National Park Price increase

[colonel00]

5miles is not the only one ticked off about this, Me and the wife was planning to take the grand kids to Yellowstone park this coming summer, looks like that wont happen.

You won't go to Yellowstone with your grandkids now because it will cost an extra $10 per person (assuming 4 of you) for a couple days access to the park?

Looking it up, you currently get 7 days with each $30 pass. With the price bump, if you are there for an extended trip, that's still only $10/day.

Also, I don't see this as restricting access to public lands. You can still access the land, just to expect to use the roads, trails, restrooms and other facilities that have been built and need funding to maintain and improve upon for which they are charging you a use fee.

 

[Gorp2007]

Revenue created at each specific Park will not stay at that Park. It will go into a pot and be distributed to them all. Public lands should be open to all citizens, in an ideal world the only charge you would pay are your taxes. Part of me asks, what is the real reason for the increase? In a year or two are we going to see politicians come out and say that less people are going to National Parks and that we should just close it and bid it off to the highest bidder for mining or a rich mans play ground.

80% of the funding increase will stay at the park in which it's collected, the other 20% will go to fund other parks that are also in need of funding, but aren't as popular. In order to meet funding requirements, the NPS is going to either increase fees or increase taxes, and an increase in fees shifts the burden to those who are actually enjoying the parks and, by extension, benefitting from the maintenance. I agree that I'd prefer to see NPS funding increased through taxes, but I can see how others who don't frequent the parks would also consider that an unfair shifting of the financial burden.

Some of the parks that will be affected are already over-populated, so if fee increases push people from Zion or Yellowstone towards some of the less-popular parks, I see that as a positive second-order effect. I believe Zion is already toying wtih the idea of quotas and attendance limits in the future.

 

[Forestryguy]

80% of the funding increase will stay at the park in which it's collected, the other 20% will go to fund other parks that are also in need of funding, but aren't as popular. In order to meet funding requirements, the NPS is going to either increase fees or increase taxes, and an increase in fees shifts the burden to those who are actually enjoying the parks and, by extension, benefitting from the maintenance. I agree that I'd prefer to see NPS funding increased through taxes, but I can see how others who don't frequent the parks would also consider that an unfair shifting of the financial burden.

Some of the parks that will be affected are already over-populated, so if fee increases push people from Zion or Yellowstone towards some of the less-popular parks, I see that as a positive second-order effect. I believe Zion is already toying wtih the idea of quotas and attendance limits in the future.

Where did you find that 80% of revenue will stay at that Park? I admit that I have only really listened about this on the radio and have not dug into it.

 

[Gorp2007]

Where did you find that 80% of revenue will stay at that Park? I admit that I have only really listened about this on the radio and have not dug into it.

The Federal Lands Recreation Act passed in 2004. A little light reading for your Friday night in case you're having trouble going to sleep. 16 U.S. Code SS 6806 - Special account and distribution of fees and revenues | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Sent from my XT1095 using Tapatalk

 

[Jauwater]

I say fire a bunch of politicians, and quit using tax dollars to fuel the private jets for family vacations, of the ones that are left. It makes me sick to look at the tax dollars that our government squanders on men, and women’s huge salaries that don’t work a quarter as hard as past Americans who did it for hardly nothing. We send money to countries that don’t care about our best interest. We send millions of people money each month through a welfare system that seriously needs to be restructured. So when it comes to funding public land they want us to spend more out of pocket because they can’t find the fat to trim else where??? They could find the money else where rather then sticking it to the American people who already tote the note as is, and it doesn’t have to be through tax increases either. I realize the restructuring of our government that I’m insinuating will never happen. But as long as we have out of control pork spending, and politicians getting rich off lying to their voters, and millions collecting checks for nothing, my visiting of parks will be fewer, and fewer with park admission rising. That’s just me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WV Mountaineer]

It was likely public land before the government took it from the people under the disguise of being a Park. Then they charge us to enter what used to be ours? Kinda ironic isn't it?



As stated above, the fee's are for something. And, that something is caused by government abuse of tax revenue. I cringe when I hear tax payers suggest that it isn't the governments responsibility to live within a budget. Their answer is simply to pass the buck on to the tax payer. i pay more than enough taxes already and, this land and its over head should be taken care of with the tax dollars we all pay currently. The fact that our government has expressed zero ability and interest to live within a sustainable budget is due to the idiotic thought process that increasing fees will fix anything. It never has nor will it ever as long as they live by that creed.

 

[WildWest]

They get more money then hire more rangers to control US , so they have to have more money. Revolving door.

 

[Poser]

I believe I recall back in the early 90s when they started testing park entrance fees. There was concern that nobody would pay.

My thinking is that the park service should greatly reduce the amenities at these parks: no fancy lodges, no flush toilets, no buffets. primitive camping and compost toilets. Reduce the paved road systems.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Violent Hippie]

I have no problem with the price increase and rarely enter national parks. I find most national parks oppressive, crowded , and for the most part lame (I.E. being harassed for not parking in your camp site properly , dog being off a leash for a split second etc. etc) . Yes, One can navigate through the hordes of people , mandatory shuttle systems, different rules / laws, parking disasters etc to gain a trailhead or vista and eventually get some alone time after hiking awhile and of course having a permit but Id rather go to a wilderness area or one of the many spots in the National Forest without all the B.S.

 

[wawhitey]

Actually, it doesn't upset me at all. I have a lifetime Access Pass, and still barely use that.

Since almost half the country's population doesn't pay any taxes already, the rich are already funding these parks. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of all their funding (fees and appropriations) and where it goes.

The middle class are funding the parks.

 

[colonel00]

I'm not rich and I fund the parks that I enter. Yes, this year I got an annual pass since I've gone to Yosemite numerous times. However, in past years, I have paid to enter Denali, Yosemite, Yellowstone and other parks.

To me, I kind of see it like places we often camp at in Alaska. There are improved campgrounds that have vault toilets, designated camping spaces, etc. Sure, we could just wander into the woods and camp but these campgrounds have amenities that are nice and take upkeep. I don't mind paying $20 a night or whatever to camp there. There is still plenty of public land available to everyone. It's just that there are so many people that want to see certain areas, they need to make improvements to the infrastructure to make it work.

Again, just speaking from recent experience, Yosemite is a joke on weekends. Thousands of people flock there. I don't hate that though as I do to. It's a beautiful place and how can you hate on people wanting to go to a park? The catch is that it is in one of the most populated states in the country and fairly near one of the biggest cities. If they didn't keep improving the infrastructure of the park it would be a disaster.

Sorry, but I'm more than happy to pay a little money to access a park so others can also have a better experience outdoors. Not everyone is a hard core backcountry hunter. fisherman, hiker, etc. But, I believe that the more people that are exposed to the outdoors and find value in it, the better our chances to keep it open and available, even if there are fees at some parks.

Oh, and yes, the parks are overcrowded. I "moved" to California for work over a year ago now and brought all my gear out thinking that I could go camp every weekend and enjoy some of the great areas. Sadly, I have yet to camp one night. There are just too many people and you have to book a space way too far in advance. As mentioned, I go to Yosemite often for photography. However, I don't go at normal times because it's just stupid busy. I drive in in the afternoon/evening when people are leaving and stay into the night. Obviously better for photography as opposed to hiking or other stuff though.

 

[5MilesBack]

The middle class are funding the parks.

Anybody that is actually "paying taxes" in this country, is rich when compared to the world's population. In fact, even our poor are rich in that comparison. So ya, depending on how you define "middle class"......sure, some of those people are "helping" to fund the parks. But as far as tax dollars go, study up on who actually pays the very high majority of taxes in this country. It's not the middle class, and it's not the "below" middle class. 20% of Americans pay 87% of the total income taxes collected. Are those people "middle class"?

45% of Americans pay no federal income tax - MarketWatch

But this brings up an interesting point.......with almost half the population not paying income taxes at all........how is "middle class" generally defined these days?

But this is also why I was interested in seeing the Park's income breakdown (haven't taken the time to do so yet)........to see where the majority of their income comes from. Yes, I would agree that the middle class funds the Park fees.....for the most part, but could be just a small portion depending on their total funding from taxes.

EDIT: Just a quick glance appears that they get about $3B in tax funding and only about $200M from park fees.......so 6% of their funding from the fees. So ya, the rich are funding the parks, along with everything else in this country.