Zinke proposes $70 entrance fee at some National Parks

[xrp]

Most of us don't stay 7 days in a national park. Yes, there are scenarios where $70 is a good deal, but I rarely stay longer than 3 days when I go to Rainier.

So, $23.33 per night then. Not bad...

[BigBear]

The problem with the cost raising to $70 is that it is a 700% increase over the past decade. The fee had recently jumped from $10 to $20/$25 depending on the park. What should the cost be to visit "public" land...and what is "public land?" The initial push to make lands public was to get away from privatization (e.g. charging people to look through a peep-hole in a fence to get a view of Niagara Falls) and allow all people to see the natural treasures.

If you stay a week in the same national park, the cost is less significant when you take into account the total cost of your trip. $70 in and of itself is not a lot, but it is a lot when your value has not increased 700% and your disposable income has decreased.

As the Glacier NP newsletter pointed out on our last visit, a century ago, the average stay was 7 days - the time it took to cabin-hop across the park. However, the average stay in Glacier now is a mere 3 hours: the time it takes you to drive across the Going-to-the-Sun Road and stop for a souvenir at the gift shop. If your vacation is park-hopping, the annual park pass would be the better way to go.

Perhaps drm can buy us all a round since his elasticity of price is all so endless. Personally, I want an increased value for the higher ticket price.

[xrp]

As the Glacier NP newsletter pointed out on our last visit, a century ago, the average stay was 7 days - the time it took to cabin-hop across the park. However, the average stay in Glacier now is a mere 3 hours.

BigBear, that is fascinating. Of course, humans weren't as mobile 100 years ago. But this certainly can point to the need for the National Parks and visitors' feelings of ownership.

If my idea of a NP outing is standing in front of a couple of scenic items and taking a selfie and chuckling around for a couple of hours, I probably won't spend $70 on that "entertainment". Whereas someone who feels more of a sense of purpose and respect for the NP might spend several days, backpacking or camping and be more of a "leave no trace" kind of person. $70 might be more digestible, especially if I desire to keep the crowds down or have more fellow outdoors companions who, like me, take better care of the environment. Or people...toss in 3 more people into your car and your overall cost per person drops substantially!

I also wouldn't look for drm to fund me and my visit. Rather, I'd offer to carpool with drm, contribute to fuel costs and NP admission. We would reduce carbon emissions and reduce demand on the NP's parking availability, which reduces overall congestion in the NP itself. Win, win, win!

[Aimless]

My understanding of the national park system is that it is protected for the use and enjoyment of the general public. Setting the entrance fee high enough to make visiting the parks for a day trip into a very expensive luxury for a large percentage of American families is completely contrary to the philosophy that ought to be guiding their management. More and more they are becoming the playground of a limited slice of the general public - families earning at or above the median income. That's just wrong and needs to be remedied, not made even worse.

[xrp]

My understanding of the national park system is that it is protected for the use and enjoyment of the general public. Setting the entrance fee high enough to make visiting the parks for a day trip into a very expensive luxury for a large percentage of American families is completely contrary to the philosophy that ought to be guiding their management. More and more they are becoming the playground of a limited slice of the general public - families earning at or above the median income. That's just wrong and needs to be remedied, not made even worse.

Instead of speculating, how about you bring these people forward so we can help them?

Options include:

Aimless buying day passes for them so this abomination of social justice can be corrected by your generous bank account
Camping in National Forests ($0)
Staying longer than "a day trip" (which is a waste of carbon emissions and negatively impacts the environment) so one gets more for their money
Offering to carpool with someone
Examining the budgets of those supposedly affected, helping them identifying possible waste in their current spending to re-prioritize funds for NP recreation
etc

FYI US median income is $59,000/year. Are you telling me that $59k/year isn't enough to fund a NP visits 2x/more per year (excluding free days)? I find myself wondering how they afford cars and gas.

[Bosterson]

Instead of speculating, how about you bring these people forward so we can help them?

Options include:

Aimless XRP buying day passes for them so this abomination of social justice can be corrected by your generous bank account

Fixed that for ya, buddy. You've previously made clear your economic status, so I appreciate you trying to demonstrate for us how wealthy people aren't affected by the budgetary challenges that impact most people. Rather than beat your dead horse about how poor people shouldn't be visiting National Parks if they can't afford hypothetical cars (please go cry me a river of meritocratic tears), feel free to address why "deferred" park maintenance should be paid for by additional fees levied on users rather than by current tax revenue that Congress has slashed from the NPS budget.

For instance, in 2009, the "typical" American's tax bill would have yielded $229 for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and only a little over $4 for the NPS. A B2 bomber costs $2 billion, which is almost as much as the entire 2008 NPS budget. It's pretty hard for one to say the money to fund the NPS isn't already there...

Maybe if you really think the NPS should start collecting additional user fees, we could have a progressive pricing structure based on standard deviations from the poverty line, whereby people at the low end get in for free, people in the middle pay the current rate, and people making as much or more than XRP pay 10x the normal fee, since a mere doubling of the fee is a "nothing burger" for them.

[xrp]

Instead of speculating, how about you bring these people forward so we can help them?

Options include:

Aimless XRP Bosterson buying day passes for them so this abomination of social justice can be corrected by your generous bank account

Fixed that for ya, champ, as I am not advocating higher cost to me for others' entertainment and recreational experiences. I'm in favor of higher costs for those who use it. It's really common sense.

[Guy]

Can someone point me to a link that shows NPS Budget FY history (In simple terms). While I agree the budget has certainly not kept up with inflation I'm not seeing data showing that the budget has been slashed but frozen. Am I wrong?

I think the NPS also needs to be accountable for what they do with the money they have and I think too often the money goes to glitzy new day centers and offices before park maintenance.

I'd be interested to see how the ratio of NPS administrative versus park employees has changed over the last 10 to 15 years.

[VanMarmot]

We built the interstate highway system with public money as a public good for all Americans, regardless of economic status.

Similarly, the National Parks were conceived of as a public expense in pursuit of a public good, again, open to all.

These are shining examples of a collective, community, shared, everybody pays a little so everybody gets a piece of something (however you want to say it) approach to having a good that no individual (not even Bill Gates), city, region, or state could ever afford on its own.

So you can ante up $70 or $700 or $7000 or whatever for your personal entry fee - so what? Such triffling amounts wouldn't cover the annual operating cost of even the smallest National Park and so you'd have no parks to visit. Or they'd be priced like private game reserves. And all the interstate freeways would be toll roads...

[Water]

Fixed that for ya, champ, as I am not advocating higher cost to me for others' entertainment and recreational experiences. I'm in favor of higher costs for those who use it. It's really common sense.

So at the end of the day, pay to play, let public resources become a playground for the wealthy alone. Just imagine a wonderful world with a direct-user fee kiosk in front of each home so you can walk on the sidewalk. Why bother with education for kids that can't afford private school!