Not everyone is embracing higher entrance fees proposed for national parks/Kurt Repanshek
As more and more units of the National Park System propose higher entrance fees as directed by Park Service Director Jon Jarvis, opposition is being voiced around the country, with one mayor saying higher fees to enter Yellowstone National Park could lead to reduced tourism dollars in her town.
With Congress poised to create at least four new units to the park system, and approving expansions of other parks, funding the Park Service likely will become even more difficult if the lawmakers don't also find more money for the agency. While park officials across the country say higher entrance fees are needed to fund various improvements and provide for visitor services, they are seeing some pushback.
In Cody, Wyoming, Mayor Nancy Tia Brown is opposed to the higher fees being proposed at Yellowstone -- a 3-day pass for $30, a 7-day pass good for both Yellowstone and Grand Teton for $50 -- arguing that the fees would result in fewer tourist dollars spent in her town.
At Cape Cod National Seashore in Massachusetts, a former fee supervisor for the park said the proposal to increase fees would create a "logistical and political nightmare."
"The Seashore has not made the enforcement of its current $3 daily individual pass a priority because of the park's unique permeable nature, and because of the wish to encourage visitors to use alternative forms of transportation aligned with the Climate Friendly Parks initiative. While parks like the Grand Canyon have gates, the Seashore does not, so attempting to charge that fee would be logistically impossible," Karl Thompsen wrote in a letter to the Cape Cod Times.
"Actually implementing such a draconian change would also prove politically disastrous for the park's community and visitor relations, which both undermines the park's interdependent relationship with surrounding towns and places an unnecessary burden on the rangers interacting with the public," he added.
At Gulf Islands National Seashore, a proposal to relocate entrance fee booths on the eastern and western ends of U.S. 399, also known as the J. Earle Bowden Way, and then charge $15 per vehicle to use the road that connects Pensacola Beach to Navarre Beach was being criticized by nearby residents who frequent the national seashore. Superintendent Dan Brown has tried to downplay the matter, telling the Pensacola News Journal the collection booths won't be moved if the public strongly opposes it. But he also noted that most locals would probably buy an annual pass to the seashore and so not encounter the entrance fee every time they headed to the seashore.
"Most of the comments so far have emphasized the worst-case scenario," the superintendent told the newspaper. "They're talking about a $15 toll, and you know no one who lives here locally and drives that on a regular basis would pay the fee every single time. '¦ If you drive it 240 days of the year to commute, it wouldn't be $15 times 240 days ' they would pay $30 for an annual pass."
Back in Wyoming, Jackson town leaders opposed higher fees proposed for Grand Teton National Park and the proposal to "unlink" Yellowstone and Grand Teton from one pass good in both parks. Fishing guides and other outfitters also opposed the increases.
'It is a little discouraging that the Park Service is going to go ahead and double the weekly cost of a pass from $25 to $50,' Taylor Phillips, who owns a wildlife safari company, told the Jackson Hole News & Guide. 'I would say 90 percent of our guests visit both parks.
A proposal to boost the entrance fee at Cabrillo National Monument near San Diego from $5 per car to $15 drew an angry response from Paul Nestor, who called the proposal "one of the most aggravating things I've ever heard."
"It is families who don't have a lot of money who come up here to show off this beautiful place in San Diego for all the residents. For them to bilk them out of $15, it's going to turn a lot of people away," Mr. Nestor said told ABC 10 News.
Mr. Nestor's view might play out across the National Park System at some of the small, urban parks where many visitors stop by during lunch or after work, or stop after seeing the park sign as they pass by. Five dollars per vehicle for a quick visit to enjoy a view or learn something about the park and why it was created might not sway people from stopping, but when the fee jumps to $15, those casual visitors might not pull in. If that scenario plays out, some park units could possibly lose money.
Another issue is that once parks collect more than $500,000 in entrance fees, they have to send 20 percent of the revenue to Washington for redistribution to other parks. Up to $500,000, they keep it all, thus creating another possible reason not to raise fees.
Comments
Lee,
Unfortunately, the FLREA restrictions are another example of self-inflicted gunshot wounds that the NPS seems to love. Want to use fee revenue $ to restripe the park entrance road or parking lot - can't do it. Want to use fee $ to purchase a new plow truck so you can keep the roads plowed for visitors in the winter - can't do it. Want to reduce DM on a "non-visitor" facility - can't do it. Want to use fee $ to hire seasonal rangers, LERs, to assist with operations during peak visitor season - Can't do it. Only staff that can be hired out of fee $ are those that collect the entrance fees - and WASO is even restricting what the parks can spend on cost of collections. In fact in FY14, we paid a portion of the cost of the fee collection operation out of ONPS base funds because the amount WASO approved was insufficient to cover the operational costs of collecting fees. No, this is all self-imposed.
The actual FLREA law gives the agencies wide latitude on the use of fee revenue. Guess the geniuses in WASO know more about the needs in the parks than the folks that are responsibel for day-to-day operations.
There is enough blame to go around, and Congress certainly has a large share to bear. That being said, there is a lot the NPS can do to get its own house in order that IMO doesn't require any new funding.
Brutsman,
FLREA didn't stop the Smokies from saying they were going to use fees to hire backcountry rangers. Dedicated backcountry rangers who, after the first year, returned to DUI patrol on frontcountry for a big part of their time.
The bottom line is, the NPS does what it wants. It cherry picks portions of FLREA to suit its needs and ignores the rest. Just like they do with the designated Wilderness Areas. They pick and choose which of the Wilderness area protections that suit their needs at the time and ignore the rest. It is good to be King with no oversight.
Smokiesbackpacker,
My comments are specifically related to FLREA. There are a number of authorities that allow for permits/fees to be charged - parking, tour tickets, camping, permits, etc. - none of these typically fall under FLREA and each have their own rules/regulations. I'm not familiar with the specifics of the situation at the Smokies, but from what you described it sounds like a program/authority other than FLREA is being used.
As I mentioned in my previous post, agencies have wide discretion in how they chose to implement various programs. Like you, I am not happy. Some things you can change, Some things you can seek to change by raising your concerns, and some things you can do nothing about.
As Niebuhr put it " God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and the wisdom to know the difference."
Keep your powder dry.
John, can you please tell me which wilderness areas the NPS has neglected? The only wilderness areas under NPS control in the southeast are in Congaree, the Everglades, and Shenandoah. Or like usual, are you misinterpreting reality once again by thinking that the Smokies is wilderness? Or are you just pulling stuff out of your behind like you usually do?
Also, the NPS does have backcountry rangers in the Smokies. You constantly sound like the heckler that sits far up in the nose bleed sections. You have no clue what you are talking about 99.999999% of the time.
Those of you who are happy to/can afford to pay the higher fees, please just donate the difference. Thank you.
Don't raise fees on US citizens, raise fees on non-citizens in any fees really need to be raised. The Parks are for the enjoyment of the American people, so let the foreignors pay for the deficitis in running the Parks. Yellowstone has about 3 million visits per year, but only takes in about $9 million in entrance fees (2013 FY). That's about $3 per visit. That seems low too to me. Maybe the fee collection process needs improvement. How about an audit of the Parks use of money? I have seen wasteful and stupid projects that are about removing the "human footprint" rather than using the money to improve visitor services. Park managment is so stupid that they confuse wildlife trails with human trails and attempt to remove wildlife trails in Grand Teton National Park that were only used by bison. Stuff like that goes to show the ignornace and wastefulness of National Park Service managment. What about the millions wasted in Effigy Mounds National Monument desecrating Indian graves? I went to Grand Canyon NP last spring and the movie theatre was closed at the visitor center. The sign center for 30 days. That was a lie, the theatre had been closed for months and nobody with the NPS could figure out how to get it fixed. What a bunch of incompetenty and waste. The National Park Service has the burden of proof. Let them prove that they really need the money and that they will use the money to benefit the American people.
Here's more evidence of Park incompetence and crooked behavior as well as why they don't need to increase entrance fees: http://www.startribune.com/nation/284857071.html