Changes to National Park fees

RRinNFla wrote:

Another way to help keep the NPS from being a budget drain would be better use of volunteers. Here’s my rant. I have tried three times to volunteer at a local NPS facility. I submitted my name through volunteer.gov, I followed up with phone calls and emails. I have never had a return contact. I don’t think they know how to deal with someone who doesn’t want something, like a free campsite, in return. If the rangers don’t want to be bothered managing volunteers, maybe they could “hire” volunteer volunteer managers

There are volunteer coordinators in the big parks. Rangers don't do it. Rocky Mountain NP utilizes over 2,000 volunteers - many from the outside communities that just come in for a day. I'm sorry you didn't have a good experience with the volunteer.gov site. We never used it for our gigs. We applied in person and got accepted on the spot. They have thousands applying for the bigger popular parks. Perhaps try for a smaller place at first. I hope you don't give up. It's a great feeling to help out when we know it's needed badly... and it is.

This could turn into a rant, so, I apologize in advance. :)
BUT, a number of posts in this thread hits several hot buttons for me.

Historically speaking, the purpose of the NPS, was to prevent commercialization of our scenic wonders. That doesn’t mean you have to backpack from Flagstaff to see the Grand Canyon, but it may prevent Jet Skis on the river or zip-lines at Desert View. Like a lot of things in life we need to strike a balance. I think the NPS has done a good job of doing that. Most parks have made the most scenic places available to every one, including those with mobility issues. At the same time, the majority of the parkland is untouched, and available for day hikes, or back country camping. Balance. Something for every one.

Another factor in finding a middle ground is to keep the NPS from becoming a burden to taxpayers. Entrance fees alone will probably not support the parks. Some parks are not conducive to collecting fees. A previous post mentioned the Great Smokies. A US highway cuts right through the heart of the park. You can’t charge someone $25 just to drive from Cherokee to Gatlinburg. But there are other ways to generate revenue, like nominal fees for ranger guided tours.

I believe that another way to generate revenue would be to significantly increase camping at the parks, especially for RVers, who are probably willing to pat a premium to camp in a national park. I know, I know. Clearing land for RV camping would destroy the natural areas. Like I said, I am certain we can find a balance. While I’m on the subject, do we really need concessionaires to run the campgrounds? Why give up the revenue for something so basic?

Another way to help keep the NPS from being a budget drain would be better use of volunteers. Here’s my rant. I have tried three times to volunteer at a local NPS facility. I submitted my name through volunteer.gov, I followed up with phone calls and emails. I have never had a return contact. I don’t think they know how to deal with someone who doesn’t want something, like a free campsite, in return. If the rangers don’t want to be bothered managing volunteers, maybe they could “hire” volunteer volunteer managers

By the way, I always thought the $10 lifetime senior pass was ridiculous, ut don’t ask me to pony up another $70 now.

GordonThree wrote:
I'd be happy if they stopped trying to make the parks into tourist attractions. I thought the NPS charter is to preserve and protect land held in the public trust, not to exploit that land as a tourist attaction? More parks should be like Isle Royale, Wrangle St Elias and Gates of the Arctic. Very limited access, very little development for "tourist comfort."

Close the welcome centers, the gift shops, the bathrooms, and the extensive road networks. That will lighten the budget considerably.

Not everyone is able to access wilderness areas. It's great that our many of our National Parks have visitor centers where the public can learn about the history or geography of the area. We stayed in Madison Campground in Yellowstone.No hookups,no showers.That was fine. We don't need full hookups. But our federal campgrounds have some that have FHU and some that have no hookups.it's great to have choices.

Allworth wrote:
I think (dangerous at my age) that what CNN said was that Zinke was giving them away to the oil interest. (See Bear's Ears, Escalante, etc.)

These are not National Parks created by Congress. They are National Monuments created on existing federal lands designated by Presidential proclamation using the authority of the Antiquities Act. After designation; additional protections such as prohibiting resource extraction, timber harvest, grazing, camping in other than designated campgrounds, etc., can and are often imposed. The two mentioned are hundreds of thousands of acres. The Antiquities Act states that monuments created using its authority should be the minimum needed to protect the special resources or historic resources at risk. The creation of both Bear's Ears and Escalante National Monuments was controversial from the start.

mockturtle wrote:
They could increase the cost of the America the Beautiful Senior Pass to $50 and it would still be a great value for many of us.

I got a good laugh out of that since as it's been pointed out the government jumped past $50 to $80. I don't mind that I have to pay 8 times as much as my older brother for the same reasonably priced service when I turn 62 this year, but it does bother me that the existing passes get to keep using the system without paying the increase. I know that's the deal, but it the system is in bad shape why can't the deal be that if the price increases in the future those fortunate enough to keep living must pay the difference if they want to keep using the pass? That would help the budget. Maybe not a lot, but every little bit helps.

I think (dangerous at my age) that what CNN said was that Zinke was giving them away to the oil interest. (See Bear's Ears, Escalante, etc.)

bdpreece wrote:

DownTheAvenue wrote:


As another volunteer for the NPS, having contributed over 5000 hours, I can tell you they waste a lot of money, and are the very difinition of inefficiency.

What government agency isn't?

How true, I interviewed with the PA DCNR parks division a few months ago for a maintenance directors position. The interview process had 3 managers in attendance asking the questions, and a secretary devoting the full day to having the interviewees fill out a bunch of paperwork nonsense, most of which had already been previously submitted through the civil service process. Funny not one question had anything to do with the technical aspects of a maintenance director but how you would respond in politically sensitive situations. I did not know it take 4 people to handle a job interview.

I knew I did not land the job when the next person arrived for an interview as I was leaving, and greeted the 3 managers and secretary all by first name. Hi Larry, Hi Curly, Hi Moe, Hello Judy lol.

All the Federal government need do is take about 1% of the waste from feel good social programs, and they could fund all the National Parks for the next 50 years.

I think we love our parks more than those who have never bothered to step foot in one and I'm very sad that the Govt can't find money to support our Parks. Saying that, there are things we can do to help. Pick up trash we find, treating the park like we treat our home. Support "Friends of..." by sticking a dollar in the jar. and volunteering when we can. We can either be part of the problem, or part of the solution

Here's a list of all the parks with their previous and new fees. Keep in mind that anyone can purchase a yearly pass for $80 and all these parks are covered. That's $80/year. That's quite a bargain!!! What does a family night to the movies cost? Or Disney? Or your local amusement park? Or a family dinner at McDonalds? Bottle of booze? Carton of cigarettes? Yes, the national park fee is quite a bargain.

Also, the lifetime senior pass is $80 and the disability access lifetime pass is free.

https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/entrance-fee-prices.htm

timandsusan wrote:
Having been to Wrangel St. Elias and Gates of the Artic NP, those are wonderful parks but they are at the extreme end of wilderness parks and must stay that way. Other more accessible parks--Grand Canyon, Yosemite, etc. need to charge more to cover the real expenses of operating a park for the citizens!

Agreed, charge more for the parks we are using. Paying more does not bother me, it is worth it in my opinion.