would you pay $41 to enter a National Park?
I am calling BS on this story. Read it and the implication is that folks would be okay with an 80% increase in entrance fees if it ensured they would see a bear Article
Forum Discussion
BigSkyFamily wrote:
No, I would not. I live 20 miles from Glacier National Park and I refuse to pay the $35 they want for entrance.
I live in Montana, I see wildlife in my backyard, and know many places to go play outdoors that don't cost me a dime and are every bit as nice as the park.....with thousands fewer people to trip over.
I'm sort of at this point but with a caveat. I grew up in Alaska and spend as much time there as possible (chasing filthy lucre takes me out too long). I won't spend a dime to get into McKinley park partly because I can see similar scenery in a dozen different places in Alaska and partly because (having grown up in the area), the "Glitter Gulch" area is just repulsive to me.
I would pay $41 (or more) to get into other national parks. Can't remember what I paid to get into Grand Canyon Natl Park 3 years ago in October, but it was worth every penny since I'd never seen it before. Same thing for the Smoky Mountains, Yellowstone, and, yes, Glacier......but I wouldn't pay to get into a National Park that was next to equally scenic state or undesignated land that I otherwise had access to.
