MISINFORMATION OR LACK OF INFORMATION?
Park Fee Media Coverage Sparks Concern Among Agency Reps
By Bill Schneider, 12-06-06
Lately, there has been a barrage of news and concern about new and increased fees charged for access to public lands, particularly national parks. I have suggested that high fees contribute to serious declines in national park visitation, but instead of seeing fees as a big factor, the agencies have, it seems, gone the opposite direction by increasing fees, with special note to the introduction of the $80 American the Beautiful Pass for annual access to national parks and other federal lands. Or is the perceived increase actually a decrease?After posting several articles on NewWest.net and receiving many insightful and critical comments from the engaged readers, the National Park Service (NPS) contacted me and invited me to have a conference call with key agency reps to clear up what they view as “misinformation.”
I’m always for that, too, so I had a long phone chat earlier today with Jane Moore, fees specialist for the NPS, Ben Simon, an economist for the Department of the Interior (parent agency for the NPS) and Daniel Jorjani, chief of staff for Lynn Scarlett, Deputy Secretary of the Interior, all set up by NPS public affairs specialist, Joan Moody.
The main points they wanted to clarify are that, from their perspective, the new $80 pass is not bad deal and is unlikely to be a major factor affecting the number of people going to the national parks.
“We took this process very seriously,” said Jorjani, “and we did an extensive surveys of the general public and national park pass users and compared it to other fees before deciding to charge $80.”
“Visitation has had a lot of ups and downs,” Moore explained. “There are so many other factors that affect it, such as the way people decide to recreate. In all research that has been done on what affects visitation, amazingly fees were not a major barrier. The fees are small compared to the other costs people have when going to the national parks.”
Simon echoed that point. “We have lots of research to show that fees are not the driver of visitation.”
Simon points out that even at $80, the annual pass is much less that the similar pass in Canada and lower than at least five states' charge for yearly passes to state parks. “So $80 is not out of whack when compared to many other fees.”
Jorjani added inflation to the mix. He figures the $80 is actually slightly less than people would pay if the current annual fees were inflation adjusted. He admitted that if they would have considered true costs and had taken the advice of “appropriators” in Congress, the price might have been $125. “We thought that was too high.”
Moore also pointed out that for somebody who visits several national park areas per year, the ATB Pass is “quite the value.” With most major parks charging $25 entrance fees, she notes, it would only take four or five visits to make the ATB Pass attractive. “And it’s a way for people to contribute to the maintenance of public land.”
She explained that they wanted a fee that didn’t “undercut ourselves.” By this, she means costing the agencies too much in gate receipts where they make more money.
Jorjani wanted to clear up misconceptions on the distribution of money. “With this interagency pass, 80 percent stays in the park where it was purchased and 100 percent stays in the NPS,” he emphasized. “No money that is supposed to go to the NPS goes to the Forest Service.”
Moore added that almost all passes are bought at the park entrance stations, but those few that are purchased online or on the phone are split up between all the agencies covered by the ATB Pass, including the Forest Service.
Moody wanted to make sure people knew that any current pass they hold, such as a lifetime senior or disabled pass, is still valid. “These pass holders do not have to buy a new pass.”
Jorjani and Moore both were concerned about the misperception that the new pass opens the door to charging fees on other public lands. “The areas that have no fees will still have no fees,” Moore said.
Agreeing, Jorjani said there has to be “significant investment in visitor infrastructure” to justify charging a fees. And Simon added that the authorizing law puts up “significant sideboards” against charging new fees.
And finally, as for rumors of congressional intervention in implementation of the America the Beautiful Pass, Jorjani said he knows of no such inquires, nor are there any plans to delay implementation past January. “We have come out with this program on schedule and under budget.”
[End of article]
Bill, I still don't think they get it.
No doubt, $80 for a pass is a heckuva deal, even if it were restricted only to national parks. But we already have a pass that gets you into national parks, Forest Service and BLM fee areas, as well as national wildlife refuges. It's called the Golden Eagle Passport and it's only $65.
My concern, as I point out on my blog, http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com, is that this new system seems tilted against the National Park Service and will result in a financial decline for the parks, not a steady revenue stream. I hope I'm wrong, but from what I've been told, that certainly seems to be the case.
And if that indeed happens, the result will be even higher fees...at least under the current administration.
There seems to be a concerted effort to force public land agencies to become less dependent on federal appropriations and more reliant on user fees. That's fine with private enterprises, but the national parks, forests, BLM lands and wildlife refuges are public lands owned by the American people. We shouldn't be pricing folks off these lands.
Kurt might be on to something. It's called the Laffer Curve, that there are two rates that can raise the same amount of revenue; a high rate with low participation yields the same product as a low rate with high participation. Frankly I don't know who is closer to the truth because the government economists present little more data to make their case. I take it people will still have a chance to purchase a single park entry pass, so people should not jump to the conclusion that it's an all or nothing deal.
Comment By Matt, 12-06-06Kurt,
I agree with you that it is unfortunate that seems to be an effort leaning on all federal land management agencies to be more 'self supporting'. I wish the budgets were where they should be - but they're not, and they are likely not going to improve much though we can hold out hope for the new Congress.
While I would like nothing more than to not have to charge fees for public lands recreation, I have worked in both fee demo (when we still had fee demo, before FLREA) and non-fee areas. Though folks liked to complain about the relatively small fee we charged, few people complained about the quality of our facilities and level of staffing those fees provided. I am now in a non-fee area (happily) but it sure is tough making ends meet.
I tell everyone I come in contact with that we need them to contact their Congressperson and make it clear that the American people want their public lands adequately funded and go so far as to offer them their contact information.
Unfortunately, few people take me up on it. If half of the people who complained about the current state of public lands management did that, I can't help but think that the situation would improve, if only a little bit.
Matt,
You're absolutely right that we need to get more people agitated over how our public lands are being managed. That's the prime reason I launched my blog, to get more people interested in (and concerned about) management of the national parks.
Congress itself, even those members on the National Parks Caucus, a group that counts fewer than 40 members, is lukewarm about national park issues. Earlier this year Congressman Raul Grijalva of Arizona began to circulate a letter he planned to send to the secretaries of Interior and Agriculture urging that proposed energy corridors in the West avoid national parks and other sensitive lands. He wound up with 19 total signatures. Not even the entire National Park Caucus would sign on.
Nearly two years ago Congressmen Mark Souder of Indiana and Brian Baird of Washington introduced the National Park Centennial Act, a piece of legislation they thought could help the Park Service dig out of its fiscal black hole by the agency's centennial in 2016. It's gone absolutely nowhere.
If the general public doesn't get more concerned about how our public lands are managed, things will only get uglier on the landscape.