Zinke proposes $70 entrance fee at some National Parks

Use this forum to post links to news stories from other websites - ones that other hikers might find interesting. This is not intended for original material or anecdotal information. You can reply to any news stories posted, but do not start a new thread without a link to a specific news story.
Webfoot
Posts: 943
Joined: November 25th, 2015, 11:06 am
Location: Troutdale

Re: Zinke proposes $70 entrance fee at some National Parks

Post by Webfoot » February 25th, 2018, 6:34 pm

What percentage of the operating costs of National Parks are generated by entrance fees?

I guess I found my own answer here:
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.
So apparently only six percent of the budget comes from entrance fees. Clearly the NPS isn't going to succeed or fail based on modest changes to entrance fees, so this seems to be about something else like limiting visits. Is ticket price the most equitable and effective way to do that?

User avatar
xrp
Posts: 437
Joined: May 2nd, 2012, 10:26 am

Re: Zinke proposes $70 entrance fee at some National Parks

Post by xrp » February 28th, 2018, 6:22 am

Guy wrote:I heard on the news this morning that Crater Lake has proposed raising it's entrance fee from $15.00 to $45.00 on the excuse of bringing it to line with other similar sized national parks.

Apparently there will be a public comment period where the public comment and they pretend to listen.
Excellent! It is time for park-goers to pay their fair share for preserving and protecting our public lands.

Excerpt from Oregon Live article on this topic:

"Previous increases have not dented visitation levels."

User avatar
Guy
Posts: 3204
Joined: May 10th, 2009, 4:42 pm
Location: The Foothills of Mt Hood
Contact:

Re: Zinke proposes $70 entrance fee at some National Parks

Post by Guy » February 28th, 2018, 7:39 am

xrp wrote:
Guy wrote: Excellent! It is time for park-goers to pay their fair share for preserving and protecting our public lands.

Excerpt from Oregon Live article on this topic:

"Previous increases have not dented visitation levels."
HA! You are nothing if not predictable xrp ;)

Nice gig for the NPS:
  • Increase prices
    Cut down on the poor & the riffraff
    Brings in more money
    Less visitors also reduces the amount of work they have to do
Certainly a win for the NPS for the general public (Who's land it's supposed to be) not so much!
hiking log, photos & maps.
Ad monte summa aut mors

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 12177
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Zinke proposes $70 entrance fee at some National Parks

Post by retired jerry » February 28th, 2018, 8:48 am

I think if you actually knew any of these "lazy NPS people that just want to raise prices so they have less work to do" you would be surprised how they're just the same as us :)

User avatar
Guy
Posts: 3204
Joined: May 10th, 2009, 4:42 pm
Location: The Foothills of Mt Hood
Contact:

Re: Zinke proposes $70 entrance fee at some National Parks

Post by Guy » February 28th, 2018, 1:32 pm

retired jerry wrote:I think if you actually knew any of these "lazy NPS people that just want to raise prices so they have less work to do" you would be surprised how they're just the same as us :)
You're right Jerry that came across as an unfair comment on my part.

What I was (I think legitimately) griping about was NPS using the excuse of raising entrance fees as a way to limit overuse in much the same way as we heard from Mt Hood National Forest a couple of years ago the excuse that certain roads were deliberately left in bad condition to limit use.

Personally I don't think $45.00 is necessarily bad for a multi day pass but I bet way more that 50% of Crater Lake Visitors are there for the day or even half a day. Having to pay $45.00 just to "see the lake" is not on and it does unfairly target those with less income.
hiking log, photos & maps.
Ad monte summa aut mors

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 12177
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Zinke proposes $70 entrance fee at some National Parks

Post by retired jerry » February 28th, 2018, 1:44 pm

Yeah, good point, and I was just trying to get a laugh :)

I would be in favor of taking a portion of my federal income taxes and giving to the NPS so they didn't have to charge fees

I wouldn't even mind that I wasted that $10 for the senior access for life pass :)

Webfoot
Posts: 943
Joined: November 25th, 2015, 11:06 am
Location: Troutdale

Re: Zinke proposes $70 entrance fee at some National Parks

Post by Webfoot » February 28th, 2018, 6:18 pm

xrp wrote:Excellent! It is time for park-goers to pay their fair share for preserving and protecting our public lands.
If my figure are correct and only six percent of the budget comes from Park fees then the rate would need to go to $250 each, and even that wouldn't cover it because far fewer people would visit the parks which such high fees. Is that really the direction you think this should go?

User avatar
drm
Posts: 4895
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: The Dalles, OR
Contact:

Re: Zinke proposes $70 entrance fee at some National Parks

Post by drm » March 19th, 2018, 7:50 am

The people proposing and deciding on these price increases are not the people you meet working in the parks - behind the info desk, on the trail, etc. They have to absorb the results, what ever they end of being. The the decision feels as far from most of them as it does from you and me. The difference is that they have to enforce it.

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 12177
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Zinke proposes $70 entrance fee at some National Parks

Post by retired jerry » March 19th, 2018, 8:22 am

and they can't say how much they disagree with it

User avatar
xrp
Posts: 437
Joined: May 2nd, 2012, 10:26 am

Re: Zinke proposes $70 entrance fee at some National Parks

Post by xrp » March 19th, 2018, 7:48 pm

Guy wrote:Having to pay $45.00 just to "see the lake" is not on and it does unfairly target those with less income.
Sorry, but you are employing 20th century thinking. No one needs to go to Crater Lake to “see the lake”.

Example:

Image

There. That cost next to nothing.

By employing “virtual visitation”, we can accomplish the following:
  • Reduce human impact on our public lands.
    Reduce carbon emissions significantly. No one NEEDS to go to Crater Lake, really.
    Help others enjoy the great outdoors, without enjoying the great outdoors. Think of it like Bruce Lee’s Art of Fighting Without Fighting.
Sound good?

Post Reply