10 lodges......average MINIMUM cost per room a scant $280.50 per night + tax, (as you'll see noted in the article, room rates begin at the base prices listed and most accommodations within the lodges are notably higher, especially if you require a "room with a view"), min/max for BASE rooms of $85/$550, and 85 bucks doesn't even get you a bathroom. I wonder if you get a bed or a cot in a closet. If you seriously can't think of anything better to do on your visit to "our national parks" (OK, I'll cut the Canadians in, but Dr. Bob's right, San Fran doesn't qualify) with your $300+ dollars than literally waste it for one day's lodging, with no meals, gratuities, or any other amenities included, you deserve everything bad in life that happens to you. Really folks, for what amounts to paying the equivalent of almost $40/hour for a place to sleep, or $30/hour if you sit on the veranda and have a cocktail or two, oops, forgot to factor in the cocktail....make that $40/hour either way, you must be educationally impaired.

In other threads we've bandied about the pricing of simple entry fees to certain NPS units being well above the level that allows for a large segment of society to even consider visiting. I say, kick out corporate run lodging, let people know they've about to embark on a trip to a National Park, not some damn country club, spare the useless amenities which only serve to drive the cost of day-to-day business operations through the roof, regain control of basic operational costs and stop running these lodges as luxury hotels. If a certain segment of the population stops visiting because they aren't going to be treated as though they're "special", fine, let 'em stay home and watch TLC, Discovery, PBS, or the other outlets where these fine landscapes are displayed. All that money being wasted, no monetary benefit to the NPS, and people actually have the gall to raise issues with the entrance fees and permit costs? Somebody needs to kick you in the vertical smile and dislodge your head from the orifice in which it’s become "lodged".

My favorite lodge in the Canadian Rockies is Num-Ti-Ja Lodge in Banff National Park. It is located on the shores of Bow Lake, just off the Icefields Parkway. This facility was personally designed and constructed by mountain man, adventurer, guide, and big-game hunter Jimmy Simpson. I highly recommend Room 13. The service at the Lodge is outstanding as are its views of Bow Lake, the Wapta Icefield, and the Bow Glacier. The scenery from the vantage point of Num-Ti-Jah Lodge is featured on recent Toyota TV ads.

The prices for rooms at Crater Lake Lodge in Crater Lake National Park, starting at $143.00 per night, are quite a bit lower than the prices quoted for many of the other top ten lodges. I think the prices for the Ahwahnee Hotel in Yosemite starting at $450.00 US, with suites going over $1000.00 per night, are far beyond the economic means of the greater majority of national park visitors.

Owen Hoffman
Oak Ridge, TN 37830

Lone Hiker, I read a biography of Stephen Mather. He, the first superintendent of the national parks, was the mover and shaker behind putting luxury lodgings in the parks. The thinking was that until the elite of Washington, D. C. and the east coast had what they considered to be a comfortable place to stay, they wouldn't support the expansion of the national parks system. So that's why there is a presidential suite at the Ahwahnee. It was a smart plan and he had the best interests of the park system in mind when he did it.

I am shocked that not one of the Yellowstone Lodges is on that list! However, Jenny Lake Lodge is my favorite lodge ever, National Park lodge or otherwise.

Hi Kath-

Mather's writings are not lost on me. But the pandering to the societal elite stage of the development of the park system is not only a waste of facilities in the modern era; it is counterproductive to the current fiscal constraints imposed by the modern day DC elitists. An idea that served its intended purpose, indeed it was, but the time has come for the idea to evolve and develop a new direction better suited to the current state of the parks. Mather got the results he wanted. Now a new paradigm is required to continue Mather's legacy.

I'm not shocked Yellowstones lodges are not listed... We stayed in the cabins at Lake Lodge and they are in desperate need of updating... $150 -200 a night for a full size bed that sags in the middle and 1970 furnishings are not what I call great. We did have beautiful room in Canyon Lodge at $200+ for the night but the cabins that surround that village looked like they needed much updating as well. I am positive that many of the other lodges in the Yellowstone park are quite lovely but Xanterra,who runs all of these sites, really need to take in consideration that the prices they charge are not in keeping with the shape some of their facilities are in. I would not have minded paying a reduced fee for the substandard room if I thought I was getting a bargin...We love to stay in Yellowstone because it is so close and beautiful but I think the next time we go, we will look at staying just outside the park.

Lone Hiker, it's unclear what you are suggesting. Obviously the rates are high, but also obviously they are not too hgh because these lodges are usually booked up. The room rates are subject to the immutable laws of supply and demand. I don't stay in the Ahwahnee because it is too expensive, but I wouldn't want it to be turned into some sort of dormitory, with bunk bed in the main hall or the elegant dining room turned into a mess hall, in the name of some sort of socialistic idea of fairness. No new lodges will likely be built within the national parks. The old historic lodges must be maintained as part of the park's living history.

About a year ago I looked into the issue of lodging (and even dining) rates in the national parks, as some certainly are eye-catching (and wallet-draining). There seem to be at least two factors that seem to be immutable:

1. NPS compares/matches lodging rates to rates outside the parks. So in the case of Grand Teton, for instance, you've got tony Jackson and its high rates. Should the NPS cap rates in the park when compared to those in Jackson? Should it do that and then subsidize the concessionaires?

2. Places like Yellowstone and Glacier not only are relatively remote (and so have higher building costs), but the seasons are shorter than in places such as Zion or Sequoia, and so concessionaires have a shorter period of time to make their revenues and yet still have year-round bills to pay.

Yet another issue involves the bureaucracy that has evolved around restoration/renovation of lodgings in the parks. In the case of historic structures (ie. Many Glacier, Lake McDonald Lodge) there are costly requirements when it comes to renovating these places. Plus, I've been told the NPS is not the easiest agency to deal with when it comes to getting approval not just for renovations in general but also when it comes down to what color of paint is used.