THREE FREE WEEKENDS IS GREAT; NOW TAKE IT TO THE NEXT LEVEL

Salazar, Permanently Waive National Park Entrance Fees

The Interior Department admits that ever-increasing fees discourage Americans from enjoying their national parks and hurt local economies. Hopefully, this leads to making our national parks a free tradition, every weekend.

Comment By Kitty Benzar, 6-03-09

Bill, you've nailed it.
This is a watershed event: official recognition at last that fees deter visitation.
DUH.
Prior administrations (Clinton and Bush) subscribed to the "let them eat cake" philosophy of National Parks. It goes like this: if you can afford to travel to a Park you are rich enough that the entrance fee will mean nothing to you. Low income? Well, you can't afford the gas to get there, why should we cater to you?
But guess what? A whole lot of us are now a lot lower income than we used to be, and it's showing in our travel habits. Yes, $5 DOES make a difference, not to mention $25!
I agree it would be grand if Parks were all free all the time, but up until now there has been little political support for that. Maybe this will change under Salazar and Obama.
Meanwhile the very least we can do to boost the economy and get kids outdoors is to eliminate the stupid parking fees at trailheads on National Forests and BLM, and the fees for scenic roads and overlooks.
Mr Baucus, please get your Fee Repeal bill moving!

Comment By JSBZN, 6-03-09

I'd like to see the parks free, but the parks are chronically, drastically, underfunded and have been since at least the early 80's. I don't believe that gift shops are going to fund the parks. Congress needs to more than replace lost revenue. Visitor services, such as education programs and basic road and utility maintenance have declined more and more. Congress must address park funding in a serious way. What is being proposed is easy politically, but does nothing to address crumbling facilities and phantom rangers.

Comment By FJ, 6-03-09

Actually, the UNSTATED reason for fees in the Parks, in part, is to LIMIT visitation. While clearly unfair to those with lower incomes, it gives management control of use. While the Service may state they need the money for maintenance and ops., it is not the whole story.

Comment By JSBZN, 6-03-09

One thing many parks don't need is more people and cars, it's true. You'd want an entrance gate at many for education purposes, such as bear awareness, and so people see the clear distinction between speeding down the highway and what should be a much calmer experience. I actually feel good about paying the entrance fee so long as it funds the park. Camping is a bargain in Yellowstone.

Comment By Todd, 6-03-09

They have solved the problem in Yellowstone apparently by closing great areas of the park to out of vehicle usage. No approaching an area where there might be wildlife.
That being said, why should folks who cannot afford to go to a NP have to pay for those of us who can use them? Is the idea if they have to pay for someone else to go, they may as well go too and increase visitation?
What about doubling the fees at the overused parks like Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Grand Canyon to pay for the lesser visited parks. Those are discussed as limiting visitors from time to time becasue of the overuse.

Comment By Dee, 6-03-09

Oh great! Now that I'm finally officially an OF (Old Fart) letting me get into the parks for free and camp for cheap, eliminate the fees. Screwed again.

Comment By Dave Skinner, 6-03-09

Wow! Use fees only cover 6 percent of overhead? Where the heck did you get THAT number? Wow! That can't be right...is it?

Comment By Matt, 6-04-09

While I can buy the arguments that increased visitation has benefits for local economies suffering financial hardships and citizens - local or otherwise - suffering from chronic isolation from the natural world, I'm curious about the unstated premise, that fees deter visitation. Where exactly is this documented? Does this phenomenon occur across all types and sizes of parks? This seems intuitively logical for small, local parks, but its that really the ultimate cause of declining visitation to the large, "destination" parks, the one's arguably most in need of revenue for maintenance/management?

While people and politicians certainly favor blanket solutions, reality is rarely that simple.

Again, I'm not arguing the point; rather, I'm just hoping someone can point me to the documentation that shows such a universal correlation.

Comment By rscott, 6-04-09

One problem with the "free" weekends is that it may further concentrate use during those periods. Ideally, we should offer lower fee rates throughout the season, so that folks can enjoy these public resources without adversly impacting them.
rscott

Comment By Ann, 6-04-09

If they would actually make people who break the rules pay a hefty fine, and not allow frivolous lawsuits because a parent wasn't watching their kid etc. They would NEVER have to charge an admission fee, and could hire more Rangers to 'patrol'.

Comment By vagabond, 6-04-09

Bill,
With your brief mention of concern of our youth and their lack of connection to the outdoors, check out a gentleman named Richard Louv. You can google him or Last Child in the Woods, one of his books. I've heard him speak at an Urban Land Institute conference on what he has termed "nature deficit disorder" and he has testified several times before congress on the subject.
One of his basic premises is if we are raising a generation that has lost touch with nature, how can we expect them to be good stewards of it when they are adults? I think you will find his work very interesting.

Comment By Doug, 6-04-09

I'm having a little trouble buying the fact that our 'high' user fees deter so many visitors to the parks and are driving down overall attendance. iPods and Nintendos have a lot more to do with the changing tastes in recreational time in America, in my observation. Wonder if the present administration will find a way to help make up any loss in these fees vs. operational costs? By the yay, ask any of the HUGE numbers of foreign visitors to our parks what they think of these 'expensive' entrance fees and they will surely tell you they marvel at the bargain they represent and really can't understand why the cost is so low.

Comment By Desertographer, 6-04-09

Raise the fees, don't eliminate them. The problem in the parks is that there are too many people, so if fees reduce usage, fine. Better the National Park Service get a dollar or two rather than people buying more useless junk at Walmart. Park fees are nominal, so if fees are keeping anyone away it is simply because those people are choosing to spend their dollars on worthless consumables rather than our national treasures.

Comment By jwscotch, 6-04-09

I believe it's an oversimplifying attempt to solve a cultural problem but I've no solution. Using myself as an example, following my dad's return from WWII, we took a car trip to California, taking time to see the Grand Canyon. On our arrival at the park, my five year old mind caused me to decide I wanted to stay in the car, reading a comic book. The look I got from my dad convinced me, I had made a VERY bad choice! Dad died within the next year but in summer's to follow, mom drove my older brother and I, to most of the great parks of the West...I did the same with our kids. Something needs to be done at the family level, to create the desire to visit these places. These days, our parks have much more competition than a comic book. I strongly believe the fee's don't contribute to the loss of business and if that is the case, why do we think ending them will encourage visits. Doug offered a great point regarding foriegn visitors...why did they decide a visit to Mesa Verde or Glacier instead of Disneyland was for them?

Comment By Barry Reiswig, 6-04-09

25$, Try $50 for Yellowstone-Teton. Outrageous! NPS always defends itself by saying that if you go to a movie or dinner, it could cost $50. One difference, I don't own the movie theater or the restaurant, but I do own the parks. Annual park fees should be capped at no more than $10 for an annual pass. We should not be nickled and dimed to death on our, OUR, public lands. I can appreciate that public lands are under-funded. A couple less of the multi-billion dollar jet fighters each year would take care of that.

Comment By Jay WInter Nightwolf, 6-04-09

Like every piece of land within the borders of the United States was stolen from the Native American Indian. Maybe its time for the United States to pay the Indian for his/her stolen lands. We should never be restricted from being in the parks. Many of the parks are mismanaged and abused. A concerted effort should be made to allow Indian people to come into the parks and assume their responsibilities as "The Caretakers of the Land" and receive just compensation our efforts. Enough said.

Comment By food for thought, 6-04-09

Perhaps the fees should be lowered or even eliminated at some of the seldom visited parks. Certainly raising the fees at the big 3 would perhaps give them needed money for management. They also should eliminate free passes for old people and eliminate free back country camping for hikers in those parks.
Those that are so poorly visited that they need to eliminate fees to lure visitors should probably be taken out of the park system.

Comment By Tom von Alten, 6-04-09

Regarding the NPS budget: if I read the table in the 10-year history available from http://home.nps.gov/applications/budget2/tables.htm correctly, Bill's right on the money: 6% of the total budget authority comes from recreational fees.

The NPS has an annual budget of right around $3B, $10/head.

Comment By Moose Man, 6-04-09

National Parks should eliminate entrance fees, and there should be no backcountry permit fees, either. And the Forest Service should rescind its parking fees at trailheads, now required across some Washington units.
Clearly, user fees are discriminatory; there is no sliding scale based on income. And arguing that fees are needed to fund Park maintenance is no excuse -- we've got loads of fees today, and deteriorating infrastructure and services. So obviously fees can't float our parks and public lands. Either way, the funding has to come through Congressional appropriations. And the bigger segment of the public that has access to the parks, the more political pressure there will be to hold Senators and Representatives accountable to providing sufficient funding for our public lands.
The "Fee Demo" program was never about providing a sustainable funding base for our public lands. It was about reducing the number of people who can enjoy them, and thereby undermine the powerful base of support for conserving public lands. If public lands can then be cast as a benefit that can be enjoyed only by the elitist rich, then conservation support for protecting them wanes, and it becomes easy for the vultures in the extractive industries to swoop in and claim them for their own profit-driven uses.

Comment By food for thought, 6-04-09

Tom you lost me. If it costs approximately $10 per head to maintain parks, why does $50 only pay 6% of the bills? I'd think they would have more $$ than they need.

Comment By Tom von Alten, 6-04-09

The NPS budget of $3B divided by 300M population = $10 per capita, annually.

The source I gave shows $180M-something of that total budget coming from recreational fees.

Comment By food for thought, 6-04-09

If that many people have to pay for something they cannot use, it seems something needs to change. Which parks are coming the closest to paying for themselves. Which parks are the furthest from paying for themselves? I do not beleive that folks who cannot afford to go to a NP should have to pay for those of us who do use them, especially the foreign visitors who use them. There are way too many subsidies in this country that are bankrupting us.
Yellowstone has over a million visitors, so does Grand Canyon and Yosemite, they alone must account for the 180 million. It is time to get rid of the non paying parks, turn them into state parks that do not need the fancy visitor centers etc and can be run much more efficiently.
I know Yellowstone does not charge for back country camping, of which there are 300 sites, at $10/nite that would be $3000/day, that would at least pay for cleaning and maintaining the sites.

Comment By biggen, 6-05-09

Bill if you use the parks you should pay. It costs money to run the parks. If you live in Hawaii you should not pay for Yellowstone park. The parks should have a budget and so should you. If no one comes raise the fees and lay off employees. You probably support limited Snow mobile access, that goes against your theory of letting people enjoy the park, maybe horseback only no cars, thats green, well clean up after the horse, well do buffalo give off methane, well lets kill them, no we cant do that, lets feed them, no weed free grass, thats that right either. In China they dont charge, well maybe they do. How about a park Czar. Go live in North Korea

Comment By Kitty Benzar, 6-05-09

For those who feel that someone in Hawaii should not have to pay for Yellowstone, should Hawaii also be exempt from federal highway taxes? After all, they can't access most of the Interstate system. Should I have to support public schools if I don't have kids or if my kids are in private school? Why the heck bother with public libraries, or tax-supported fire departments? Make the 1st graders pay $.25 to check out that Dr Seuss book, and when your house is on fire, the dispatcher will need your credit card number before sending the truck.
Of course all of those ideas are absurd, and so is the concept that public lands should have to pay their own way in user fees. Public lands are a public good that benefits all Americans in a wide variety of ways, even those who never set foot on them. They are deserving of support with tax revenues. Period.

Comment By Frank N, 6-05-09

Twenty five dollars for seven days or eighty dollars for unlimited visitation to any and all National Parks (and many other federal fee areas) for one year are not going to make or break anyone's vacation. This is probably the smallest expense of the trip. If you can't afford that, then you probably have no business spending the gas money, wear and tear on the vehicle, motel rooms, food, eighteen dollars a night camp fees, etc. to make the trip.
Don't get me wrong; I'd love to see everything free. But the reality is that it costs more money to run National Parks than most other federal lands. They are typically underfunded as it is. These token fees (and, yes, in todays economy twenty five bucks for seven days for the whole family is "token") help to offset them.
I also think that crime would increase in parks. Think about it. Most crooks don't want to pay a fee to go rob someone, when they can rob someone without paying a fee (or having their license number recorded at the fee station).
The real reason visitation is down is because more and more young people are losing interest in the outdoors. Statistics show that their are fewer people interested in all outdoor activities including hunting, fishing, hiking and camping. I live next to Yellowstone, and whenever we have company it is the older visitors who can't wait to visit the park. For the younger ones it's like, "Look! There's a moose!!" "MMMmm!" they say, and their heads go right back into their video games. They are totally bored. They can't wait to get home so that they can watch TV or get on the computer. Too bad.

Comment By Ann, 6-05-09

Good points !

Comment By traildog, 6-05-09

Sure are a lot of armchair NPS budget analysts on this here thread--including Schneider, unfortunately. Of course, like many other people, Bill makes his living off public lands & would most likely like to see fees eliminated to reduce his overhead costs.

The government conspiracy theorists always give the NPS and USFS too much credit: the original Fee Demo program wasn't created as a secret agenda to keep visitors out, it was created by certain congressmen and Clinton administration functionaries to transfer budget costs directly to citizens (on top of taxes) and, the theory went, to help increase revenue at the popular parks without increasing the budget significantly for the NPS overall. (Part of the Fee Demo mandate was that no permanent NPS employees could be hired with the money & severe restrictions on hiring seasonal employees with the money, as well.)

But the Fee Demo never did the trick and, in fact, in places like Yellowstone it WAS the trick. Visitors --and congressmen-- were lead to believe that a $200,000 increase in the trails budget would result in $200,000 worth of trails improvements, and actually, $170,000 was transferred out of the "hard" trails budget into other maintenance departments for a net gain of $30,000 in trails improvements. (These numbers are not exact, but the rough percentages would be similar.)

So we can see that government budgeting is not as straightforward as Schneider would like his readers to believe. Other commentators on this thread have pointed out that Schneider presents no actual evidence of the "gains" created by the elimination of fees, nor does he ask Congress for budget increases. Schneider also seems to believe that there is no need to have employees at entrance stations to answer questions and hand out information. He also rather blithely suggests that the money will simply flow from one NPS division to another--in tact, no less.

Make no mistake, I'm no fan of fees on public lands and it made my skin crawl to hear the likes of former Superintendent of Yellowstone Mike Finlay compare Yellowstone's entrance fee to the admission cost of the Lagoon theme park in Utah. If fees are eliminated, it may very well increase visitation but in the short term, the parks will have less operating revenue and in the long term have even tougher budget concerns than they do now.

Another solution, might be to increase fishing license fees and similar specific use fees, reduce entrance fees over time, and truly study and quantify (and qualify) the free market approach advocated by Schneider.

Comment By Max Frisson, 6-05-09

One note, FREE ADMISSION for Citizens ONLY. Our foreign visitors should pay.

Comment By Anon, 6-07-09

The problem lies not with the $25 it takes to get into the parks, but the generation that has lost touch with the outdoors. They are interested in quick entertainment. $25 is a measly amount or the $80 for a national pass compared with taking a family of 4 to the movies today. If that cannot be afforded, then chances are the trip to get to the park cannot be afforded. The money collected does go for projects that might not otherwise not get funded-like restrooms, trail projects, or interpretive signage. Also, it costs $25 to get into Yellowstone and Grand Teton, not $50.

Comment By David Hoza, 6-09-09

Bill,
While I respect the argument that we in the West deserve the right to complete freedom to "our lands", there are a couple of qualifying arguments or questions that need to be taken into consideration. First of all, your attitude that the Fed is the daddy Warbucks of the West feeds into our tendency to look at what our country can do for us without recognizing that we need to be giving back something to keep our natural resources sustainable.
Second, even if all national park fees total 6% or less of the annual NPS budget, there isn't an Interior department bureaucracy that is funded to the extent that it can afford to give up what monies it does generate. By your own numbers, if the NPS has to account for "millions of small transactions", that is still a pocketful, ranging generally from $10-$25 per transaction.
Finally, there is the question that has been raised a number of times by research psychologists. Do humans value and treat with respect those experiences and things they get for free, or those they have to pay for? In the realm of Community Based Social Marketing, where reknowned environmental psychologists like Doug McKenzie-Mohr have worked, the answer has resoundingly been for the latter, with the result being that in a world that is desperately in need of preservation of open space, national treasures and our most vital natural resource--the public lands--we've all got to pitch in.

Comment By Dave Skinner, 6-09-09

Thanks for finding that item and posting the link, Tom. Food for thought, especially when compared to the visits.

Comment By djranger, 6-11-09

Get ready to bend over. If the Park Service eliminates entry fees, we'll just pay for it in increased taxes - at least for those who PAY taxes. Every National Park in the country is constantly clamoring for more funding - and they'll get it from us one way or another.

Comment By Bill Schneider, 6-12-09

JSBZN,

I agree that Congress must step up and replace any lost fee income--at least! I'd prefer even more tax money go to the national parks and I'd consider it money well spent compared to many other things the federal government spends money on.

Bill

Comment By Bill Schneider, 6-12-09

FJ,

If the goal of the fee-charging policy was to limit visitation to overused parks, I'd have a different view of it, but this is not the goal, spoken or unspoken. It's strictly to raise money that Congress refuses to give the NPS.

Bill

Comment By Todd, 6-12-09

First of all, we must remember, congress does not have any money. Every dime they spend, allocate, give away or what ever they call it is taken from the working man in this country. I don't feel it is right to take it away from (us) them and give it to those who want to vacation in NPs. What would be the next step demanded? Eliminate those you do not feel are worthy of entering the park?

Comment By Sherrol, 8-14-09

I would love to see the National Parks wave their fees. I have a family of 6 plus 1 dog and going camping is our only options realy when it comes to vacations; but when the fees start going up in price it has become even more hard for us to take longer visits. We usually stay about a week whenever we go but it has begun to cost us on average about $140. Yes that is still cheap but then when your through in there the cost of gas to get there and back and all the food we have to bring it adds up fast and for my big family it takes a lot. However if the parks were free then we would be able to go farther and to more parks which in turn would let my children see more of this beautiful country we have.

Comment By Richard, 8-14-09

Its' freetime...I'm going to enjoy it!! No complaints from me.

Comment By Alex Katchuk, 8-14-09

Why should it be free, I'm sorry but it still costs a bit less than going to a movie to go to a National Park. Take a look at some of our free National Forest campgrounds--I don't want our National treasures to become free trashed playgrounds for the idle. I've paid my fees since I was a teenager, and even snuck in after hours to love those places, they are underfunded and under-manned enough. Yes, everyone should be able to go to the parks and I don't see the fees as a deterent, I do think a few free weekends is a great idea, and hope they continue the program as that. Many times in our Parks I am embarassed by the condition of roads and facilities--I often wonder how visiting tourists from other countries must look at the neglect of our crown jewels. The year-long passes are a great deal for those of us that visit often, and if you don't think the Yellowstone/Grand Teton complex is worth $25 dollars for a week of coming and going as you please you probably don't belong there. I'd gladly pay twice as much, if I knew it would go to the improvement of facilities, lengthen seasons and hours, and add staff. Free, would be great if the money were to come from somewhere else, but let's get real, it's not going to happen. Bill, you should use your energies to realistically promote, improve, and protect the parks instead getting on some idealistic binge that could only harm them.

Comment By Sharon, 8-14-09

Nope i think peoples that use the park should help to pay for the up keep of the park..but reduce the entrance fee ..

Comment By Front range, 8-14-09

I live an hour from rocky mountain Nat. park and it gets me that I have to pay 20 bucks to go into the park for a day they say the pass is good for 7 straight days which does me no good why can't the NPS have a day use fee like the state parks in Colorado have so I don't feel stiffed for the 6 unused days on the park pass

Comment By Todd, 8-14-09

C'mon the annual all park pass is less than a couple tanks of gas. Why should someone else be required to pay it for us? We simply must start being willing to spend our money for what we need and want instead of demanding that someone else pay it for us. Do any of us want our taxes so high that we cannot afford the gas to go to a park so others who live close or whatever can get in free? Someone else is already paying part of our entrance fees in their taxes. Worse the taxpayers are also paying for the subsidized part of foreign tourists, they should pay what the actual cost of maintaining parks is.

Comment By Sharon, 8-14-09

I agree with Front Range..it is not fair to pay for the 6 days of unused..What you expect of government can't run anything right.

Comment By Sharon, 8-14-09

Well when one reach 62 yrs old,they can buy a pass..cost only $10.00 to all national parks ..ck it out

Comment By By Loving Nature, 8-14-09

I think Alex Katchuk (and many others before) hit the nail on the head!! Going to a NP costs a lot less than going to the movies not to mention amusement parks; however, to keep NPs clean, trails "decently" groomed so hikers don't trip and fall (and perhaps cause law suits), etc., etc., costs money. If park/parking fees are eliminated, who will keep the outhouse facilities clean? Who will keep track of and clean the trash that careless visitors leave behind? Who will keep a tap on binge drinkers and keep them under control or even out of the park? Soon, our "national treasures" would be trashed and no one would want to visit them anymore; people buying things at the park would decline, and the hypothetical "money boost" to the economic would not be spend. What would we have then - nothing to enjoy, not even for a minimal cost.
An annual parking/visiting fee of $25-$50 or $5-$10 per visit does not break anyone's bank if that's the only fee they have to dish out to visit a park; of course food has to be bought whether you have a BBQ at home or bring it to the park, no argument here for free park fees. If people don't have the money to pay an entrance fee, then they won't have the money for gas to get there to begin with.
I'd much rather keep paying an annual fee and know that I can use a decently clean restroom, or can walk along the trails without tripping, etc., than going to the park for free but have to deal with dirty restrooms and trash all over. Even though we're paying for park entrance now, there are many visitors who DO NOT respect nature and keep their areas clean! How will it be when everything is free?? I don't even want to think about that.
Bill, please look at the reality before changing things for the worse!!

Comment By By A Veteran's Wife, 8-14-09

Obviously it is a little fact that U.S military veterans can obtain a card that allows them free admission to ALL national parks & shrines. I don't remember if my husband had to pay a nominal fee or if the card was free, after showing proof of his veteran's status.

Comment By Mark St. John, 8-14-09

I personally do not mind paying entrance fees at Parks. That being said our countries National and State Parks are the crowning achievement in this democracy at work. They are treasures that greatly exceed any monetary value and to preserve Nature so that everyone can experience and enjoy it and they bring immense benefits for peace of mind and good health. We are loosing our children to video games and the technical revolution is taking a real toll on children today. If anyone has read Richard Louv’s book “Last Child in the Woods” you would understand that not experiencing enough nature leads to serious health risks and other consequences. Nature Deficit Disorder is a modern disease just as formidable as the H1N1 swine flue. Making Parks free is defiantly a step in the right direction and the more people that grow to appreciate Nature the better off we will all be. I applaud this change and it proves that we are a nation created for the people and by the people and regardless of your wealth you can still go out and experience the beauty of nature for free.

Comment By Todd, 8-14-09

I disagree Mark, being able to get into the parks for free will not prevent the kids sitting on their bu**s and playing with the Play Station or whatever it is that they or their parents paid $300 for. The cost of an entrance fee will not prevent those sitting and watching the new $2000 52" tv from going to the park. People make choices and like it or not, they aren't always politically correct.
Actually it would be jsut as easy to make the case that they don't go because of the increasing roadless areas, the real fact is people do what pleases them.

Comment By Todd, 8-14-09

Oh, by the way, Yellowstone has broken visitation records in both June and July this year. One free weekend each of those months would hardly have made the difference.

Comment By John, 8-14-09

This could have both good and poor impacts. While I don't necessarily agree you should have to pay to experience the beauty nature and earth. There are those who don't feel the same way. They go through life not caring and destroying everything they come in contact with. Maybe the fee's help deter these people and preserve the natural beauty of things. Look at civilization and how we gobble up and comsume everything in sight. Eating up all resources. If the parks weren't maintained and sectioned off, charging fees some yahoo would buy it up, tear it down and build a parking lot. The mass don't care.

Comment By millercash, 10-20-09

hi there, my name is Eva.

found this website and read some great discussion and feedback so decided to join

i am happy to help others and offer advice where possible :)

This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/salazar_permanently_waive_national_park_entrance_fees/C41/L41/