How many people will be willing to pay $70 to spend a day in Acadia National Park?/Danny Bernstein
I am totally against this proposed fee hike for 17 of our famous parks, most in the West. Congress must fund the parks properly with our taxes. We have to step up and tell our representatives that national parks are important to us.
Now why would I say that? Why would I even care, as I live within 45 minutes of Great Smoky Mountains National Park, the best hiking park in the country, and almost within walking distance of the Blue Ridge Parkway? Neither charge an entrance fee. In fact, most of the parks in the South don't charge a fee, and it would be easy for me to just ignore this proposed increase. I also have a Senior Pass that gains me free entry to the parks.
But this proposed fee hike isn't just about me.
It's about families who can decide to go to Yellowstone National Park, or to a state park, or to Disneyworld. For many families living east of the Mississippi, a long trip cross country to visit these large iconic parks, especially Yellowstone and Yosemite, is a rite of passage. They wait until their children are old enough to enjoy it but not so old that they won’t want to travel with mom and dad anymore. Most go from park to park, seeing how many they can rack up. Not the best way to understand a national park, but that’s what many people do.
It's the 25-year olds making their first cross-country trip to see these classic Western parks. They’ve finished their formal education and know that once they go to work, they’ll only have two weeks of vacation. They finally have a reliable car, a couple of like-minded friends, and some camping equipment. These young folks want to see several parks on their big, first trip and won't be willing to pay $70 for a day in each park. Newbies don't spend a week in any one park.
How are they going to feel invested in national parks? They'll go to the national forest next door- nice but not the same. Most people don’t even know the difference between a national park, a national, forest, a state park or state forest. When I tried to explain the practical difference to fellow hikers in Western North Carolina, their reply is “whatever” - whatever, that is, until bear and deer hunting season when they have to pay attention.
Visitors can buy an annual pass for $80, which will get a carful in any federal recreation site for free for a year. Most readers of the Traveler know about all these options, but I have a feeling that the average visitor doesn’t study the websites carefully. Witness the rush for Senior Passes before the price went up from $10 to $80 this past August.
Two eastern parks are on the list for potential fee increases: Acadia National Park in Maine and Shenandoah National Park in Virginia. Shenandoah already charges $25 per vehicle for a week. How many visitors stay a week in Shenandoah? Many pop in for a day of sightseeing or to climb Old Rag, probably on their way to Washington, D.C. They’ll forgo driving the Skyline Drive and stay on the interstate.
Will Shenandoah's Skyline Drive be alluring enough to get visitors to pay $70 to drive a it during the busy season?/Kurt Repanshek file
The same argument goes for Acadia National Park outside of Bar Harbor, Maine. The gateway town is so busy, so full of gift shops and ice cream stands that it might be just as easy to just skip the national park rather than hand over $70 for a day driving the loop road.
I did read at least one article, published in Slate magazine, that raising entrance fees would shift visitors from the most popular parks (the top of the pops) to lesser known parks or to less popular times. Would that do it? If I want to go to Yellowstone in the summer, when my kids and grandkids are out of school, I don’t think I would be satisfied with a lesser-known park.
In a recent Traveler article, Kurt ponders The Relevancy Of National Parks, he wrote the following:
Do sheer numbers reflect that more people are truly interested in coming to the National Park System to marvel at their wonders, learn about the nation’s collective culture, to relax? Or do they reflect a desire by travelers to crisscross the country and document as many places they can visit, regardless of what those places reflect or represent?
If national parks are important to you, let your representatives in Washington know. That’s where the funding should come from.
Please read about the entrance fee proposal and comment.
A public comment period on the National Park Service entrance fee proposal is open until Nov. 23, and comments can be filed at https//parkplanning.nps.gov/proposedpeakseasonfeerates. Written comments also are accepted by sending to 1849 C Street, NW, Mail Stop: 2346, Washington, DC 20240.
Comments
Simply stating that Congress should adequately fund the parks is meaningless. Congress should fix social security, medical insurance and everything else that is broken. I suggest that all these unfortunates that you allege wont be able to afford admission to Yellowstone simply cancel their cable tv service for several months.
As a 26 year old college graduate, married, with two little children, I have absolutely no issue with forking out a little more money to visit these amazing parks. There are tons of ways to sacrifice somewhere else to be able to pay that park fee- just not buying a pop and candy bar every time you stop at a gas station, ordering water at a restaurant or foregoing eating out all together for a couple months, not dying my hair or getting my nails done, etc. It's really not that big of a deal when we consider how much we spend on all the other wants in our lives. Also, what makes you think people don't spend a week in one park? We spent five days in one location and would have loved to have had much longer! If money is the issue, it's common sense that you'd stay in one park or area instead of spending hundreds on fuel to barely get a glimpse at each park. I want my family to enjoy these parks and am absolutely willing to do my part in keeping them maintained and in good shape, even if that requires some financial sacrifices on other parts of my life!
If they are not smart enough to buy the 80 annual fee, and keep paying 70 per day, that is their problem.
I really don't know which is more moronic. Having a bunch of folks compare the NPS to disneyworld and justify entrance fees accordingly, or have someone write an anti fee article that supported backcountry fees for the most caring user group in the Smokies who don't require amenities or paved roads. No wonder we have a moron at the helm of DOI and POTUS.
I really get a chucle when someone calls a guy who has built a multibillion empire, raised model children and against all odds got himself elected President, a "moron".
About those model children - are you referring to the daughter who keeps being sued for ripping off the designs of other clothing designers [usually settling out of court], the son who bragged about having access to Russian millions, or the other son who was colluding with Wikileak?
These are not private enterprises though. The overwhelming majority of their operating expenses come from taxpayer funding. The entrance fees are fairly minor compared to their overall budgets, but high fees serve as a "psychic impediment" to visiting. I've visited many places on "free days" and there are long lines when there's no requirement to pay even as little as a $10 entrance fee, even though it might cost $20 or more to get there. NPS sites get massive numbers on free days. In another article it was mentioned in several comments that the lack of an entrance fee at GSMNP, Blue Ridge Parkway, and GGNRA are important reasons why their visitation numbers are so high.
It may very well be a small part of the cost of an overall trip. That doesn't mean that it doesn't get people to think about other options rather than paying that fee. And yes an annual interagency pass is a pretty good bargain, but not everyone considers getting one. When the senior pass went up from $10 to $80, there was a mad rush to get that pass while it was still available at that price. Several federal recreation sites were devoting tons of resources to handling the requests. And that was for a lifetime pass where it's theoretically only a $70 cost savings over the rest of someone's life. And when the fees go up, that does dissauade people from visiting - especially those on a budget who think that it's just one more thing where they're getting fleeced trying to visit a place that they feel should have minimal entrance fees.
I strontly oppose the increase to these, or any, national parks. If the logic is 'the people who use the parks should pay for them' (instead of all Americans paying their fair share of taxes and Congress adequately funding our park system), then I want a refund of a large part of my taxes paid over the years. I don't use nuclear weapons, Abram tanks or F-35 jets, so why must I pay for them? This is an exaggerated example, of course, but it illustrates the slippery slope of a "pay for utilization" mentality. How 'bout the people who don't own a motor vehicle nonetheless having to pay for our country's road infrastructure? CONGRESS should recognize their responsibility to represent ALL Americans, should step up and fund our National Park jewels. Of course, Congress SHOULD be doing a whole lot of things that they're failing to do but that's another whole topic...