annual wherever they like. When you buy an ATB annual your payment stays wherever you made the purchase, minus a small percentage that goes to NPS WASO to administer the pass program. So for example you buy an ATB annual from the White River National Forest in Colorado so you can visit Maroon Valley. Then you drive to Rocky Mountain NP and use that pass for entry. ROMO gets zero from the $80 you paid the WRNF. Same thing vice versa if you buy it at ROMO and use it on the WMNF. Kurt noted that in his editorial, among the many reasons that the economics of this proposal just don't make any sense.
Argalite...
Anytime someone with a minority, controversial, and confrontational stance uses phrases such as "An interesting fact you should know..." or in some similar manner labels what they are telling you as "fact", hold to your wallet and keep your back to the wall. If you choose to waste your time with them again demand concrete objective proof of everything they say, down to whether they think rain is wet.
But God forbid you engage in a civil discussion with well stated arguments and facts your can substantiate.
So where was all the outrage last year when it seemed there were nonstop fee increases announced? Some are outraged the current administration is considering scaling back or eliminating some of the units added under the prior administration. I guess if your house had a leaky roof and you couldn’t afford to repair it you would borrow money and build a new addition instead of fixing the leaky roof.
Pages