You are here

Look At What's Being Said About Proposed "Surge Pricing" For National Parks

Share

Published Date

November 6, 2017

Read what's being said around the country about a proposed jump in national park entrance fees during peak travel season/NPS

Much has been said and written since Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke proposed a move to "surge pricing" for entrance fees at 17 key national parks across the country. Here's a look at some of the comment from across the nation.

“You should be lowering fees to make the Grand Canyon accessible to all. Not raising them." -- Danny Blackgoat, a Navajo tribal member who spoke at a public meeting to discuss issues involving Grand Canyon National Park.

“We’re employees of the government, and at the end of the day, we have to do what the executive branch tells us to do." -- Grand Canyon Superintendent Chris Lenhertz at that meeting.

“Generally speaking, we do believe that, for a park like Rocky Mountain or a park like Yellowstone, pricing is one tool to encourage people to come during less-crowded periods, but we never want the entrance fee to be something that would deter people from coming.” -- Derrick Crandall, counsel for the National Park Hospitality Association and the American Recreation Coalition.

"These parks belong to the American people — and they are already inaccessible by distance and the cost of making a trip for far too many people. Raising entrance fees to $70 per vehicle will only make these parks more inaccessible, and it won’t meaningfully address those infrastructure needs. It’s a bad idea posing as a solution." -- San Antonio Express-News editorial board.

"$70 per car for (Rocky Mountain National Park) is outrageous. National Parks should be accessible to everyone. Raising entrance fees puts them out of reach to many." -- Cary Kennedy, a Democratic candidate for Colorado governor, in a series of tweets.

"If the price increases go into effect, all lower-income Americans stand to be priced out. Still, advocates say fee hikes could have an oversize impact on communities of color by creating a new disincentive for groups that have stayed away from, or felt discouraged from, visiting national parks, for reasons including fearful historical associations with wilderness areas and a perceived lack of cultural relevancy." -- Dan White, author of "Under The Stars: How America Fell In Love With Camping" and "The Cactus Eaters: How I Lost My Mind And Almost Found Myself on the Pacific Crest Trail."

"... for years, the park service has faced two dueling problems: too many visitors and not enough money. Which is why the price increase might actually be a halfway decent idea." -- Slate Magazine

"All national parks should be free, like the great museums of Washington. We should care for these special places with a budget commensurate to their value, treating them like the huge income generators they are, producing $34 billion to local businesses. Instead, we starve them nearly to death." -- Timothy Egan in the New York Times.

"Nature provided Americans with the wonders of these parks for free. But making them accessible and enjoyable for millions of people costs money, and the administration has a sound idea for how to get it." - Chicago Tribune editorial board

"Tripling entry fees is bound to reduce park usage. When people can’t use something, they stop caring about it. As Trump has undermined the Affordable Care Act in his zeal to erase every trace of Barack Obama, is he trying to undermine public lands?" -- Reno Gazette Journal

"The NPS should live within its means without sharply raising fees on those who really own these parks—the American people. And Congress should take a good hard look at the budget and come up with money to take care of these great public lands that benefit all citizens. Maybe they could start by cutting their pet projects, the ones that benefit far fewer Americans and serve mainly to garner votes." -- Texarkana Gazette

"... Glacier Country’s residents and policy-makers doubt the proposal — and worry it will price them out of their signature attraction. 'I think it will be harder for some local people I know who use the park a lot. I think you will see less local use.'” -- Matt Brake, who works in retail near Glacier National Park, in a story in the Daily Inter Lake.

Support National Parks Traveler

Your support for the National Parks Traveler comes at a time when news organizations are finding it hard, if not impossible, to stay in business. Traveler's work is vital. For nearly two decades we've provided essential coverage of national parks and protected areas. With the Trump administration’s determination to downsize the federal government, and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s approach to public lands focused on energy exploration, it’s clear the Traveler will have much to cover in the months and years ahead. We know of no other news organization that provides such broad coverage of national parks and protected areas on a daily basis. Your support is greatly appreciated.

 

EIN: 26-2378789

Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places

A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.

Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:

  • Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
  • Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
  • Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
  • North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
  • Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
  • Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
  • Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.

Comments

It is a little difficult to comment without knowing all the facts. Has Zinke released a study of the impact of fee increases? How much money will this raise? Will this change in fees impact the number of people going to the parks? Is the fee increase intended to decrease the number of people going to the parks? At the same time, it is hard not to believe that this fee increase intends to raise revenue. But again, how much money would be raised via fee increases? I bet it would not be enough to put a dent in the backlog of maintenance issues at our cherished national parks. In other words, the plan has the appearance of being a fix, but is probably not even a bandaid. 


The NPS should be a top priority for proper funding. Our National Parks are priceless and should be treated as such. Bandaid fixes like raising/trippleing entrance fees are unacceptable. We need to get our priorities straight.


Any raise should be for non citizens of America.


Different pricing based on citizen status? What are you even talking about?? Do you know what it's like to work an entrance booth? The rangers do NOT have time to check the passport of everyone entering the park.


Interesting there isn't a single comment quoted supporting the hikes even though there have been many on this site doing so.  Lacking a single supporting comment, his article clearly is not a representative sample of the comments being made.  

 


I have to agree with you, EC. Of course, all you need to do is fill the room with like-minded people--and make sure no one else is allowed in. You know, like the Democratic Party and Bernie Sanders. But I digress, as Mark Twain used to say.


EC, look at Chicago Tribune editorial board comment, Slate Magazine, and Derrick Crandall...


Alfred, You don't need to put politics in this unnessarily.  Be better


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Your support helps the National Parks Traveler increase awareness of the wonders and issues confronting national parks and protected areas.

Support Our Mission

INN Member

The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.

Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.

You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

FREE for iPhones and Android phones.