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

[dedmiston]

This thread has become pretty contentious and it doesn't look like it's going to turn back towards the light. I think it's time to turn it off.

[toedtoes]

monkey44 wrote:
RRinNFla: Monkey44 said: "Parks are over-run with tourists and visitors", not "over-run with concessionaires".

However, now that you mention it, a lot of the crowds come BECAUSE of concessionaires. If we allowed folks in only to drive/hike/walk etc in the parks, and not had so many extraneous activities (helicopters - large rafting parties - etc) the parks would remain less crowded and more pristine. And, would also reduce upkeep and maintenance. Crowds create more damage to the ecosystems and the environmental balance. No way around it ...

These national parks and forests are set aside to PRESERVE the natural balance and watershed wilderness. IF one wants to ride in a helicopter, go to Disney.
And same thing for a bus - Zion allow NO private vehicles beginning in March and all thru the season due to the crowds - you can only ride a bus. And Yosemite is heading in that direction if not already there, just to name two.

If all these extraneous activities did not exist, we'd need much less road and support maintenance, and less budget, and volunteers or specific employees with training (electrician, etc) will run the park based on budget and revenue. We only have the crowds and increasing overhead costs because we've allowed the parks to become "tourist traps" instead of wilderness areas and wildlife habitats that require visitors to leave no trace --

Believe this, if nothing else, all these tourists that require mechanical tour services damage our ecosystems and the natural balance, regardless of what kind of justification one might offer for "viewing our lands".

We have plenty of private lands in this country for air fields, heli-ports, rafting, and horseback riding without interfering with the natural conditions of our parks - that is not the purpose for which the NPS exists ... If you cannot park your vehicle and hike into the park to enjoy it, maybe the national parks aren't for you ...

Altho', accommodations for disabled are certainly in order, that in itself will not require nearly the amount of maintenance nor damage the parks as much as the millions of tourists the concessionaires require.

Monkey44 and family have been hiking and camping national parks for more than sixty years, and never once needed a helicopter or a rafting tour to enjoy our parks and forests. And, we've seen the population of the parks and the over-crowding continuously rise, and the parks continuously degrade over time. It's only a matter of years until the parks become like DisneyWorld if we keep it up.

For those of us that have been around for awhile, think for one minute about how difficult it is now even to get a reservation (a constant topic on this forum). Then, think about how different it was a number of years ago when all you needed was a weekend off to go camping pretty in much any park in the country. Then tell us - convince us - you needed a helicopter or a tour bus to enjoy that weekend ...

See the bold. That sure comes across as "stay out" for those of us who can't hike into the parks.

[dedmiston]

monkey44 wrote:
We all bark up different trees here, so will leave this alone with this thought: Enjoy the parks, everyone, just please understand the consequences of your actions while you're there.

How does the old saying go?

"Take only pictures, and leave only money."

Something like that.

[monkey44]

It's not about you or me, or us, it's about our kids and grand kids, and the following generations.

You imply "I'm denying" someone something. I'm not, I'm just explaining the damage that occurs with specific types of access to the parks, and the long term ramifications. Where did I say "stay out" ... where?

We should think more about HOW we access the parks. Just because we have mechanical means does not automatically mean we should use it.

We all bark up different trees here, so will leave this alone with this thought: Enjoy the parks, everyone, just please understand the consequences of your actions while you're there.

[toedtoes]

The problem with your argument is that you are determining what is acceptable based on your preferences. Many people are not hikers - whatever the reason. Why should they be denied the ability to see that beauty?

Yes, crowds are a problem. But the solution is not to deny people the chance to see the beauty of our country.

[monkey44]

toedtoes wrote:
I have bad knees. A helicopter tour is the only way I can see many of the remote areas of the national parks. I guess I'll just be one less visitor so you can have the park to yourself?

How is my desire to see the wonders of our national parks any less important than yours? Why should your way take precedence over another's?

It's not "my way" nor is it "have park to myself", it's simply stating facts. Crowds cause damage to our parks. That's a fact. Concessions bring crowds with the ads and mechanical service vehicles. That's a fact. Crowds require support services that overload budget and maintenance costs. That's a fact. Not opinions.

And, I also mentioned accommodating disabled access as well, and as a different situation than healthy folks that can walk.

As a photographer yourself, you understand and reminisce with the beauty you capture in your images. How do you feel when you try to photograph a wilderness scene, and you get a helicopter in it? Or, so many people crowding a deer or a bear or an elk near the road and you can't even punch the shutter button without a ten minute wait so you don't get a visitor in the frame, if you can even capture it before it runs off?

The facts speak for themselves. If we continue to develop and add concessionaires and features to the parks, we will damage the wilderness areas beyond repair. That's a fact, not an opinion.

[toedtoes]

I have bad knees. A helicopter tour is the only way I can see many of the remote areas of the national parks. I guess I'll just be one less visitor so you can have the park to yourself?

How is my desire to see the wonders of our national parks any less important than yours? Why should your way take precedence over another's?

[monkey44]

RRinNFla: Monkey44 said: "Parks are over-run with tourists and visitors", not "over-run with concessionaires".

However, now that you mention it, a lot of the crowds come BECAUSE of concessionaires. If we allowed folks in only to drive/hike/walk etc in the parks, and not had so many extraneous activities (helicopters - large rafting parties - etc) the parks would remain less crowded and more pristine. And, would also reduce upkeep and maintenance. Crowds create more damage to the ecosystems and the environmental balance. No way around it ...

These national parks and forests are set aside to PRESERVE the natural balance and watershed wilderness. IF one wants to ride in a helicopter, go to Disney.
And same thing for a bus - Zion allow NO private vehicles beginning in March and all thru the season due to the crowds - you can only ride a bus. And Yosemite is heading in that direction if not already there, just to name two.

If all these extraneous activities did not exist, we'd need much less road and support maintenance, and less budget, and volunteers or specific employees with training (electrician, etc) will run the park based on budget and revenue. We only have the crowds and increasing overhead costs because we've allowed the parks to become "tourist traps" instead of wilderness areas and wildlife habitats that require visitors to leave no trace --

Believe this, if nothing else, all these tourists that require mechanical tour services damage our ecosystems and the natural balance, regardless of what kind of justification one might offer for "viewing our lands".

We have plenty of private lands in this country for air fields, heli-ports, rafting, and horseback riding without interfering with the natural conditions of our parks - that is not the purpose for which the NPS exists ... If you cannot park your vehicle and hike into the park to enjoy it, maybe the national parks aren't for you ...

Altho', accommodations for disabled are certainly in order, that in itself will not require nearly the amount of maintenance nor damage the parks as much as the millions of tourists the concessionaires require.

Monkey44 and family have been hiking and camping national parks for more than sixty years, and never once needed a helicopter or a rafting tour to enjoy our parks and forests. And, we've seen the population of the parks and the over-crowding continuously rise, and the parks continuously degrade over time. It's only a matter of years until the parks become like DisneyWorld if we keep it up.

For those of us that have been around for awhile, think for one minute about how difficult it is now even to get a reservation (a constant topic on this forum). Then, think about how different it was a number of years ago when all you needed was a weekend off to go camping pretty in much any park in the country. Then tell us - convince us - you needed a helicopter or a tour bus to enjoy that weekend ...

[toedtoes]

RRinNFLA - I think your post was a good one (both posts). It's about a balance.

I think too, that it should be realized that a "balance" does not mean making everyone completely happy. A balance means making most people content.

The parks don't need to be, nor can they be, everything for everyone. Offer a good balance and most people will be content. And that may mean making one park a bit more "this" and another a bit more "that".

Then it's up to those people to decide if what is offered is worth it FOR THEM. If not, then there will be another place that may be a better fit.

[RRinNFla]

Well, maybe it wasn’t a rant, but it certainly touched a nerve.

Let me reiterate a word from my previous post, Balance

Certainly, some activities should be outsourced to concessionaires, but I still believe that there are cases where an activity could be managed in-house, and the revenue retained by the NPS. (This post was about rising costs and fees). Personally, I think campgrounds could be run very effectively by a combination of NPS employees and volunteers. I would love to know what WRVPO thinks about that. I have observed in my career, that once an organization starts outsourcing, they don’t know when to stop, both in the public sector and private. Balance

I agree that volunteers are not right for every job. I volunteered at a major golf tournament for more than 25 years. Assisted by professional staff from the PGA Tour, over 2000 volunteers made this annual event happen. Because of the work of volunteers, about a million dollars per year was raised for local charities. That was the motivation for most volunteers. But some jobs were not attractive to volunteers. I worked the entire tournament in a parking lot one year. Never again. So, the Tour opted to outsource some tasks, like parking lot security, and port-a-potty management. For several years I had oversight of about 300 volunteers. Volunteers can be a real pain in the rear. They come and go as they please, and complain when they don’t get their perks. But they play a useful and vital roll.

monkey44 said he thought many major parks were overrun with concessions, but did not give specific examples. Yes, there are a lot more people, but I don’t think concessionaires are to blame. Last year DW and I took a bucket list float trip down the Colorado. It would not have been possible without the concessionaire, who provided several options for us to choose from.

BALANCE

[westernrvparkow]

DallasSteve wrote:

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.

Helicopter pilots, rafting guides, chefs, electricians, plumbers, data center employees, supervisory personnel and a host of other people employed by those concessionaires do require professional training. And like another poster pointed out, the menial, every day tasks aren't very attractive to volunteers. Not too many people are going to sign up to work in the lodge laundry room as a volunteer,

[monkey44]

WRVPO: (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. ).

I'll just quote above part of this WRVPO post:

We will eventually damage beyond repair the national parks if we continue hosting concessionaires - like as you suggest, helicopters etc. It has gotten out of hand in many major parks, and the damage cannot be reversed once it reaches a certain point.

We have enough park space and ability to see the parks without huge rafting parties, helicopters crashing in the parks, and other damage that occurs with "multiple-carry civilized mechanical access". That's not why our parks have been designated as national parks and national forests, and seashores.

These parks are, or at least once were, wilderness areas to protect wildlife and allow campers to visit. Theodore Roosevelt - one of the pioneers of the parks system - had a great vision, but is probably spinning in his grave as we degrade those wilderness areas. Roosevelt was a hunter and a rancher long before he emerged as a politician and our President, and saw the loss of habitat would also mean the loss of game as well. So he believed we should preserve the habitat, not run wild over it, and trash it as happens today in many areas and to the lack of education that leads to the damage that occurs when visitors arrive with limited understanding of how they affect the environment and ecosystems.

Plenty of the tourists and visitors do understand how it works, but it doesn't take many to overcome those of us who take pride in our heritage, and protect our parks with every step we take.

Now, places like Yellowstone and Yosemite and Bryce and Zion are nearly over-run with tourists and visitors. And we can no longer even access some of our major parks with a personal vehicle, and must ride the center road in a bus ... how much more evidence do we need to see to understand that can't continue or we'll lose all of it eventually ...

[2gypsies1]

Concessionaire paid employees have to pay for their housing. A concessionaire volunteer wouldn't pay big bucks for housing if they don't have a paying job. Park volunteers are definitely used by people living outside the park. They'll come in for 1 day a week or in the busy season to help out.

[toedtoes]

DallasSteve wrote:

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.

I think his point is that there will be far fewer people volunteering for a job of mopping floors then there are volunteering for camphost. In most places, there will be far fewer people volunteering for such jobs than are needed to perform those jobs.

In addition, when the government "makes a profit" in any sector it's very frowned upon by the public. So not using concessionaires and keeping the profits themselves is not acceptable to many.

And then there is the "government is not supposed to compete with private business" argument. By using concessionaires, they aren't, as it's the private business concessionaire running the operation. If they eliminate the concessionaires, they are now in direct competition.

Again, no matter what way you look at it, someone IS going to yell foul because they don't like that solution. The government can't appease everyone and still do its job.