National Park Service Proposes Targeted Fee Increases at Parks to Address Mainte

[GetItRight]

I do like that they are increasing fees for cars more than they are for pedestrians/cyclists

Not on a percentage basis:
Cars ($25-30 -> $70: 133-180% increase)
Motorcycles ($15-25 -> $50: 100-233% increase)
Person not in private motor vehicle ($10-15 -> $30: 100-200% increase)

Look at cost per person... if arriving via car cost per head has increased the greatest percentage but is still the most cost effective way to arrive, with proper planning.

Car, typical car 6 people: $70 = $11.67/head, 233% increase
Motorcycle, 2 people: $50 = $25/head, 200% increase
Person: $30/head, 200% increase

[honeybbq]

I would happily pay this fee to preserve our national parks. I also think it would be nice for there to be some mechanism for poorer folks to visit at a reduce rate, but not sure how that could be implemented.

I would also love to hire more rangers and increase ability to fine for people trampling the meadows and not staying on trails, hiking with their dogs in no dog areas, etc. BAM $100 ticket here ya go, and here you go, etc.

[ixtap]

I would happily pay this fee to preserve our national parks. I also think it would be nice for there to be some mechanism for poorer folks to visit at a reduce rate, but not sure how that could be implemented.

I would also love to hire more rangers and increase ability to fine for people trampling the meadows and not staying on trails, hiking with their dogs in no dog areas, etc. BAM $100 ticket here ya go, and here you go, etc.

Genuinely poor folks are unlikely to be able to travel far to our National Parks. Therefore, a residential discount would address most of the access issue.

[elaine amj]

I would happily pay this fee to preserve our national parks. I also think it would be nice for there to be some mechanism for poorer folks to visit at a reduce rate, but not sure how that could be implemented.

I would also love to hire more rangers and increase ability to fine for people trampling the meadows and not staying on trails, hiking with their dogs in no dog areas, etc. BAM $100 ticket here ya go, and here you go, etc.

What about free days, free/cheaper access for people coming at non-peak times, reduced rates for using public transportation?

[JLee]

The NPS budget is $2.5 billion.
Meanwhile, our country is spending over $600 billion on the military.
Priorities...

https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1207/05-23-2017-budget-proposal.htm
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/02/how-us-defense-spending-stacks-up-against-the-rest-of-the-world.html

Agreed, $2.5 billion of NPS spending, over $600 billion military, and over $2,232.3 billion of welfare spending. All of it needs to be cut. Priorities though should be at the largest spending category. Heck, just cut welfare spending to eliminate the federal deficit and it'll still be the largest spending category by an insanely large margin, at $1,793 billion. As mustachians who should understand spending within your means and minimalistic lifestyle, I'd hope most of us could agree with that. The federal government is hemorrhaging money, spending the vast majority on welfare payments.

Source?

Counter point: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/01/12/no-we-dont-spend-1-trillion-on-welfare-each-year/

[mm1970]

I vote no.  $70 for a carload of people is too much considering:

- We're already paying for the national parks through taxes.
- People don't tend to stay in one park for a week; rather, people tend to visit several parks in one vacation OR they go to one park for a long weekend. 
- $70 is a great deal of money to many Americans (remember, many of us need to drive long distances to reach the parks, then there's food and other costs), and we should be encouraging people to use these fantastic lands -- not throwing up obstacles.

I wonder if this is an attempt to push people towards the America the Beautiful pass. 

I love the national parks, and I agree that they should remain public properties -- and protected by law.  That will assure us that these wonderful places are available for future generations.

I'd say this entire thing would be done to dissuade people from visiting. I'm not sure if you've been to any of the major national parks during peak season, but they're packed! We have entirely too many visitors to the national parks during peak season.

Yes. This.  Like I said before, we tend to visit off season (kids vacations).

We have been to Bryce, Zion, and Yosemite in late March.  Zion especially was just packed.  Absolutely packed.  We had to make sure we got there before a certain time in the morning to even be able to park.  The buses inside Zion were also packed.  The hikes...packed.

Bryce was a little bit better.

Yosemite in March - cold, like Bryce and Zion, but not quite as busy.  I think because our spring break does not line up with Bay Area spring break.

We went to Mesa Verde this summer.  There were a lot of people.  We didn't plan ahead very much.  When we arrived, the tours were all booked for the days we were there except for the 4 pm tour.

This means, in order to go see the ruins up close, you *have* to sign up for a tour (and I don't think they are free.  I don't exactly remember.)  This limits the # of people trampling on over. 

[GetItRight]

The NPS budget is $2.5 billion.
Meanwhile, our country is spending over $600 billion on the military.
Priorities...

https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1207/05-23-2017-budget-proposal.htm
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/02/how-us-defense-spending-stacks-up-against-the-rest-of-the-world.html

Agreed, $2.5 billion of NPS spending, over $600 billion military, and over $2,232.3 billion of welfare spending. All of it needs to be cut. Priorities though should be at the largest spending category. Heck, just cut welfare spending to eliminate the federal deficit and it'll still be the largest spending category by an insanely large margin, at $1,793 billion. As mustachians who should understand spending within your means and minimalistic lifestyle, I'd hope most of us could agree with that. The federal government is hemorrhaging money, spending the vast majority on welfare payments.

Source?

Counter point: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/01/12/no-we-dont-spend-1-trillion-on-welfare-each-year/

Numbers I mentioned were from 2015, but here's a source for 2016: http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/119/2016
At least $2,412 billion in welfare spending in 2016.

The link you gave excludes the largest welfare programs, there's a lot of mental gymnastics going on there.

Welfare definition (Google):
statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need.
"the protection of rights to education, housing, and welfare"
North American
financial support given to people in need.

Also note, BookValue's $600 billion on military spending was quite light. 2016 numbers from the link I provided are $701 billion, this of course should also be reduced.

Also, here is an interesting document on NPS visitor spending both at parks and in local economies: https://www.nps.gov/nature/customcf/NPS_Data_Visualization/docs/2016_VSE.pdf

2016 NPS budget, just a tick over $2.5 billion. https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/upload/FY-2016-Greenbook.pdf

[lost_in_the_endless_aisle]

Many of the listed parks are extremely crowded in peak season. If I think of the fee increase as congestion pricing, it's probably the most efficient way to both increase revenue and encourage better patterns of visitation (off-peak, carpool).

Yosemite did a great job to address severe traffic problems through rerouting traffic and instituting a very pleasant bus service, though Yosemite valley is a very compact area to serve compared to the vast expanse of many parks. In contrast, at RMNP, I've observed ridiculous increases in visitation to since I started frequenting the park around 8 years ago (+50%?). A lot of the cars on the roads are driving around aimlessly looking for animals to photograph (after either stopping the car in the middle of the road or parking on a dangerous shoulder). The funny thing is many of the animals (moose especially) tend to be out at sunrise when there are no cars on the roads (and when there is no entrance fee levied). To the extent the marginal visitors are these sorts of idiots, I'm in favor of price increases.

[GetItRight]

I would happily pay this fee to preserve our national parks. I also think it would be nice for there to be some mechanism for poorer folks to visit at a reduce rate, but not sure how that could be implemented.

There is a current discount at any time, put more people in a car. Put people in the trunk like at the drive in movies. Travel in a van or bus for a massive group discount. Aside from that, off season or off peak rates could be implemented which has the potential to bring in more revenue overall during slower times as well as make it more affordable. I still say if an extra $15-$40 will break someone, they clearly can't afford the luxury of that trip. It's no different than going out to eat or buying a big flat screen TV, if you can't afford it then it's irresponsible.

I would also love to hire more rangers and increase ability to fine for people trampling the meadows and not staying on trails, hiking with their dogs in no dog areas, etc. BAM $100 ticket here ya go, and here you go, etc.

Not really NPS related, but I'd like to see more public land opened up for use. Eliminate off road vehicle restrictions on some public land. In civilized states there are plenty of areas to legally use and enjoy public land for free or for an affordable fee (day or season permit sticker for your off road vehicle). Also, eliminate gas engine and HP restrictions on some public lakes. There are many great lakes that the government will not allow to be used. Where I live if you enjoy doing anything fun outdoors, it's illegal. The government takes my money for all this land they won't sell, and does not allow reasonable and responsible use of it. I pay a lot for it but it's useless to me. ... I'm all for usage based funding.

[JLee]

The NPS budget is $2.5 billion.
Meanwhile, our country is spending over $600 billion on the military.
Priorities...

https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1207/05-23-2017-budget-proposal.htm
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/02/how-us-defense-spending-stacks-up-against-the-rest-of-the-world.html

Agreed, $2.5 billion of NPS spending, over $600 billion military, and over $2,232.3 billion of welfare spending. All of it needs to be cut. Priorities though should be at the largest spending category. Heck, just cut welfare spending to eliminate the federal deficit and it'll still be the largest spending category by an insanely large margin, at $1,793 billion. As mustachians who should understand spending within your means and minimalistic lifestyle, I'd hope most of us could agree with that. The federal government is hemorrhaging money, spending the vast majority on welfare payments.

Source?

Counter point: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/01/12/no-we-dont-spend-1-trillion-on-welfare-each-year/

Numbers I mentioned were from 2015, but here's a source for 2016: http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/119/2016
At least $2,412 billion in welfare spending in 2016.

The link you gave excludes the largest welfare programs, there's a lot of mental gymnastics going on there.

Welfare definition (Google):
statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need.
"the protection of rights to education, housing, and welfare"
North American
financial support given to people in need.

Also note, BookValue's $600 billion on military spending was quite light. 2016 numbers from the link I provided are $701 billion, this of course should also be reduced.

Also, here is an interesting document on NPS visitor spending both at parks and in local economies: https://www.nps.gov/nature/customcf/NPS_Data_Visualization/docs/2016_VSE.pdf

2016 NPS budget, just a tick over $2.5 billion. https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/upload/FY-2016-Greenbook.pdf

Per your link, total mandatory spending is $2.44 trillion and you're claiming that $2.412 trillion is welfare.  Your definition of welfare evelopes the entirety of social security, medicare/health, veterans' benefits, and education.

I'm afraid you're the one doing mental gymnastics here.

[NorCal]

While I don't like paying more, I think this is the best way to fund park maintenance.  It's the most transparent way to do it.

Personally, I like the parks best in the off-season anyways.  Fewer crowds and a different perspective.

My wife introduced me to Yosemite in the winter a few years back.  I don't think I'll ever go in summer again.

[JLee]

While I don't like paying more, I think this is the best way to fund park maintenance.  It's the most transparent way to do it.

Personally, I like the parks best in the off-season anyways.  Fewer crowds and a different perspective.

My wife introduced me to Yosemite in the winter a few years back.  I don't think I'll ever go in summer again.

Visiting places off-season is incredible. The last time we were in Baja, MX it was right around Christmas...nearly empty. Not a park (or even in the US), but the lack of tourists was lovely.

[m8547]

Not really NPS related, but I'd like to see more public land opened up for use. Eliminate off road vehicle restrictions on some public land. In civilized states there are plenty of areas to legally use and enjoy public land for free or for an affordable fee (day or season permit sticker for your off road vehicle). Also, eliminate gas engine and HP restrictions on some public lakes. There are many great lakes that the government will not allow to be used. Where I live if you enjoy doing anything fun outdoors, it's illegal. The government takes my money for all this land they won't sell, and does not allow reasonable and responsible use of it. I pay a lot for it but it's useless to me. ... I'm all for usage based funding.

Where do you live? Around here, all the public land I can think of is open. There are plenty of national forest roads where off-road and/or highway vehicles are allowed, but they are not allowed in wilderness areas (for good reason). Vehicles have a significant impact on the land, causing noise, erosion, trash left where people camp or go shooting, etc.

I know off-road vehicle use is controversial in Utah. The state wants to open more of the land owned by the federal government to off-road vehicles. But having visited several times, it already seems like you can drive anywhere that already has a road, so I guess I don't understand what they want to open up. I'm always surprised at what dirt roads are on my GPS when I'm in Utah, and I've checked BLM maps to confirm that I'll be on legal roads where I'm going. I drive an SUV, so admittedly I'm not familiar with the rules for OHVs.

The only federal public land I can think of that's not open is land with no legal access (surrounded by private land), or areas that are privately owned such as mining claims within the boundaries of a national forest.

[GU]

1.  Illinois parks are free because there is no natural scenery worth paying to see. From a landscape perspective, Illinois is perhaps the least inspiring state in the Union.

2.  If the parks are so overcrowded, I'm in favor of gouging or restricting foreigners. Citizens should take precedence over foreign tourists.

[GU]

I also don't understand the outrage over the $70 per car fee.  It cost that much for a family of four to eat at a restaurant. Many people spend more than that on a night at a bar or on a pair of pants. Except your $70 NPS fee grants you access to one of the most beautiful places in the world.  Yes, there are probably some wretchedly poor people who can't scrap together $70 to see Yosemite. But (1) these people are unlikely to even want to go to a national park, and (2) they probably can't afford the current $30 fee anyway.

[nereo]

...
Not really NPS related, but I'd like to see more public land opened up for use. Eliminate off road vehicle restrictions on some public land. In civilized states there are plenty of areas to legally use and enjoy public land for free or for an affordable fee (day or season permit sticker for your off road vehicle). Also, eliminate gas engine and HP restrictions on some public lakes. There are many great lakes that the government will not allow to be used. Where I live if you enjoy doing anything fun outdoors, it's illegal. The government takes my money for all this land they won't sell, and does not allow reasonable and responsible use of it. I pay a lot for it but it's useless to me. ... I'm all for usage based funding.

We appear to disagree with what 'reasonable and responsible' use is regarding land and lakes. Overall I support measures to prohibit engines or restrict HP on small lakes because the risk to those ecosystems is so great, we (collectively) have a horrible track record and because there is no real reason to allow them in the first place other than for recreation, which is the polite way of saying 'because some people just want to'.

When you say "there are many great lakes that the government willnot allow to be used" I believe what you mean is "... in the way that I want to use them" - which apparently involves boat motors with unrestricted HP limits, brought there by off-road vehicles. Problem is, the land isn't just for you and your enjoyment. We also have a moral and congressionally mandated duty to protect the ecosystems, and your concept of enjoyment is at odds with others, who prefer not to have more engines, more noise, and more impact on our public lands and lakes.