Changes to National Park fees

[kerrlakeRoo]

Just saw an article from CNN claiming that the National Parks have announced the final fee increase decisions for this year.
Day use fees will increase by $%
Annual Passes for single parks will increase by $10
America the beautiful will increase by an additional $10

Happy motorin

[DallasSteve]

westernrvparkowner wrote:

The argument will be to use volunteers. Well, to staff every park concessionaire job would take a whole lot of specialized, trained volunteers. While it might be easy to get a volunteer to be a camp host, it will be much more difficult to find a volunteer to wash the dishes, bus the tables and mop the floors of the restaurants.

Yes, those are difficult jobs. I didn't learn how to do those jobs until I was 15 and got my first job at Mrs. Heath's Steakhouse, with no training, just "Here's the mop." OK, they gave me 5 minutes of training on the industrial washing machine.

[westernrvparkow]

monkey44 wrote:

RRinNFla wrote:
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, but don’t ask me to pony up another $70 now.

I'd sure not label your post a rant - we do need something for everyone. And the magic of those parks now, most of the land is undeveloped, and should stay that way forever. Period.

Where we should always draw the line at $$$ leaving the park for private vendors. If it produces sufficient revenue that a private vendor profits enough to make a company viable, then the park management should run it and keep the funds in-house. And private vendors always want to "make it bigger" (the concession, not the park) which we don't need.

We will never control the crowds in popular parks, so to make any part of it larger - via development - will only make larger crowds and not less, and cover more wilderness. So, monitoring and upgrading the areas we've already developed is a better answer than taking more land out of the wilderness ...

The volunteer issue makes it even more productive to keep it in-house if you supervise the volunteers properly ... and by that I mean give the volunteers the supervision they need without interfering with the knowledge and experience each one brings to the table.

You say that any concessionaire that makes a profit inside the park should instead be taken "in-house" and run by the government so they can keep those profits. Where do you draw the line? Helicopter tours, rafting trips, ice cream parlors, restaurants, souvenir shops, fuel stations, snow mobile tours and many other services are concessions at national parks and they all make money or they wouldn't be there. Should the guy flipping burgers at the snack shack be a civil servant getting yearly raises, promotions, benefits and after a few years making $80k or more (average wage of US government employee in 2014 was $84,000. With benefits, HR costs etc. the average government employee costs $119,000 per year. ).
The argument will be to use volunteers. Well, to staff every park concessionaire job would take a whole lot of specialized, trained volunteers. While it might be easy to get a volunteer to be a camp host, it will be much more difficult to find a volunteer to wash the dishes, bus the tables and mop the floors of the restaurants. And even volunteers need supervision. The fact of the matter is if volunteers were the solution to all the government costs, we would have them in every sector of the government. I am sure there are a lot of people would love to go thru your tax returns looking for errors and evasion. They would probably pay for the privilege in return for a percentage of the additional tax and penalties they uncover. There are all sorts of wannabe warriors who would love to go test fire rockets and bombs and play make believe soldiers. But there is a reason our military and other government positions are professional, not volunteers. We need them to be trained, available and accountable for there actions.
Concessionaires PAY for the right to be a concessionaire at the various parks. They are also required to maintain and make improvements in the properties. Those concession contracts are not given out for free, especially at the popular parks. It is a contractual relationship that benefits both parties.

[2gypsies1]

Trail Ridge Rd. in Rocky Mtn. Nat'l Park is also a U.S. Highway 34. You'll pay the entrance fee to cross it.

https://www.nps.gov/romo/planyourvisit/trail_ridge_road.htm

[footslogger]

Horsedoc wrote:
Anyone ever been to GSMNP? no fee ! Ever wonder why?

From the GSMNP website:

Why No Entrance Fee?

The reasons for free entry to the national park date back at least to the 1930s. The land that is today Great Smoky Mountains National Park was once privately owned. The states of Tennessee and North Carolina, as well as local communities, paid to construct Newfound Gap Road (US-441). When the state of Tennessee transferred ownership of Newfound Gap Road to the federal government, it stipulated that "no toll or license fee shall ever be imposed…" to travel the road.

At that time, Newfound Gap Road was one of the major routes crossing the southern Appalachian Mountains. It's likely the state was concerned with maintaining free, easy interstate transportation for its citizens. North Carolina transferred its roads through abandonment, so no restrictions were imposed.

Action by the Tennessee legislature would be required to lift this deed restriction if Great Smoky Mountains National Park ever wished to charge an entrance fee.

[GordonThree]

It's not the government's business to compete with private business. If it were up to me, the parks wouldn't have any campgrounds. Leave that stuff to private enterprises outside of the park.

[monkey44]

RRinNFla wrote:
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, but don’t ask me to pony up another $70 now.

I'd sure not label your post a rant - we do need something for everyone. And the magic of those parks now, most of the land is undeveloped, and should stay that way forever. Period.

Where we should always draw the line at $$$ leaving the park for private vendors. If it produces sufficient revenue that a private vendor profits enough to make a company viable, then the park management should run it and keep the funds in-house. And private vendors always want to "make it bigger" (the concession, not the park) which we don't need.

We will never control the crowds in popular parks, so to make any part of it larger - via development - will only make larger crowds and not less, and cover more wilderness. So, monitoring and upgrading the areas we've already developed is a better answer than taking more land out of the wilderness ...

The volunteer issue makes it even more productive to keep it in-house if you supervise the volunteers properly ... and by that I mean give the volunteers the supervision they need without interfering with the knowledge and experience each one brings to the table.

[2gypsies1]

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.

[RRinNFla]

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.

[RGar974417]

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.

[trailertraveler]

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.

[DallasSteve]

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.

[Allworth]

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.)

[Ralph_Cramden]

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.

[Roy_Lynne]

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

[2gypsies1]

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