Forum Index > Trail Talk > NPS could raise entrance fees
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
GaliWalker
Have camera will use



Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Posts: 4930 | TRs | Pics
Location: Pittsburgh
GaliWalker
Have camera will use
PostWed Oct 25, 2017 6:54 am 
thunderhead wrote:
Those parks would benefit from a healthy reduction in numbers in the peak summer periods.
I thought the point was to get additional funding for park maintenance (to be spread across all parks). How is that going to be accomplished if there is a "healthy reduction in numbers"? I don't mind paying extra, but increasing fees by almost 3 times is too much. $70 is pricey.

'Gali'Walker => 'Mountain-pass' walker bobbi: "...don't you ever forget your camera!" Photography: flickr.com/photos/shahiddurrani
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12832 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostWed Oct 25, 2017 7:03 am 
Gali Walker wrote:
I thought the point was to get additional funding for park maintenance (to be spread across all parks). How is that going to be accomplished if there is a "healthy reduction in numbers"?
Projected annual increase in revenue if entrance fee is raised to $70 = $68 million dollars Current deferred maintenance backlog for NPS = $11.9 BILLION dollars The fee increase would pay for about ONE HALF OF ONE PERCENT of the current deferred maintenance backlog during the first year. This is not only a stupid idea, it will not accomplish the stated objective, which is ostensibly to generate funds to pay for the deferred maintenance backlog.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
moonspots
Happy Curmudgeon



Joined: 03 Feb 2007
Posts: 2456 | TRs | Pics
Location: North Dakota
moonspots
Happy Curmudgeon
PostWed Oct 25, 2017 7:15 am 
thunderhead wrote:
Raise it to 150 for Yosemite and Yellowstone. Those parks would benefit from a healthy reduction in numbers in the peak summer periods.
Add Mt Rushmore to this idea, then tear down that obnoxious monstrosity of a visitor's center, it's parking mall, and the "freeway" into the whole area! It resembles Seattle! And now, an interesting (but not related to this discussion) sidebar note: one of the passes in the Black Hills is slightly higher in elevation than Homestake pass where I-90 east of Butte, MT crosses the continental divide.

"Out, OUT you demons of Stupidity"! - St Dogbert, patron Saint of Technology
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
DIYSteve
seeking hygge



Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12655 | TRs | Pics
Location: here now
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
PostWed Oct 25, 2017 7:36 am 
MyFootHurts wrote:
Have you been to Yellowstone lately? Probably half the tourists are [derogatory ethnic slur omitted].

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9513 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostWed Oct 25, 2017 7:57 am 
I'd say there is a decent chance that Pruitt's long term goal is selling off the National Parks. 1st step would be to raise entrance fees enough to drive attendance down, next step is to claim Americans don't care about parks citing declining attendance and then put them up for bid.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
DIYSteve
seeking hygge



Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12655 | TRs | Pics
Location: here now
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
PostWed Oct 25, 2017 9:15 am 
Pruitt? Surely, you mean Zinke. ^ ^ ^ That might be Zinke's wet dream, but it would take an act of Congress to sell off the NPs and that aint gonna happen in our lifetime.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
tigermn
Member
Member


Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 9242 | TRs | Pics
Location: There...
tigermn
Member
PostWed Oct 25, 2017 9:40 am 
MyFootHurts wrote:
Foreign tourists should pay a lot more. US citizens get a discounted rate.
I agree with this. Stick it to the foreigners/non US citizens. If they don't like it last time I checked they could get the America the Beautiful pass like everyone else (but should also pay more for that as well).... I'm just hoping they don't get rid of the old geezer pass before I am eligible to purchase. Although it did go up, it's still a bargain. Who knows in 5 years when I am eligible if it will still be around, or they will raise the age or something...

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1519 | TRs | Pics
thunderhead
Member
PostWed Oct 25, 2017 9:45 am 
Quote:
How is that going to be accomplished if there is a "healthy reduction in numbers"?
Because with the price range we are talking about(still fairly low), the increase in prices will be greater than the reduction in numbers. This would have a positive effect of reducing numbers on peak days and increasing revenue. That must be balanced with the inherently cheap/free ideal of public lands.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
ranger rock
One of the boys



Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Posts: 2550 | TRs | Pics
ranger rock
One of the boys
PostWed Oct 25, 2017 9:58 am 
MyFootHurts wrote:
ranger rock wrote:
Well that ought to keep all of the riff raff out of the parks, especially the local riff raff. National parks should only be for Seattleites with Subarus and foreign tourists. Let the poor people stay home and eat cake. I have a lifetime pass, so it won't affect me.
That's actually a good idea. Foreign tourists should pay a lot more. US citizens get a discounted rate. Have you been to Yellowstone lately? Probably half the tourists are <term removed by moderator>.
I went to Yellowstone a few weeks ago. Yes it was crowded, but I don't resent people of color going there and they were mostly Japanese, not Chinese and not men either. There were plenty of nice white tourist too, folks from Germany and other nice white countries. Keep raising the fees and only foriegn tourist will be able to go to our parks. I went to Panama and none of the locals could afford to go to the National Parks. They also could not afford to drive on the freeway that crosses the country. Yes, let's be just like Panama a nice third world nation.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
DIYSteve
seeking hygge



Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12655 | TRs | Pics
Location: here now
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
PostWed Oct 25, 2017 10:05 am 
tigermn wrote:
I agree with this. Stick it to the foreigners/non US citizens.
So an American citizen pays the higher foreigner fee if he or she isn't carrying a U.S. passport? dizzy.gif Foreigners visiting American NPs is a big source of revenue for local businesses, e.g., motels, restaurants, roadside attractions, outfitters.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
onemoremile
Member
Member


Joined: 26 Dec 2010
Posts: 1305 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim
onemoremile
Member
PostWed Oct 25, 2017 10:10 am 
I just have trouble keeping a straight face when I hear the national parks say they need more money. Reason is some of things Olympic does really makes me think they are on a prolonged acid trip. I would imagine other parks are similar since the staff seems to rotate around. Like the hundreds of thousands planned to trap and relocate mountain goats. Or the expensive new sign at the Port Angeles entrance. Some of those road repairs compared to other state/fed road repairs.

“Arbolist? Look up the word. I don’t know, maybe I made it up. Anyway, it’s an arbo-tree-ist, somebody who knows about trees.” G.W. Bush
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
cascadeclimber
Member
Member


Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1427 | TRs | Pics
cascadeclimber
Member
PostWed Oct 25, 2017 10:16 am 
MyFootHurts wrote:
which is almost as much as spent sending the last guy on all those trips to Hawaii.
You forgot the part where this was over an eight YEAR span, compared to eight MONTHS. rolleyes.gif

If not now, when?
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
cascadeclimber
Member
Member


Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1427 | TRs | Pics
cascadeclimber
Member
PostWed Oct 25, 2017 10:20 am 
Ski wrote:
Gali Walker wrote:
I thought the point was to get additional funding for park maintenance (to be spread across all parks). How is that going to be accomplished if there is a "healthy reduction in numbers"?
Projected annual increase in revenue if entrance fee is raised to $70 = $68 million dollars Current deferred maintenance backlog for NPS = $11.9 BILLION dollars The fee increase would pay for about ONE HALF OF ONE PERCENT of the current deferred maintenance backlog during the first year. This is not only a stupid idea, it will not accomplish the stated objective, which is ostensibly to generate funds to pay for the deferred maintenance backlog.
I applaud your appreciation of pesky facts *and* your attitude that just because it doesn't affect you doesn't mean it's not something about which you should concern yourself. We'd be a happier place if everyone gave up the "That's really bad, but since it doesn't affect me I don't care" attitude. Bravo!

If not now, when?
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9513 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostWed Oct 25, 2017 10:21 am 
DIYSteve wrote:
Pruitt? Surely, you mean Zinke. ^ ^ ^ That might be Zinke's wet dream, but it would take an act of Congress to sell off the NPs and that aint gonna happen in our lifetime.
You are correct -- though I think most of #45's cabinet would be in favor of selling off NPS and USFS lands -- preferably through a closed bidding process where their shell companies or their good buddies company could purchase federal lands for less than a penny on the dollar. There used to be a golf course at Paradise -- perhaps there will be again and a gondola/tram to Muir and/or the summit. The current Congress is thankfully bound up in infighting -- but I think they are also trying to pass legislation under the cover of the daily twitter tirades that will do significant long term damage -- e.g. HR-4114

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Chico
Member
Member


Joined: 30 Nov 2012
Posts: 2500 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lacey
Chico
Member
PostWed Oct 25, 2017 10:43 am 
National Park Service News Release News Release Date: October 24, 2017 Contact: NPS Office of Communications, 202-208-6843 Public invited to provide comments on proposed peak season fee increases at 17 highly visited parks WASHINGTON – As part of its commitment to improve the visitor experience and ensure America’s national parks are protected in perpetuity, the National Park Service (NPS) is considering increases to fees at highly visited national parks during peak visitor seasons. Proposed peak season entrance fees and revised fees for road-based commercial tours would generate badly needed revenue for improvements to the aging infrastructure of national parks. This includes roads, bridges, campgrounds, waterlines, bathrooms, and other visitor services. “The infrastructure of our national parks is aging and in need of renovation and restoration,” said U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke. “Targeted fee increases at some of our most-visited parks will help ensure that they are protected and preserved in perpetuity and that visitors enjoy a world-class experience that mirrors the amazing destinations they are visiting. We need to have the vision to look at the future of our parks and take action in order to ensure that our grandkids' grandkids will have the same if not better experience than we have today. Shoring up our parks' aging infrastructure will do that.” Under the proposal, peak-season entrance fees would be established at 17 national parks. The peak season for each park would be defined as its busiest contiguous five-month period of visitation. The proposed new fee structure would be implemented at Arches, Bryce Canyon, Canyonlands, Denali, Glacier, Grand Canyon, Grand Teton, Olympic, Sequoia & Kings Canyon, Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Zion National Parks with peak season starting on May 1, 2018; in Acadia, Mount Rainier, Rocky Mountain, and Shenandoah National Parks with peak season starting on June 1, 2018; and in Joshua Tree National Park as soon as practicable in 2018. A public comment period on the peak-season entrance fee proposal will be open from October 24, 2017 to November 23, 2017, on the NPS Planning, Environment and Public Comment (PEPC) website https://parkplanning.nps.gov/proposedpeakseasonfeerates. Written comments can be sent to 1849 C Street, NW, Mail Stop: 2346 Washington, DC 20240. If implemented, estimates suggest that the peak-season price structure could increase national park revenue by $70 million per year. That is a 34 percent increase over the $200 million collected in Fiscal Year 2016. Under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, 80% of an entrance fee remains in the park where it is collected. The other 20% is spent on projects in other national parks. During the peak season at each park, the entrance fee would be $70 per private, non-commercial vehicle, $50 per motorcycle, and $30 per person on bike or foot. A park-specific annual pass for any of the 17 parks would be available for $75. The cost of the annual America the Beautiful- The National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass, which provides entrance to all federal lands, including parks for a one-year period, would remain $80. Entrance fees are not charged to visitors under 16 years of age or holders of Senior, Military, Access, Volunteer, or Every Kid in a Park (EKIP) passes. The majority of national parks will remain free to enter; only 118 of 417 park sites charge an entrance fee, and the current proposal only raises fees at 17 fee-charging parks The National Park Service is also proposing entry and permit fee adjustments for commercial tour operators. The proposal would increase entry fees for commercial operators and standardize commercial use authorization (CUA) requirements for road-based commercial tours, including application and management fees. All CUA fees stay within the collecting park and would fund rehabilitation projects for buildings, facilities, parking lots, roads, and wayside exhibits that would enhance the visitor experience. The fees will also cover the administrative costs of receiving, reviewing, and processing CUA applications and required reports. In addition, the proposal would include a peak-season commercial entry fee structure for the 17 national parks referenced above. All proposed fee adjustments for commercial operators would go into effect following an 18-month implementation window. Information and a forum for public comments regarding commercial permit requirements and fees is available October 24, 2017 to November 23, 2017 on the NPS Planning, Environment and Public Comment (PEPC) website at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/commercialtourrequirements. Written comments can be sent to National Park Service, Recreation Fee Program, 1849 C Street, NW, Mail Stop: 2346 Washington, DC 20240. www.nps.gov About the National Park Service. More than 20,000 National Park Service employees care for America's 417 national parks and work with communities across the nation to help preserve local history and create close-to-home recreational opportunities. Visit us at www.nps.gov, on Facebook www.facebook.com/nationalparkservice, Twitter www.twitter.com/natlparkservice, and YouTube www.youtube.com/nationalparkservice.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Trail Talk > NPS could raise entrance fees
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum