Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Trip Location Advice & Meet-ups | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       end
  

National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike
  
 
Chance2
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


A new proposal from the park service would raise admission costs to $70 per vehicle during peak season at 17 of the nation's busiest parks.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/10/24/national-park-service-proposes-massive-fee-hike-at-utah-parks/



Oct 25, 2017 at 02:29 PM
MalbikEndar
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


Those parks ARE very crowded in peak season and are also facing budget cuts.

Looks like the Old Person's Pass will still give free admission however. If you haven't got one, and are eligible, then this is the time.



Oct 25, 2017 at 03:01 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


MalbikEndar wrote:
Those parks ARE very crowded in peak season and are also facing budget cuts.

Looks like the Old Person's Pass will still give free admission however. If you haven't got one, and are eligible, then this is the time.


We prefer "senior pass," thank you. ;-)

(I qualified recently. For those who are 62 or older, you can get a lifetime national lands pass — not just national parks — for $80. With the pass you do not pay separate entrance fees and you also get a 50% discount on most campsite fees. We are trying to keep track of our savings through the program and donating an equivalent amount to groups supporting American public lands.)

Dan



Oct 25, 2017 at 03:06 PM
mdude85
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


I think they need to separate the budget issues from the crowd control issues. Those are two separate problems in my mind, with two different (but possibly overlapping) solutions.

The budget issue should not, and cannot, be solved on the backs of visitors. Maybe part of the solution is to ask for states to chip in, in the form of money or transferring some of the management to local officials. That may help particularly in Utah since I've read that state parks are well-managed there.

As for the crowd control issue... yes eventually you reach a point where the fees get so high that they are too expensive for some cash-strapped families. I'm not sure that point has been reached yet -- since we're talking about a relatively small amount of money. One possible option for the crowds is to simply cap admission (either daily or per hour) at certain parks, or to charge larger parties more.



Oct 25, 2017 at 03:13 PM
Tim Knutson
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


They need to turn up the tour bus entrance fees about 500%.


Oct 25, 2017 at 03:20 PM
travelair
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


Don't know the best approach to the budget issue, although, putting it on the back of states is going to overburden some states. These parks were set aside, at the federal level, for the future benefit of all, and as such, the burden of continued maintenance and upgrades should be addressed at the federal level. While I understand the argument that the primary expense should be absorbed by visitors, but in my mind, this goes against the very concept of the National Park System.

Progress on crowd control will happen when the Park Service makes more progress on divorcing visitors from their automobiles and campers. They get parked at some central location inside the gate, and from that point on, park trams will take over. I've experienced this a couple summers back at Zion, and despite some groans from visitors, worked just fine. Early in the morning, and later in the evening, you were free to take your vehicle into the park. Access restrictions can also be freed up off season.

I want my kids, my grandkids, and all future generation to have the ability to see our great parks in as pristine shape as possible.



Oct 25, 2017 at 03:35 PM
mdude85
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


travelair wrote:
Don't know the best approach to the budget issue, although, putting it on the back of states is going to overburden some states. These parks were set aside, at the federal level, for the future benefit of all, and as such, the burden of continued maintenance and upgrades should be addressed at the federal level.


True. Although states do benefit significantly from national park visitation. According to NPS, national park visitation to Utah generates $1.1 billion in tax revenue for the state and supports almost 18,000 jobs. Arizona sees similar economic effects.



Oct 25, 2017 at 04:06 PM
Dustin Gent
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


I have the annual pass, just makes sense. They did cut finding to the NPS by quite a bit already....
Charging the foreign tourists and the bus tours MORE would be the first thing i would do - then see how that goes. Perhaps try that for next year, then make adjustments.

There is a comment period, but Zinke doesn't listen to the people - so doubt this will be any different..



Oct 25, 2017 at 05:50 PM
jeffdjohnston
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


I agree on the differential pricing for foreign visitors. I know of at least one other country that does it and US citizens should have preferential treatment/pricing for use of their own parks.


Oct 25, 2017 at 06:28 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


(deleted after realizing the topic is better discussed elsewhere)

Edited on Nov 17, 2017 at 04:40 PM · View previous versions



Oct 26, 2017 at 01:41 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



mdude85
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


gdanmitchell wrote:
Two thoughts here. First, the parks benefit all citizens in all states — directly when they visit our great parks and indirectly when local economies flourish. I think it is best to keep federal funding for supporting the parks. We managed to allocate enough money for this in the past. We can do it now.


Hm. Not everyone benefits equally though.

And also if I recall correctly, unfortunately the National Park Service has rarely had the funding it really needs. That is especially true since the 1950s when visitation skyrocketed after WWII. That being said, it has been pretty efficient with the limited funds it does have.



Oct 26, 2017 at 03:10 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


(deleted after realizing the topic is better discussed elsewhere)


Edited on Nov 17, 2017 at 04:40 PM · View previous versions



Oct 26, 2017 at 03:51 PM
elkhornsun
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


When taxes are cut for the rich then the government has to do two things. First it has to borrow from the rich in the form of government bonds so service the deficits that result. Second, it has to cut services and sell a gullible public on austerity programs. It is simply taking from the working class and giving the money to the rich (who will spend the money more responsibly on their multiple homes, private jets, yachts, and private schools for their children). It is the American way.


Oct 26, 2017 at 11:31 PM
mitesh
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


You are entitled to your opinion, but from one FMer to another, I would respectfully ask that you kindly refrain from making repeated posts that are either completely political like this one, or have political undertones like some of your other posts. This isn’t the proper forum for it, and Fred has stated such. Thank you .

elkhornsun wrote:
When taxes are cut for the rich then the government has to do two things. First it has to borrow from the rich in the form of government bonds so service the deficits that result. Second, it has to cut services and sell a gullible public on austerity programs. It is simply taking from the working class and giving the money to the rich (who will spend the money more responsibly on their multiple homes, private jets, yachts, and private schools for their children). It is the American way.




Oct 26, 2017 at 11:42 PM
Keith B.
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


Raising the fees to $70 would be unfair, IMO. I'll be in the $80-for-life category in a few months, BTW.
The NPS claims a "maintenance backlog" of about $12 billion. How much of that would be used for parking lots, paving currently unpaved roads and other questionable purposes, I don't know. They are human and therefore may occasionally make unwise decisions.
It is a public and international embarrassment that some modest improvement in that budget cannot be found in DC.
Some are already hinting at corporate sponsorships for park 'attractions'. Additionally, there are people in and out of the DC government that actually think it'd be a good idea to partially or fully privatize such places.



Oct 28, 2017 at 04:05 AM
Craig Gillette
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


They suggest raising the usual vehicle entrance fee to $70. ($10 per day if you use the whole week.) The annual pass is $80. All this will do is push more people to the annual passes and similar passes.

Of course, the sympathy seekers will suggest, as in California, that taxpayers subsidize free or low coast vacation housing in or around the parks because there are people who can't afford to camp.



Oct 28, 2017 at 05:53 AM
stanparker
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


Compare the costs of a week at Yellowstone, Yosemite or Zion with the costs of a week visiting Disneyland, Disney World or similar places. Somehow cash-strapped families find a way to do those parks, so can do the same for National Parks, which offer much better entertainment (IMO). I think most nations charge more than the U.S., but I'd like to know for certain. Any info on this?

Not only would I like to see better funding from taxes, but I think we need to add parks and better develop them to attract people away from a few...spread the crowds, in effect. Designating a National Monument and giving it to BLM to administer does nothing toward that goal.



Oct 28, 2017 at 02:07 PM
EGrav
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


Vehicles carrying more than 9 people should be banned. Keeping those large buses out would be a great start.


Oct 28, 2017 at 02:30 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike


(deleted after realizing the topic is better discussed elsewhere)

Edited on Nov 17, 2017 at 04:41 PM · View previous versions



Oct 28, 2017 at 03:20 PM
mitesh
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · National Park Service Proposes Significant Fee Hike



stanparker wrote:
Compare the costs of a week at Yellowstone, Yosemite or Zion with the costs of a week visiting Disneyland, Disney World or similar places. Somehow cash-strapped families find a way to do those parks, so can do the same for National Parks, which offer much better entertainment (IMO).



gdanmitchell wrote:
Regarding your first point: What other things that you regularly pay for are in this category in which you think an instant 350% price in crease would be appropriate? Gas for $13-14/gallon? A $15 cup of coffee? 30%-35% sales tax rates? Your income tax?



Dan,

That's a curious argument to make, in my opinion. Since we are discussing the affordability of access to our National Parks for the average family, why is it inappropriate to compare that with other typical family vacation/destination visitation costs, as Stan has suggested? I don't see the equivalence in comparing a 350% increase in taxes with a similar increase in admission at some National Parks.




Oct 28, 2017 at 04:36 PM
1
       2       3       end






FM Forums | Trip Location Advice & Meet-ups | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password