Forum Discussion
- Gordon, that’s one position. One of the other sides will say but I want to see...Glacier, Yosemite etc...not camp. Why can’t I see without camping? And if they don’t camp they need food, hotels, potties etc.
- Why is there such a huge maintenance backlog? Who's idea was it to build so much that requires maintenance?
When I visit a National Park, I don't need a food court or a movie theater about the parks history. Just board all that junk up, rip out the heated bathrooms etc. - I love the national parks and have visited around half of them. Double the price and they are still astronomically cheaper than Disney. I'm fine with an increase under two stipulations. Current funding to parks can't be reduced and all increased revenue goes directly to the parks.
My fear is an increase in fees followed by a budget cut for the park service. - $25 to $70 will accomplish one thing for sure. It will cut down on traffic and general ware and tare in these parks.....fewer people will be going to them.
- Rather than discussing “typical politician” thinking, who should pay for maintaining public lands? The general public or users? How is it fair for me to flash my senior pass and a minimum wage family to stay home unable to pay a $70 entrance fee and subsidize me? Why does my campsite cost half right next door to that family’s full price place? First, I believe we need an agreement on what needs to be repaired or built and how much it will cost. Then decide how to pay for it....together, not just anyone but me.
rocmoc wrote:
http://www.hcn.org/issues/49.22/national-park-service-who-should-pay-for-public-lands
Interesting information. And notable in the fee increase debate, is the absence of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in the discussion.
No fee for entrance, due to the farsightedness of the Tennessee state legislature back in 1934. For turning over the Newfound Gap Road to the federal government, when GSMNP was established, Tennessee stipulated that there could never be a fee imposed on using that road. In order to change that, which the federal government cannot, the modern day Tennessee legislature would need to vote to impose a fee. My guess is that the good people of Tennessee would be up in arms if there was any attempt to do so.
Here in the West, this discussion is being watched closely, particularly in areas near national parks that would be affected. The folks around Rocky Mountain NP, for example (in Estes Park as well as Grand Lake), are concerned about what such an increase would do for tourism in their respective towns. While many of the folks on this site might say "hooray!" to less tourists, the impact on the economies of EP and GL could be enormous. And other NPs in Colorado could be affected.
One news report I saw indicated that, if fees were increased as suggested for RMNP, tourists could decide to visit other of the state's NP, such as Great Sand Dunes, Black Canyon of the Gunnison, or Mesa Verde. The unknown would be the impact on these other NPs, if tourism increased significantly there.
I suppose we will all know soon enough as to what's going to happen. Any bets that the fees will NOT be increased?? :@- It's the same thing as what usually happens though. Beauracrats go overboard on reacting to something.
I can agree that there needs to be a fee, and an increase, but a jump from $25 to $70 is typical politician.
The argument that folks will just buy annual passes is valid, So ... since Annual passes are currently almost triple the day pass cost, they will argue to raise the annual pass commensurately, to something like $200.
Probly more reasonable to raise both, by about $5 per year for the next several years to get to a more sustainable number. But thats asking for a measured reaction, something beauracrats and activist alike have a hard time comprehending.
