National Parks Traveler

Wow, that is one awful article. So, if I understand the half baked logic applied above it appears that we have a simple choice: either we get rid of an ice rink and bike rentals in Yosemite or the Koch brothers are going to loot and despoil every single national park out there. That's some pathetic argumentation.

I've hiked up there a number of times. It boggles my mind that anyone would get in the water there this time of year, and never within 300 yds of that falls. They think they can stand in it up to their knees, but the granite is worn slick as ice.

Let's see 100 - 47 = 53% so, yes, most of us pay income taxes. Lee 47% of FILERS. Not everyone files. In fact 10s of millions don't file and they don't pay taxes. So in fact "most" don't pay income taxes. And is it our public schools that set our national budgets

Most of us pay income taxes No. 47% of those that file don't pay and of course there are 10s of million that don't file. Is selfishness our new reigning national value? Not new just ever increasing since the days of Franklin Roosevelt.

Rick, i am well away that was your point, but it is totally irrelevant. There are thousands of "unique" places, experiences, things to own. To suggest that everyone will pay anything for them just because they are unique is ridicules. The laws of supply and demand hold whether the supply is one or a million.

Thank you, Jim. My point exactly.

No Rick, the competitve forces will have them decide if the go to Yellowstone, Denali, Disney World or just go to a free National Forest or beach.

I'm curious, smokiesbackpacker, how many current or former NPS employees do you think regularly post on NPT? i recognize about 4 names. You seem to believe that anyone who is not as utterly opposed to the backcountry camping fee in the Smokies as you are is either an NPS employee or a former one. As I have pointed out, I think your take on the fee is a defensible position.

ecbuck, my mistake..."if" this is their goal. (It is one of the goals listed by the group proposing this change)

I am sure that by the "dynamic" fee structure listed in the article above, the NPS is trying to account for supply and demand as ecbuck said.

Supply and demand isn't in play when price has nothing to do with supply. An interesting economic theory. Obviously you never took Economics 101. Google "price elasticity of demand" and educate yourself.

An interesting insight into fees and demand at another park is included in a current story on the Traveler about unusually high visitation at Bryce Canyon NP during the recent holiday w

I totally agree. The choice is when costs go up to run the park; raise user fees, raise taxes, or reduce spending (or a combination). Being a little less competitive may also reduce cost?

could follow suite and add or raise fees and still be competitive. But less competitive than they would be if they didn't implement/raise fees. There are still plenty of free alternatives for recreation.

Visitation is affected by many factors and none of the studies or commentary above have even attempted much less succeded in isolating the impact of fees. However, there is no reason to believe that the Parks would be immune from the basic laws of supply and demand. When price goes up, demand goes down.