Not everyone is embracing higher entrance fees proposed for national parks/Kurt Repanshek
As more and more units of the National Park System propose higher entrance fees as directed by Park Service Director Jon Jarvis, opposition is being voiced around the country, with one mayor saying higher fees to enter Yellowstone National Park could lead to reduced tourism dollars in her town.
With Congress poised to create at least four new units to the park system, and approving expansions of other parks, funding the Park Service likely will become even more difficult if the lawmakers don't also find more money for the agency. While park officials across the country say higher entrance fees are needed to fund various improvements and provide for visitor services, they are seeing some pushback.
In Cody, Wyoming, Mayor Nancy Tia Brown is opposed to the higher fees being proposed at Yellowstone -- a 3-day pass for $30, a 7-day pass good for both Yellowstone and Grand Teton for $50 -- arguing that the fees would result in fewer tourist dollars spent in her town.
At Cape Cod National Seashore in Massachusetts, a former fee supervisor for the park said the proposal to increase fees would create a "logistical and political nightmare."
"The Seashore has not made the enforcement of its current $3 daily individual pass a priority because of the park's unique permeable nature, and because of the wish to encourage visitors to use alternative forms of transportation aligned with the Climate Friendly Parks initiative. While parks like the Grand Canyon have gates, the Seashore does not, so attempting to charge that fee would be logistically impossible," Karl Thompsen wrote in a letter to the Cape Cod Times.
"Actually implementing such a draconian change would also prove politically disastrous for the park's community and visitor relations, which both undermines the park's interdependent relationship with surrounding towns and places an unnecessary burden on the rangers interacting with the public," he added.
At Gulf Islands National Seashore, a proposal to relocate entrance fee booths on the eastern and western ends of U.S. 399, also known as the J. Earle Bowden Way, and then charge $15 per vehicle to use the road that connects Pensacola Beach to Navarre Beach was being criticized by nearby residents who frequent the national seashore. Superintendent Dan Brown has tried to downplay the matter, telling the Pensacola News Journal the collection booths won't be moved if the public strongly opposes it. But he also noted that most locals would probably buy an annual pass to the seashore and so not encounter the entrance fee every time they headed to the seashore.
"Most of the comments so far have emphasized the worst-case scenario," the superintendent told the newspaper. "They're talking about a $15 toll, and you know no one who lives here locally and drives that on a regular basis would pay the fee every single time. '¦ If you drive it 240 days of the year to commute, it wouldn't be $15 times 240 days ' they would pay $30 for an annual pass."
Back in Wyoming, Jackson town leaders opposed higher fees proposed for Grand Teton National Park and the proposal to "unlink" Yellowstone and Grand Teton from one pass good in both parks. Fishing guides and other outfitters also opposed the increases.
'It is a little discouraging that the Park Service is going to go ahead and double the weekly cost of a pass from $25 to $50,' Taylor Phillips, who owns a wildlife safari company, told the Jackson Hole News & Guide. 'I would say 90 percent of our guests visit both parks.
A proposal to boost the entrance fee at Cabrillo National Monument near San Diego from $5 per car to $15 drew an angry response from Paul Nestor, who called the proposal "one of the most aggravating things I've ever heard."
"It is families who don't have a lot of money who come up here to show off this beautiful place in San Diego for all the residents. For them to bilk them out of $15, it's going to turn a lot of people away," Mr. Nestor said told ABC 10 News.
Mr. Nestor's view might play out across the National Park System at some of the small, urban parks where many visitors stop by during lunch or after work, or stop after seeing the park sign as they pass by. Five dollars per vehicle for a quick visit to enjoy a view or learn something about the park and why it was created might not sway people from stopping, but when the fee jumps to $15, those casual visitors might not pull in. If that scenario plays out, some park units could possibly lose money.
Another issue is that once parks collect more than $500,000 in entrance fees, they have to send 20 percent of the revenue to Washington for redistribution to other parks. Up to $500,000, they keep it all, thus creating another possible reason not to raise fees.
Comments
As they should. About the only place you find staunch defense of double taxation for the use of public lands is on this forum by folks associated with the NPS.
Okay. Don't raise the fees. Then operate the parks with only the money available. Lay off personnel. Don't maintain facilities or roads. No snow plowing or shoveling in winter. No visitor services. No search and rescue. Close the campgrounds. Let trails go to pot.
Won't be long before there will be a different tune being howled.
Double taxation? How's that? I'm not associated with the NPS in any way, except that I enjoy their services and are happy to pay for what I use. If you are referring to supporting the parks by paying both taxes and entrance fees as "double taxation," I wonder if you'd apply that standard to any other government function? I pay state taxes, but also will have to pay in-state tuition for a college for my kid. I pay gas taxes, but also occasionally have to pay a toll. There are plenty of other examples.
Lee, for what it's worth, I believe the sum total raised each year from entrance fees is in the neighborhood of $180 million.
I believe the cost of a single B1B-Lancer long-range bomber is approaching $300 million. If Congress can't find a way to add another $200 million to the NPS budget....
Exactly, Kurt. But they absolutely won't. And now with a GOP Congress out to prove whatever point they want to prove, nothing is going to change except to get worse. Remember, the key tenants of the Tea Party's nonsense is insistance that taxes must be eliminated and the government mummified.
In the meantime, what do our park managers do?
I'm afraid the only thing that will awaken Americans is when they suddenly realize that all the privileges of citizenship that have been supported by taxes are gone. Then maybe we'll turn off the football games and start to look around at the reality of life without taxes that support things we've long taken for granted. Ranting about taxes and promising to simply eliminate them is so much easier than doing the hard work of finding sensible solutions to legitimate problems of waste. Goodness, that might even require some compromises and we certainly can't have that!
By the way, B-1 Lancers are no longer in production. Of the 100 built, only 68 remain operational at an operating cost of somewhere near $58,000 per hour. The B-2 Stealth bomber runs more than $162,000 per flight hour. The $335 million number is for the estimated real cost of each F-35, the new "advanced" multi-tasking aircraft that none of our services wanted until Congress told them to shut up and fly it.
Here's a link to an interesting article that reports on operating costs of USAF aircraft:
http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/
It's all a matter of priorities. What's more important, having national parks or protecting our national parks against all those boogeymen who threaten to annihilate all of us?
John Bick,
Do you pay a cop everytime he arrests someone? Do you pay the garbage collector extra when he picks up your garbage? do you pay the library when you check out a book? What about the fire dept when they put out a fire. Do you pay the Defense department when they bomb a Pakistani village with a drone for which you paid? Taxes fund their existence. Jon Jarvis is a poster child for Federal malfeasance.
Once again Lee you show total ignorance of or intentional misrepresentation of the Tea Party platform.
Actually, raising the fees would be closer to the Tea Party "nonsense" than not.
Immigrants pay fees when applying for citizenship. Medicare recipients make copays. I pay for interlibrary loan, $3 a pop. Happy to do it. It's a convenience and it's worth it to me. And Kurt, come on. The "something else costs a lot more" argument is among the weakest that can be made. The same could be said of NPS funding by people who want to spend more on [pick your favorite cause]. The fact is, we're $18 trillion in debt, and going a half trillion in debt deeper every year. The Chinese are paying for the National Park Service, in essense, by lending us the money to operate our parks (and buy bombers, and run HUD, and on and on). And our grandchildren and great grandchildren will be taxed to death to pay them back. So I'm for setting priorities, and they're probably different than yours. But asking people to pay what is a very small amount is not too much to ask. Also, Smokies, re: double taxation. Do you really want to set up a station at park entrances to see who paid income tax and who didn't? Because tens of millions don't. By your reasoning, they should be paying fees while the rest of us don't.