Huge entry fee increases proposed for National Parks

John Barritt wrote:

And it probably won't happen now. This (your observation) is likely just one of the many causes for the need/attention to consider increasing fees. This thread will go off the rails if we try to analyze why the park service is starving and blame administrations past or present........the fact is (and my point in replying to Tim) is that the current admin didn't allow this to happen, or cause us to get here, the last one didn't fix it, nor can it be fixed in ten months.

At the end of the day the money has to come from somewhere, and if there isn't enough to go around luxury and entertainment is the first to go.

What will work is a non-sensical approach to running the parks and user groups helping to fund it because "our taxes" aren't going to do the job. 

I'm not sure what "this to happen" means.

I don't think anything about the NPS is fundamentally broken, in fact overall it has been working quite well for a long time. But it has worked because it was adequately funded and funding has generally increased with use and inflation.  But it will break if we reverse the trend.

What has happened is a spurious change with no basis in facts or even arithmetic.  Why would we suddenly cut the NPS budget?

I posted numbers upthread.  The NPS budget is 0.1% of the total federal budget.  User fees only account for a small fraction of that 0.1%.

Our taxes can easily do the job.  The system has worked for over a century and little has fundamentally changed.  The problem is that the federal government is trying to cut the NPS budget for no sensible reason.  The notion that reducing the NPS budget has anything to do with fiscal discipline or responsible spending is distraction and a sham.

to put it into perspective, its $95 PER PERSON for an annual Gunks pass or $20 for a day pass.  thats 1 place to visit, not multiple parks. people still pay and the mohonk preserve does barely anything to justify the pricing. while i agree there shouldnt be a price hike, its not going to change anything unfortunately. you could make the argument that its a private preserve and they can do what they want but my point is the pricing doesnt stop anyone and im sure the price will continue to go up.

John Barritt wrote:

So if we increase the cost for international tourists from $80 a car load (let's say they travel in fours) to $250 a head for all the parks (under my plan) we net $1,000 for the same number of users. So if international tourism drops by half (which it won't) as a result we still net $500 versus $80 which means we make $420 more for the park service and the user impact by tourism goes down.

You have to also run under the assumption that all international tourism to the US is driven by visiting the parks. It's not. the people who come here won't blink at paying $250 each to visit as many parks as they want if that's there goal. Thousands more will come here for tourism and never set foot in a national park.

How about some other ideas? 

I've made no assumptions on what drives visitors or asserted an overall gain or loss - only pointed out that there are often more factors to consider than initially obvious. I have not done the research and I'm guessing neither have you, so it would all be speculation which is not how a government should make decisions.

Even with your example above you point a gain of $420 and no quantification of the user impact by tourism. Factoring that in it may be better for the citizens to pay a little more in taxes or entry fees so that the tourism does not drop (or maybe even increases) as the tourist spending and tax revenue benefits them to a greater extent than the increased tax or entry fee.

At any rate, you or I guessing at impacts and scenarios on mountain project is silly; my point was that thinking "Most of the problems in this country have simple solutions" is likely overstated.

tim wrote:

Seniors can buy a lifetime pass for $80. They are a large user group. That is a lot of lost revenue.

Gonna quote myself since no one else did, this is a lot of money left on the table. And 62 years old, that's a senior?

John Barritt wrote:

Most of the problems in this country have simple solutions. Let's use hunting licenses for an analogy. Residents pay $25 for an annual license, and $150 for 6 deer tags (if you hunt all methods) in my State. Out of state hunters pay $280 for each method and get two tags.

So the resident pays $175 and here it comes......the non-resident pays $840 to hunt. The State makes five times (nearly) the money on a non-resident hunter than a resident.

I wonder if this could be done with national parks? Probably not........too complicated.

Here's how it should break down (just my opinion)

1. Veterans and active military, and children under 16 living at home FREE
2. US citizens, $100 family park pass,  2 adults and all children under 16 living at home.
3. International visitors $500 park pass, covers all national parks and BLM land for two visitors.
4. Single park day passes (US citizens only) $15 a head and kids under 12 free so the working man can afford to take the kids. 

So you'd be completely happy if you went to Canada to climb, spent your money in the local economy, paid for airfare, etc. etc. and then were charged 500 dollars for a week's access to the National Park system?

I think that you'd be a little peeved by how ungracious and xenophobic Canada was being.

John Barritt wrote:

Not under my plan........It's by the family and by the head. No more carloads..........users pay for their use.

The carload system is a lot faster. There are already huge lines coming into Yosemite on the weekends, I don't want to wait extra for the ranger to do head counts too.

I'm sure a lot of the reason for the jump is to generate more revenue because so many people are visiting the parks. I'm also quite sure that at least part of the reason is to cut down the visitation in some of the crowded parks. I honestly don't know how I feel about this. On one had I like that we have National Parks for people to visit and enjoy the incredible wild spaces that we have in the US. On the other hand we are definitely loving some of the parks to death. I'm part of the problem. I love the parks, I love that Utah has 5 of them plus national monuments for me to enjoy climbing and taking my family to. I don't like that the price jump may keep the average family from being able to visit the park. However, I also don't think it will really keep the average family from visiting a park. The cost of entrance is pretty small compared to the cost of a trip to get there, unless you live nearby, in which case you should probably just buy an annual pass anyway. If I'm planning a trip for my family to visit a far away park it honestly isn't going to matter much to me if it costs me $30 vs. $80. Yes, I work REALLY hard for that $50, but when factored into the trip as a whole, it's not that much when you add in the cost of gas, food, camping/hotel. 

My 3 kids somewhat lament the fact that they've never been to Disneyland. We typically plan a week long vacation each Summer to a new National Park outside of Utah. This type of vacation fits the family budget and we have a lot of fun. I explained to my kids one day that a trip to Disneyland would easily cost $2000 for the 5 of us. That's if we do it on the cheap. Yet, just about everyone I know drops a bunch of cash every few years to take a trip to Disneyland. That $2-$3000 doesn't seem to be stopping many people. I'm betting the bump in entrance fees to a National Park isn't going to stop many people either. I absolutely do think that it should be more expensive for Foreign visitors to enter the park. We pay taxes that support the parks. They do not. As pointed out above, the entrance fee is only a drop in the bucket for the annual budget for the parks. I've found in most of my visits that foreign visitors often outnumber US citizens. Which I think is totally cool. I'm glad that hordes of Germans love to visit the parks in Southern Utah, and the masses from Japan, China and Taiwan are able to enjoy the amazing features of Yellowstone. (really I wish they would all go away because I don't like my nature crowded, but that's just me being grumpy). 

Downtownt Kay wrote:

good thing the other two things you mention are also really costly-- there's a reason I dont ski or go to football games.

And there are numerous reasons people with less money dont end up in parks and then not establishing a relationship with the places some of us love the most.
lame to give them another obstacle... 

Just make sure you don't blame the Park service folks. This is the responsibility of the US Congress that keeps cutting, cutting, cutting. 

I think it's reasonable policy that non-US citizens pay more, but I don't think it's feasible.

You drive up to the gate and it's time to pay ... how does the gate attendant verify your citizenship?

Most US citizens don't have passports, and we know that some Hawaiian birth certificates are fake.

Sorry if this contributes to thread drift but: 

Making the parks smaller does not help with the problem of overcrowding either. People getting out and using parks (actually moving through them rather than just a drive through) is better for everyone. People don't get enough exposure to nature and many jobs are too sedentary. There is absolutely no reason to make it harder to visit less and less parkland, particularly when the dollar numbers show it's political theater to blame anything other than government spending priorities. As far as costs go, national parks are a bargain and the hangup comes from folks who instead see a higher profit in tearing things down. This discussion hits home for me as well as I'm watching as our airport (RDU) slowly closes in clearing a large chunk of centrally located beloved greenspace in the hopes of making money leasing the land as office and hotel space (something this landscape needs no more of). 

https://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2017/09/29/wake-county-preps-pitch-for-rdu-owned-land-along-i.html

On the other hand, our local climbing organization, the Carolina Climbers Coalition, has made great strides in securing property and access to a number of crags and boulder fields, so it's not all grim news. Still, those are small fries in comparison to the national parks. 

Dave Kos wrote:

lol...:D

You all are making this way to complex. Just park outside the park in the middle of nowhere with a jeep. After that hike a few dozen miles into the walls you want to climb and you will not even need a pass. Not like rangers are walking around checking permits at every trail head.

ViperScale wrote:

You all are making this way to complex. Just park outside the park in the middle of nowhere with a jeep. After that hike a few dozen miles into the walls you want to climb and you will not even need a pass. Not like rangers are walking around checking permits at every trail head.

They will be.........I call that phase 2, when the money starts rolling in you'll see them around the parks. The fines are triple the pass fee. Just buy the pass........... ;)

J. Albers wrote:

Just make sure you don't blame the Park service folks. This is the responsibility of the US Congress that keeps cutting, cutting, cutting. 

So, a group of people get together to lobby Congress to restrict funding for the park system, and succeed.  The NPS, realizing a lack of funding, looks for "partnerships" to assist with running and maintaining the system.  

Some groups of people then submit proposals to be "partners" to operate and maintain parks.  Some win these contracts, they then lobby congress to write a bill to increase the entry fees, then fight to write the bill in a way that diverts much of the increase to them, and as little as possible to operations and maintenance.  The groups of people can be from anywhere, any country, and are.  Then Americans blame Americans for the state of 'Murica.  It's a beautiful thing in its simplicity.

Josh Janes wrote:

Fair enough - I edited my post to say “international”. My intent wasn’t to single out one group; I was told (by friends from Asia) that the NPS specifically advertises there to increase tourism revenue which just sounded crazy to me (why not everywhere or better still nowhere?). But apparently (according to them) its been very successful.

Thanks for that Josh, I’m sure we’re on the same page in reality. If we’re ever in Yosemite at the same time I’ll buy you a beer (or other beverage of your choice).

I don't know, The Trump Yosemite Wilderness Lodge has a nice little ring to it.  Make the park entrance fee competitive with a Mar a Lago resort membership, and you're looking at serious revenue!

Then comes the El Cap Meadows PGA designed golf resort.  

So much untapped potential.

After two weeks in the USA I suddenly feel a lot more unwelcome. It's funny because I'm certain I spend a lot more money on the parks and outside while traveling here than the "dirtbags" who'd rather sell an arm than pay for a campgtound. Sigh.

You're still welcome to visit the Alps, Iceland or the Lofoten for the same price as us (ie zero dollars).

Jplotz wrote:

I don't know, The Trump Yosemite Wilderness Lodge has a nice little ring to it.  Make the park entrance fee competitive with a Mar a Lago resort membership, and you're looking at serious revenue!

Then comes the El Cap Meadows PGA designed golf resort.  

So much untapped potential.

I'm imagining a Wii Golf-type hole, where players try to bank their tee shots off of Half Dome to get a better look at the green....

How about the crown just doesnt charge people to use the land they own and pay for?