Overnight trips into the heart and soul of Rocky Mountain National Park is going to cost backcountry travelers a bit more beginning this summer/Kurt Repanshek
It's going to cost you a little bit more to head into the backcountry of Rocky Mountain National Park for overnight stays beginning this summer, when the permit fee climbs from $20 to $26 per trip.
Park officials say the fee, established in 1995 and last increased to $20 in 2004, is necessary to recover the administrative costs associated with managing the program, including costs of a computerized permit and reservation system.
The permits, good for up to seven backpackers, are seen as an integral part of a program that rations and distributes use throughout the park's backcountry. It's intended to minimize impacts to resources, help provide a quality experience, and ensure that sites are available for those able to plan ahead and reserve a permit in advance. While an overnight permit is required for backcountry camping year-round, the fee for obtaining the permit only applies for camping that occurs during the months of May through October when demand typically exceeds availability in many areas of the park's backcountry. The six dollar increase for the non-refundable permit becomes effective March 1, for anyone making advance reservations or after May 1, for those obtaining a permit over the counter at one of the park's Backcountry Offices.
Different from an entrance fee or fee for camping in a developed campground, the backcountry permit is based on cost recovery and all funds are applied directly to the costs of administering the program. This past October, the park proposed a change in its current recreational use fees for entrance and developed campgrounds. A public comment period followed and the proposal is still under review. A decision on those recreational use fees is expected late winter or early spring.
According to Superintendent Vaughn Baker, 'Rocky Mountain National Park retains 100 percent of the administrative fees charged for backcountry camping permits. In addition to providing the opportunity to reserve and secure campsites in advance, funds recovered through the permit fee allow for staff to provide trip planning advice and information for a safe and enjoyable trip into the wilderness. Requirements for food storage necessary to protect bears and other wildlife, mountain weather, hazards, and Leave No Trace ethics are among the information received during the permitting process. Fees that we charge enable us to provide these services.'
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
How can you possibly argue that? Half our population pays nothing in federal income taxes. The top 1% pay 30% of the federal tax burden and the top 20% pay over 70%.
I want you to explain why person A should pay any more than person B. There is a reason but the progressives generally won't admit it.
I believe our national parks are becoming just too expensive for many Americans. These fees will not solve the National Park Service's financial problems, nor will new fees provide the funding necessary to support the latest expansion to the national park system. Congress really needs to stop creating so many new national parks until all of our existing parks can be funded and maintained to the standard that the American people have a right to expect. Congress should not continue the problem of increasing the obligations of the National Park Service and refuse to authorize the necessary monies to pay for the new and existing parks.
As I said before, Congress should give the American people a real present for 2016 and abolish all visitor fees.
I have one additional thought. Does anyone really know how much of the tax money of the American people the National Park Service is spending to celebrate 2016? I sure don't know and I wonder if anyone does. I suspect it is more than most people realize.
The FY2015 appropriations include $35 million in "new" money toward sprucing things up for the centennial. Of that $25m is for operations and $10m is matching funds to attract grants.
Obama's FY2016 budget request (widely considered DOA in Washington) asks for an extra $826 million. Of that, $326m would be added to regular appropriations including $20m to create a fund to pay for transportation of urban children to parks and other public lands. (Editorial aside: Maybe if there weren't so many fees their whole families could afford to go?) The other $500 million would be a new fund for maintenance needs, part of which could be tapped by other land agencies. This is just the administration's request, which I repeat is not considered to have much chance on the hill.
Another possibility is a bill rumored to be being drafted by Senators Portman (R-OH)and Cantwell (D-WA) to set up a $100 million fund to match private donations.
ec With all due respect it's not the $20 or the $25 or the $5 or the $10. It's the first dollar that changes everything. It changes the public from owners into customers and the agencies from public servants into business enterprises. Some people think that's just fine. I happen to think it's a tragedy.
That water went over the dam long ago. My experience is that people value something far more if they pay for it than if it is given away.
How about all the NPS units that still have no fees for backcountry use? Are they merely a year or so away from charging fees to administer reservations for backcountry sites? At what point is it justifiable to charge fees for entrance and use of NPS visitor centers and museums? Are fees charged for rock climbing, or are climbing routes no longer managed by a registration system? As you can tell, I am vehemently opposed to the NPS charging fees for backcountry use. In fact I wish the NPS would follow the lead of all our fine parks in East TN, and charge no fees at all for park entrance, and get rid of the backcountry use fees currently charged for the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
Indeed, you are correct. We've already established that the NPS is a whore. Now we're just haggling over the price.