Large rise in National Park entrance fee proposal

[dblcola]

Most vacation towns charge higher taxes on beds,services,sales ect. It's not just the parks. The states these parks are in are collecting lots of revenue. Are they paying any maintenance fee's?

As someone else pointed out you are spending a lot of money just to get to the parks. The states are spending the taxes you pay on other things besides the parks I can assure you. I say let the states pick up the slack.

[Jack L]

I had the Good fortune to visit 8 of our beautiful National Parks so far this year. Black Canyon of the Gunnison, Arches, Canyonlands, Capitol Reef, Bryce Canyon, Zion, Grand Teton, and Yellowstone. The traffic congestion at Yellowstone, Arches, and Bryce was very heavy. The traffic at Zion was even worse. These parks are getting so much heavy use and something really needs to be done to limit the number of people in the park at any given time. A fee increase is one way to reduce traffic. Maybe not the best way.

[Bruce H]

Before I jump in with an emotional opinion that raising the fees or taxes is always good or that eliminating fees is better, I want to see an understandable public statement done by cost account CPAs that show the fixed annual costs and the cost per visitor (user) of these parks. Then I want to see an outside audit that evaluates the effectiveness of the management procedures in these parks. I am somewhat suspicious of the later.

[CindyL]

When I return to Yellowstone, it will be off-season, unless this fee increase reduces visitors. The last time I was there, aggressive tour-bus picture-takers nearly pushed me into one of the hot springs. I believe that, if they raise the fees, anyone who enters, regardless of what vehicle they enter in, should pay the same fee.

CindyL

[floyd]

Originally Posted by EricAllyn

A few years back there was a fee increase on the toll roads around Chicago. They doubled. Put that way it seems bad. They went up 40 cents. Doesn't sound to bad. When was the last increase to the park fees? How much? Are they worth what the fee is? These are the points that should form the discussion. Is the money needed? Will it be used properly? Whether it is from taxes, fees, or non-profits raising money, the real question should be are we willing to maintain the parks as they need to be maintained. If the general public is not willing (by who they place in office at election time) then those who value them will still be the ones who will work to maintain them.

One point, bureaucrats are not elected and the majority are not appointed by elected persons. Bureaucracies move and change slowly. They also develop a life of their own and often ignore directives.

If you chose to influence or even become educated enough to form a solid opinion... would you write to your President? your Congressman? The Department of Agriculture? Maybe one of its dozens of subsidiaries, or one of the thousands of officials with direct authority each making at least 6 figures?

Where did you start? The easy way with partisan finger pointing?
Even that's a lot more interest than most of the public...
Did you wade into the various bureaucracies, taking the time and enduring the runaround, in hopes of finding the right bureaucrat who could affect your particular concern?
Good Luck with that, and keep us posted.
BTW...We cynics always think we are realists!

[DavidG]

Originally Posted by redbarron55

Sorry, but the current "Conservative" climate does not conserve anything but the wealth of the advantaged and the rest of us can just go pound sand.
Parks exist to be mined and exploited, evidently.
I apologize if my opinions differ from others, but there you are

---------------------------------------------------

I agree that the 'current climate' of thinking of National Parks and Monuments as potential mining, oil , and lumber sites is a big part of the problem. Saying that turning over Public Land to private mining interests is " Returning the land to the People " is just ludicrous . National Parks and Monuments belong to the American People , and they need to be maintained for posterity , not for Profit !

[k0wtz]

charley I take what these park officials tell me with a grain of salt! I live yosemetie I have been there 3 times appears the same every time.


I put them right up there with public schools and their grabbing off taxpayer money for the big-shots. I have seen it so many times!!


bob

[ripple]

However the Parks are maintained and paid for, they must be preserved.




“Thousands of tired, nerve-shaken, over-civilized people are beginning to find out that going to the mountains is going home; that wildness is a necessity; and that mountain parks and reservations are useful not only as fountains of timber and irrigating rivers, but as fountains of life. Awakening from the stupefying effects of the vice of over-industry and the deadly apathy of luxury, they are trying as best they can to mix and enrich their own little ongoings with those of Nature, and to get rid of rust and disease.”


― John Muir, Our National Parks





"There can be nothing in the world more beautiful than the Yosemite, the groves of the giant sequoias and redwoods, the Canyon of the Colorado, the Canyon of the Yellowstone, the Three Tetons; and our people should see to it that they are preserved for their children and their children's children forever, with their majestic beauty all unmarred."


"I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us."


"Of all the questions which can come before this nation, short of the actual preservation of its existence in a great war, there is none which compares in importance with the great central task of leaving this land even a better land for our descendants than it is for us."


-Theodore Roosevelt

[floyd]

Check out the party affiliation of Theodore Roosevelt
Just yesterday his monument was defaced, now we'll have to pay to have that cleaned up!
Or we could just tear it down to appease the current ignorance.

[YourHighness]

Originally Posted by John Linck

High fees will help spread the visitors to less popular parks. Most every one is beautiful. Plus all the foreign tourists will help pay America's share.

Just don't take away my geezer pass.

Rocks on Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore

That’s exactly what I was thinking as I read the original post. We recently heard there there’s of small percentage of national parks that get the majority of visitors. This could potentially push people out to the unvisited parks, except for those four in Alaska, I don’t want to walk that far :-)

[floyd]

Does the political denigration need to escalate as usual, until the left starts to be offended?
I am both a conservative and a conservationist. I believe in good stewardship of public land and the great central task of leaving this land even better for our descendants than it is for us.

[DavidG]

Originally Posted by floyd

I am both a conservative and a conservationist. I believe in good stewardship of public land and the great central task of leaving this land even better for our descendants than it is for us.

Do you think that the current 'policy' of shrinking National Monuments for profit ( Bears Ears just announced today) and cutting funding for parks is " leaving this land even better for our descendants than it is for us ? " ? ?

[Casita Greg]

WOW! Fifty posts of a lot of bitching and fault finding, and not one single constructive problem solving item has been addressed. Apparently we are all just as equally inept as all the sorry politicians we elect. I guess it's true when they say that you get what you deserve. After all, who elected our leaders? We did! As Pogo, the comic strip character, said "We have met the enemy, and it is us!"

[rbryan]

Originally Posted by floyd

Does the political denigration need to escalate as usual, until the left starts to be offended?
I am both a conservative and a conservationist. I believe in good stewardship of public land and the great central task of leaving this land even better for our descendants than it is for us.

Ten thumbs up. Political affiliation has nothing to do with respect for the land, for natural resources or the desire to preserve our natural wonders for future generations. But in today's world where everything is political, polarization is the norm. I'm conservative so I want to rape the land for profit, don't give a dang about conservation, etc, etc, blah blah blah. It's tiresome. If I want to be stereotyped I can find that elsewhere. Like I said earlier, never ends well. Out.

[Raz]

Politics. And nobody has yelled. Yet . Casual Friday perhaps..

[floyd]

Originally Posted by DavidG

Do you think that the current 'policy' of shrinking National Monuments for profit ( Bears Ears just announced today) and cutting funding for parks is " leaving this land even better for our descendants than it is for us ? " ? ?

Litmus test?
I can't be sure that what you say has any credibility or purpose short of being divisive, and I don't have the time to dissect every minor policy of every department of our federal government.
I haven't studied that particular decision or its source but I am sure that partisan finger pointing obfuscates the issue much more than it contributes to a solution.
My knee jerk reaction is to admire your passion more than your expertise.

[Raz]

Originally Posted by floyd

I can't be sure that what you say has any credibility or purpose short of being divisive, and I don't have the time to dissect every minor policy of the Department of Agriculture.
I haven't studied that particular decision or its source but I am sure that partisan finger pointing obfuscates the issue much more than it contributes to a solution.

Parks and monuments are under the Dept of the Interior. Let's blame the correct bureaucracy.

[wilyoung]

I haven't read all four pages of comments so I may be repeating some other's ideas/comments.

So here we go, another old fart with the "I can remember" comments. Yes, I can remember the first time I was in Yellowstone, and the last. The first was a long time ago, the last a few years ago. The "real" problem is not the cost, it's the people, too many people. The popular parks look like and hills during "the season." The ground is literally covered with people scurrying in all directions; many not adhering to the rules to "Stay On The Trails" etc. The last time I was In Yellowstone they had an insert in the park information paper - "Buffalo 2, Humans 0" - and still people were out in the meadows trying to get closer to the buffalo to get "better" pictures. I guess a buffalo goring a human make a real good picture.

A few years ago I joined a group touring/camping in Utah parks. Reservations required. Reservations could not be made before a certain date and time. If I remember correctly it was six month ahead of the reserved time. With fingers poised above my keyboard at the stroke of that designated time I opened the online reservation form and got my reservation. Ten minutes later there were no more openings for that day. I seldom even think of camping in NPs during reservation season nowadays. Many State parks suffer the same problems. Even the "off" (first-come-first-served, lousy weather) season is getting iffy.

Now you hear cries that it is "unfair" to limit entry to "Wilderness" areas to non-mechanical foot traffic only. Roads should be cut and trails paved to allow "All" to enjoy the "Wilderness." Guess what, cut roads and pave trails and there is no "Wilderness" left for anyone to enjoy. I've done my share of wilderness hiking/backpacking. Now I'm too old for most of that. But I will not cry for better access for folks like me. I will not scream that if I can't do it nobody should.

No, raising entrance fees will not solve the basic problem. There may be some who can't afford the new rates, and that is a shame. But there will still be too many who "cut the switchbacks" on trails, put babies on bears backs for that "cute" picture, trample the meadows to get a close-up of a "friendly" buffalo, etc., etc., etc. Raising entrance fees will help repair the damage, but it will not prevent the damage from happening. Preserving natural beauty for all requires limiting the number who have access to it. A paradox which, unfortunately, will only get more unsolvable as the population continues to rise.

[k0wtz]

I am surprised I am not doing it I will get a p/m!!


bob

[floyd]

Originally Posted by Raz

Parks and monuments are under the Dept of the Interior. Let's blame the correct beauracracy.

My bad! I fixed it!
I wasn't placing blame and bureaucracy is spelled as shown.

Sorry about the error but about 75% of federal public land is managed by the department of the interior, with most of the remainder managed by the United States Department of Agriculture's United States Forest Service. which issued my Senior Pass.
AKA and labeled as... *America the beautiful*
"the national parks and federal recreational lands pass"