Changes to National Park fees

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.