Interior Secretary Zinke told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that too many free and discounted passes into the National Park System are part of the Park Service's funding problems.
Editor's note: This corrects that fourth-graders, not 4-year-olds, can get a free parks pass, and adds reaction to Secretary Zinke's comments from a military veteran.
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke says free or discounted passes given to senior citizens, active military, disabled, and even fourth-graders and their families are part of the reason for the National Park Service's funding problems.
During an at times contentious appearance before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the secretary, explaining why he's considering a surge pricing system for 17 national parks, said parks are losing too much money to those pass programs.
"I've spent a lot of time in a (park) kiosk, and it's amazing, in our parks, which the maintenance (backlog) as you know, we're far behind," the secretary told the committee Tuesday while explaining the Trump administration's FY2019 budget proposal for the Interior Department. "But when you give discounted or free passes to elderly, fourth-graders, veterans, disabled, and you do it by the carload, there's not a whole lot of people that actually pay at our front door.
"As well as you have a lot of foreign guests," he added. "We're looking at ways to make sure we have more revenue in the front door of our parks themselves. Because when you have a park like (Mount) Rainier, the money they receive coming in the front gate, I want to make sure more of it goes to that park superintendent so he has flexibility in how he spends it."
Under current pass programs, senior citizens 62 and older can purchase a lifetime pass to the parks for $80 (the fee had been $10 until it increased last year), fourth-grade students can receive a free pass through the Every Kid in a Park program started by the Obama administration, active military and their dependents gain free passes, and U.S. citizens who are permanently disabled receive free passes.
While Secretary Zinke said too much of entrance fee revenues go back to Washington, D.C., under current regulations 80 percent of the fees collected in a park stay there, while the other 20 percent is sent to Washington to be redistributed to other areas, including to parks that do not collect entrance fees.
He did acknowledge that park fees alone won't significantly address the park system's $11.7 billion maintenance backlog.
"But a lot of our parks have record visitation," he said. "We expect them to have record visitation again."
Under questioning from Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, Secretary Zinke said he wasn't suggesting that the free entry given to military, seniors, and fourth-graders should be done away with.
"No, what I'm saying is this: We subsidize and we allow, by design, a lot of people to go through. If you're in a car and you have a veteran in the car, everyone, whether they're a veteran or not, is free in that car," said Secretary Zinke. "Same thing with disabled, same thing with elderly, on passes. Basically, one person with a pass, everyone in that car comes in for free. Whether or not that's correct, we're looking at it."
The secretary's comments drew criticism from an Army veteran who is a senior campaign representative for the Sierra Club's Military Outdoors program.
“I’m a veteran who helps other veterans and their families get outdoors because our public lands can ease the transition from active duty to active citizenship, and are spaces to heal emotionally and physically," said Rob Vessels. "It’s insulting to have the Secretary of the Interior blame me and other veterans for the fact that he won’t fund our national parks properly. I served my country to help protect institutions like our national parks, and have dedicated my life to expanding access to the outdoors for all people. Secretary Zinke should learn to speak more respectfully about veterans before he uses us as a tool for his political agenda to shut working families out of our national parks.”
Secretary Zinke also told the committee that the $80 America the Beautiful parks pass, which allows holders to enter parks as many times as they want for a one-year period, is an incredible bargain, saying he took his family to a movie the other night and that the bill, which included popcorn, came to more than $80.
He said that his staff's review of park fee structures is designed to "make sure that revenue coming into the door of our principal parks is appropriate, making sure that we still have value. Because American parks belong to the public, they belong to all Americans, and everyone should have access."
"We definitely believe we should be increasing access, not disincentivizing it," responded Sen. Cantwell.
Comments
Yeah, I get my panties in a bunch over the unjustified internment of 110,00-120,000 people, 62% American citizens due to Yellow Peril anxiety, a predecessor IMHO to Zinke's comments.
I don't know about you, but I'm kind of concerned that the "tax cut" is going to cost me money because my SALT deduction is capped to pay for other loss of revenue.
Were National Parks ever supposed to be revenue generators? I'm not opposed to some fee increase to keep up with inflation; but very significant fee increases are not appropriate and just discourage attendance. I finally got a senior pass around 7-8 years after I became elligble. Up until then I either paid the entry fee or entered with someone with a yearly paid pass of another sort. Having paid taxes for many years and continuing to do so, I do not think the senior pass is an unearned perk. I also have entered early in the mornings, when there is no one attending the entry points and anyone can enter freely. This could probably be fixed; but maybe it is not worth the expense.
The real problem with maintenance lagging at NPs is the compounded lack of appropriated funding by the US government, not the few people that have special entry passes. I do think the carload entry on a single pass may go overboard on free entry. However, the normal entry fee is per vehicle not per person in the vehicle. Maybe some rule regarding the number of passengers per vehicle can be instituted with an additiona fee for excess passengers.
TThe reason the cars are full is because on a senior citizens social security check it may the only way they can afford to take their grandkids on a day outing ... n the working family that has a fourth grader ... he will be in the fifth next year so don't see squeezing the tax payer is hurting when it might be an avenue for affordable family time ...also when you charge the entrance fees it makes it hard to participate with events or activities inside the park which the families have to pay for ..this money ftom activitied hopefully goes back to the park to keep it up ... maybe take the money made off taxes of sales n put back in the parks instead of fumding the IRS n the new collection agency the IRS now has to better harass American citizens ... signed an average American who's tired of politicians who really don't care as long as you don't decrease their retirement they are to get from office ...
As it should be. Why should I subsidize your high tax state? Want lower taxes, get your state under control.
Yet another, much more widespread and effective, way to lower taxes is to get the profligate President and republcan legislators under control [meaning out of office]. Their give-aways to the rich hurt more people than any state by state issue.
It's not a matter of high tax but of high income and expensive real estate values. This was apparently designed to hit California and New York the hardest, even though they're net providers to the federal coffers. It's still going to affect higher income families in other states or where someone bought a nice house in a pricey neighborhood anywhere along with having decent income.
So if it is "high income" you are the rich and Rick thinks you are getting a big tax break. Values have nothing to do with it. You have the budget and you have the property assessment. Changes in values merely change the tax rate, not the dollars. The fact is states like California and NY overspend relative to the other states and citizens of the other states should not have to subsidize it.