I'm sure many are aware there is a few proposals being worked on with almost a certain fee increase at the National Parks. The pricing proposals vary as well as possible peak seasons sliding scale approach too.
Needless to say as often as I'm in the parks I've held an annual pass starting back in the 80's. Once I hit the old geezer zone that life time pass was the best $10 I've ever laid out.
As always the newly proposed increases are to help off set much of the massive backlog of needed repairs and general maintenance overall. The fact is the NP's in many locales are loved to death with gross annual attendances. Thankfully mother nature is resilient, but at the same time only to a point I'm afraid.
Harley, not sure you've ever noticed but the siege on our National Parks, and I suspect parks worldwide, is year around for MANY years now. To make the point; my wife and I would always plan an annual vacation while school was in. Basically outside the dates of Jun15th thru Sept 15th when schools were normally out for summer break. We never had any kids so it was a wonderful open market in those days. However, many years back now I noticed that kids from around the world are with their parents 7-24-365 in our parks nowadays........
I'm sure year around school schedules and home schooling has added to the odd overlapping, but basically there is never a clear window of fewer people out there attacking the parks. So maybe some of the fee based increases might ease things slightly.
Maybe it will drive them all to "Wally World" instead......
ALL the parks seemed to be buried with people these days. They are far more crowded than just 5 years ago. A fee increase might help with the over-crowding. The NPS doesn't seem to want to limit visitors any other way.
If they get the increase implemented, it will make a good case study for elasticity of demand. They can use it in Econ classes (which thankfully I will not have to take again).
Posted by Ed Cordes on October 26, 2017 at 5:00 PM
I have had the "Old Geezer" pass for 10 years now. Frankly, I think it is way too low a fee. I would support a $10 or $20 annual pass fee to help the cause. While we don't drive a motor home we often see other "Old Geezers" driving rigs costing well into the 6 figures on a Senior Pass they bought years ago. Seems like most of us can afford a small annual fee. Just my $0.02
I have had the "Old Geezer" pass for 10 years now. Frankly, I think it is way too low a fee. I would support a $10 or $20 annual pass fee to help the cause. While we don't drive a motor home we often see other "Old Geezers" driving rigs costing well into the 6 figures on a Senior Pass they bought years ago. Seems like most of us can afford a small annual fee. Just my $0.02
Ed a solid point. I cannot recall for sure but I think I saw where the life time pass was going to be elevated to $80. So, although a bit late in the game and not on an annual basis I would think that should aid somewhat with your idea on the subject.
Not to get too far off the mark here. There are some of those types who like the idea of taking the parks all to full privatization. Which has that taste of toll lanes or roads mentality IMO. And yes, there would be an oil platform mounted on top of Half Dome and not just lining the outside of the parks where we're headed to at this point. Recent executive order on review of the National Monuments is opening the door for loses on that front.
Posted by Ed Cordes on October 26, 2017 at 5:56 PM
Paul, thanks for commenting. While I think the fees need general realignment - especially the Senior Pass - I hate the idea of privatization. It is bad enough to have the private companies run the concessions. I have had zero problems with companies like Xanterra, there is still accountability to the NPS. Again, I don't always trust the government to make the right decisions, but privatization will most likely lead to de regulation and this has huge potential, in the long run, to place profits above sound management of our natural resource. So, while I generally don't like "big government"given the choice I would rather have that than "Big Business" managing our wonderful parks and wilderness areas.
If any NPNers have concerns about the proposed fee increase, be sure to officially comment to the NPS within the comment period.
In light of the increasing visitation to the parks, it would behoove the NPS to also consider beefing up law enforcement and fire protection, especially for initial attack on fires. Both elements of public protection are severely strained.
--P
In light of the increasing visitation to the parks, it would behoove the NPS to also consider beefing up law enforcement and fire protection, especially for initial attack on fires. Both elements of public protection are severely strained.
Preston, I could not agree more. Sadly our parks are not the quiet safe refuges we sought out in years past. I've witnessed a couple rowdy visitor events placing rangers in tough postilions. I can recall the first time I saw an armed ranger many years back now and was totally shocked and could not grasp how bad things had gotten. Now I fully understand and they need more support in certain instances.
Posted by Ed Cordes on October 27, 2017 at 10:30 AM
Preston and Paul, I also agree completely. I wonder??? If we have "No Fly Lists" can we have a "No Park Visit List". If visitors do something terrible they can be banned immediately if they are minor infractions a record can be created with the offender being banned after accumulating a certain number of "points". Yes, another database. However, for the 98% of us who would never be listed it really doesn't matter. I also agree we need to support the rangers. I am suspect they are dedicated people who are overworked and under paid. They don't need to take guff from an unruly visitor. Just a thought.
Posted by scott lanz on October 27, 2017 at 10:38 AM
I agree with the Harley's comment about the dual purpose/advantage of the fee increase. I just got back from a week in Zion N.P. I spent most of my time backpacking (we did the trans-Zion trek), but the crowds in the main valley were ridiculous and a significant increase for this time of year over just a couple years ago. On the way down from the west rim, I considered going up Angel's landing, but there was practically a congo line and a circus like atmosphere. I then spent our "spare" day in the narrows, and there seemed to be 10 times as many people in the narrows as when I was there in 2011. I have mixed feelings about using fees to reduce crowding, but if there is no other way...
Ed & Scott, two more solid items for discussion on the state of our wonderful National Parks.
@ Ed, I could buy in on the no admit lists. I saw 1 group twice over the past several years disrespect a day use area for some kind of annual gathering in Joshua Tree NP where they left trash EVERYWHERE and only 50 ft. from full sized dumpsters. I helped a park ranger pick up the trash for well over a half hour on one of the events I came upon.
@ Scott, I can't tell you how many trips I've made to Zion over the years. Years ago I had the park to myself with unrestricted views for photo ops. This was before the many added new hotels and of course the tram system too. I can recall leisurely driving into the canyon without any parking issues, again, before the well needed tram system now. Those quiet park days are sadly long ago gone now.
Barbara, that sounds like the meat of the decision going forward. In my mind it is not an out of bounds pricing to help offset the massive backlog the parks face with repairs and personnel support needs. With that said, the people who use or want to use the parks help by paying the fee increase without the folks claiming an increase or waste of their tax money if they did not use the parks.
Posted by Kathy Barnhart on November 15, 2017 at 3:54 PM
Hesitating to jump in to this discussion, which ends up probably being too political for NPN, I will now do so! I agree wholeheartedly that our National Parks, particularly Yosemite, Zion, and Yellowstone are being overrun and loved to death. But I think there must be some system other than "the rich can use them, the others are out of luck." Some families camp in these parks because they don't have the money to travel across the globe and stay in motels/hotels and even raising the fee to $70 will be a deal breaker for some. I suggest either a lottery system, reservations, or some other equitable distribution that is not based on a person's disposable income. Most of us photographers on NPN have enough money/time for expensive equipment and expensive trips. Let's make "America's best idea" available to all. But let's not destroy it with too many visitors in the process.
Posted by Barbara Graham on November 15, 2017 at 8:50 PM
... some other equitable distribution that is not based on a person's disposable income."
I've never been to any of the National Parks in the Western United States. I was born in Georgia and lived briefly in North Carolina and then we moved to Florida, and I have only been to San Antonio, Texas once and to New Orleans once. I have flown to Missoula, Montana once, on business. My father planned and paid for a trip to the United Kingdom for me and my kids to be able to go with the rest of my family just before he died unexpectedly at 69. We went anyway because we thought that would be what he would want us to do. My National Park is the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. From my childhood that's what I have known. It wasn't far away. We did have money for that kind of vacation. There is no admission charge. I even up to today haven't seen abuse of that park.
I do hear what you all are saying about the parks in the West. I have seen a tiny bit of that at the National Wildlife Refuges, especially those that have drive-through areas, where people will have kids leaning out the windows yelling at the top of their lungs, will litter, will tailgate people going the speed limit. I understand that this kind of behavior and worse may eventually destroy the National Parks. I understand that the greatly increased number of visitors may do the same.
From a link I will put below. "By the Act of March 1, 1872, Congress established Yellowstone National Park in the Territories of Montana and Wyoming "as a public park or pleasuring-ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people."
From the same link. " On August 25, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson signed the act creating the National Park Service," which "shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments and reservations…by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."
At the risk of causing great anger here, the National Parks and National Park Service were not created only for photographers. Nor were they created only for backcountry hikers and campers. They were created for the enjoyment of future generations. Enjoyment takes many forms, depending on age, family size, and other things. A child running on a mountain road has as much right to that enjoyment as anyone else has to any other type of enjoyment. The Great Smoky Mountains are a part of me.
Back to what I quoted from Kathy Barnhart, there are so, so, so many people who want to give their children enjoyment of things like National Parks and who have very little disposable income. It's a very sad day when having enough disposable income is what it takes to get into a National Park.
I don't have money for expensive gear and expensive trips. I've tried to make careful decisions, with input from you all, as to what is really the minimum good gear I can use to do what I want to try to do. Other than using a credit card, which I don't plan on doing, I will never see Africa or Asia or the Galapagos Islands or anywhere like that. I will likely be in Florida, Georgia and North Carolina for the remainder of my life.
Honestly? I think nature photography, even when you try to do the best you can do, means WAY different things to different people. If it takes expensive trips to get what you want and you have the money for it, by all means enjoy it as much as you can. But I have seen for myself both here and in person that there are many, many, many people who LOVE nature and LOVE nature photography and who get the best they can get from spending time and gas money (which we are fortunate to have) and exploring what's available to them closer to where they live.
I know that won't work for a lot of you, and I'm not saying it has to. I think that most landscape photographers need spectacular scenery to photograph. I think that many wildlife photographers need spectacular wildlife to photograph. And I think the images they produce are wonderful to see.
I want our National Parks to be protected. But they were created for everyone, and whatever else that means, it means somebody needs to figure out a way to protect them while not including disposable income in the equation.
Some families camp in these parks because they don't have the money to travel across the globe and stay in motels/hotels and even raising the fee to $70 will be a deal breaker for some. I suggest either a lottery system, reservations, or some other equitable distribution that is not based on a person's disposable income.
During the peak season at each park, the entrance fee would be $70 per private, non-commercial vehicle, $50 per motorcycle, and $30 per person on bike or foot. A park-specific annual pass for any of the 17 parks would be available for $75.
Although I agree a $70 entry fee for any family for a day use is excessive. But for a mere $5 more you can still obtain an annual pass. In the past just before I became of age to buy the senior life time pass I was paying the $80 a year annual pass for all parks. I found it to be very reasonable as I was always a frequent park user.
Once I retired and got the life time pass I found myself in one park or another well over 30 times a year. To me it is well worth the prices as outlined presently.
The public comment period for the proposed fee increases has been extended...
The 30-day comment period was scheduled to end on 11/23, but it has been pushed to December 22, to accommodate interest from Congress and the public.
--P
Discussion
18 repliesNeedless to say as often as I'm in the parks I've held an annual pass starting back in the 80's. Once I hit the old geezer zone that life time pass was the best $10 I've ever laid out.
As always the newly proposed increases are to help off set much of the massive backlog of needed repairs and general maintenance overall. The fact is the NP's in many locales are loved to death with gross annual attendances. Thankfully mother nature is resilient, but at the same time only to a point I'm afraid.
National Park Fee Update
I'm sure year around school schedules and home schooling has added to the odd overlapping, but basically there is never a clear window of fewer people out there attacking the parks. So maybe some of the fee based increases might ease things slightly.
Maybe it will drive them all to "Wally World" instead......
If they get the increase implemented, it will make a good case study for elasticity of demand. They can use it in Econ classes (which thankfully I will not have to take again).
Ed a solid point. I cannot recall for sure but I think I saw where the life time pass was going to be elevated to $80. So, although a bit late in the game and not on an annual basis I would think that should aid somewhat with your idea on the subject.
Not to get too far off the mark here. There are some of those types who like the idea of taking the parks all to full privatization. Which has that taste of toll lanes or roads mentality IMO. And yes, there would be an oil platform mounted on top of Half Dome and not just lining the outside of the parks where we're headed to at this point. Recent executive order on review of the National Monuments is opening the door for loses on that front.
In light of the increasing visitation to the parks, it would behoove the NPS to also consider beefing up law enforcement and fire protection, especially for initial attack on fires. Both elements of public protection are severely strained.
--P
Preston, I could not agree more. Sadly our parks are not the quiet safe refuges we sought out in years past. I've witnessed a couple rowdy visitor events placing rangers in tough postilions. I can recall the first time I saw an armed ranger many years back now and was totally shocked and could not grasp how bad things had gotten. Now I fully understand and they need more support in certain instances.
@ Ed, I could buy in on the no admit lists. I saw 1 group twice over the past several years disrespect a day use area for some kind of annual gathering in Joshua Tree NP where they left trash EVERYWHERE and only 50 ft. from full sized dumpsters. I helped a park ranger pick up the trash for well over a half hour on one of the events I came upon.
@ Scott, I can't tell you how many trips I've made to Zion over the years. Years ago I had the park to myself with unrestricted views for photo ops. This was before the many added new hotels and of course the tram system too. I can recall leisurely driving into the canyon without any parking issues, again, before the well needed tram system now. Those quiet park days are sadly long ago gone now.
"During peak-season, the entrance fee will be $70 per private, non-commercial vehicle, $50 per motorcycle, and $30 per person."
"The peak season for each park is defined as the busiest contiguous five month period of visitation."
I do hear what you all are saying about the parks in the West. I have seen a tiny bit of that at the National Wildlife Refuges, especially those that have drive-through areas, where people will have kids leaning out the windows yelling at the top of their lungs, will litter, will tailgate people going the speed limit. I understand that this kind of behavior and worse may eventually destroy the National Parks. I understand that the greatly increased number of visitors may do the same.
From a link I will put below. "By the Act of March 1, 1872, Congress established Yellowstone National Park in the Territories of Montana and Wyoming "as a public park or pleasuring-ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people."
From the same link. " On August 25, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson signed the act creating the National Park Service," which "shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments and reservations…by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."
At the risk of causing great anger here, the National Parks and National Park Service were not created only for photographers. Nor were they created only for backcountry hikers and campers. They were created for the enjoyment of future generations. Enjoyment takes many forms, depending on age, family size, and other things. A child running on a mountain road has as much right to that enjoyment as anyone else has to any other type of enjoyment. The Great Smoky Mountains are a part of me.
Back to what I quoted from Kathy Barnhart, there are so, so, so many people who want to give their children enjoyment of things like National Parks and who have very little disposable income. It's a very sad day when having enough disposable income is what it takes to get into a National Park.
I don't have money for expensive gear and expensive trips. I've tried to make careful decisions, with input from you all, as to what is really the minimum good gear I can use to do what I want to try to do. Other than using a credit card, which I don't plan on doing, I will never see Africa or Asia or the Galapagos Islands or anywhere like that. I will likely be in Florida, Georgia and North Carolina for the remainder of my life.
Honestly? I think nature photography, even when you try to do the best you can do, means WAY different things to different people. If it takes expensive trips to get what you want and you have the money for it, by all means enjoy it as much as you can. But I have seen for myself both here and in person that there are many, many, many people who LOVE nature and LOVE nature photography and who get the best they can get from spending time and gas money (which we are fortunate to have) and exploring what's available to them closer to where they live.
I know that won't work for a lot of you, and I'm not saying it has to. I think that most landscape photographers need spectacular scenery to photograph. I think that many wildlife photographers need spectacular wildlife to photograph. And I think the images they produce are wonderful to see.
I want our National Parks to be protected. But they were created for everyone, and whatever else that means, it means somebody needs to figure out a way to protect them while not including disposable income in the equation.
Here's the link. It's the National Park Service History page. https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/history.htm
During the peak season at each park, the entrance fee would be $70 per private, non-commercial vehicle, $50 per motorcycle, and $30 per person on bike or foot. A park-specific annual pass for any of the 17 parks would be available for $75.
Although I agree a $70 entry fee for any family for a day use is excessive. But for a mere $5 more you can still obtain an annual pass. In the past just before I became of age to buy the senior life time pass I was paying the $80 a year annual pass for all parks. I found it to be very reasonable as I was always a frequent park user.
Once I retired and got the life time pass I found myself in one park or another well over 30 times a year. To me it is well worth the prices as outlined presently.
The 30-day comment period was scheduled to end on 11/23, but it has been pushed to December 22, to accommodate interest from Congress and the public.
--P