New National Park prices

[DaveandSue]

Looks like the user fees are going to take a hike next year.Glad I have my $10.00 old fart pass.

National Park Service proposes peak season entrance fee at 17 national parks | GrindTV.com

[DreiHunde]

Crazy rate increase!
"During a five-month peak-season at each of the 17 parks, the entrance fee would be $70 per vehicle, $50 per motorcycle, and $30 per person."

The NPS has it open for public comments for the next month.

https://parkplanning.nps.gov/project...rojectID=75576

[ysidive]

Originally Posted by DaveandSue

Looks like the user fees are going to take a hike next year.Glad I have my $10.00 old fart pass.

National Park Service proposes peak season entrance fee at 17 national parks | GrindTV.com

Do not misplace or lose your so called old fart pass > The new fee is now $80.00.....

[TheWolfPaq82]

At the end of 2018, the parks officials are all going to be standing there scratching their heads trying to figure out why revenues and attendance were down for the year. We were planning a big family get together at Old Faithful next summer, 30+ members, but we're already reconsidering and several members are already looking for different location this morning.

[DreiHunde]

Originally Posted by TheWolfPaq82

At the end of 2018, the parks officials are all going to be standing there scratching their heads trying to figure out why revenues and attendance were down for the year. We were planning a big family get together at Old Faithful next summer, 30+ members, but we're already reconsidering and several members are already looking for different location this morning.

That was my thought as well! I filled out the form and that was one of my comments. This is really going to cause working families to rethink vacation plans.

[Mountndream]

I have to argue that this is a good thing.

I understand we all have different economic backgrounds, but an additional 35 dollars to enter the park is not a huge issue. The price of gas/ diesel is a bigger concern for a NP trip than the entrance fee. Additionally, just buy an annual pass at $80 that will enable you to visit multiple NPs during the year. If you are over 62, you can buy the golden Eagle Pass and be done with it

[KenandCarol]

Originally Posted by Mountndream

I have to argue that this is a good thing.

I understand we all have different economic backgrounds, but an additional 35 dollars to enter the park is not a huge issue. The price of gas/ diesel is a bigger concern for a NP trip than the entrance fee. Additionally, just buy an annual pass at $80 that will enable you to visit multiple NPs during the year. If you are over 62, you can buy the golden Eagle Pass and be done with it

X2

And with the overcrowding of the parks during peak season I don't think they are going to have a problem with decreased attendance. At Zion lots of folks that want to enter are being turned away every day because the park is full. Someone has to pay for the maintenance, might as well be those of us that use the parks.

[wannabeowner]

I think attendance will start to drop, but I think that's part of the plan. Funds to manage and maintain the parks keep getting smaller and higher fees won't be enough to cover what's needed. Then the argument to open the parks to more mineral or timber extraction is easier to make. It also helps the argument to totally privatize the running of them. We'll be told it's necessary to "save" the parks.

If more people can't afford to go, ultimately, they won't know what their missing and won't fight to keep the parks public.

[wannabeowner]

Originally Posted by wannabeowner

I think attendance will start to drop, but I think that's part of the plan. Funds to manage and maintain the parks keep getting smaller and higher fees won't be enough to cover what's needed. Then the argument to open the parks to more mineral or timber extraction is easier to make. It also helps the argument to totally privatize the running of them. We'll be told it's necessary to "save" the parks.

If more people can't afford to go, ultimately, they won't know what their missing and won't fight to keep the parks public.

I know some will think I'm being too political with that comment, but I'll tell you where I'm coming from:

When I was a kid and we took our first, long family vacation, we went to every National and State park we could manage. My dad planned it that way because he loved those places and wanted his kids to love them, too. He was no hippie environmentalist - in fact, he was a Marine Corps lifer - he was a hunter, angler and conservationist. On that first trip, while we were at Yellowstone, he told us that the National Parks were America's idea of 'crown jewels" but they were available for all of us to see and enjoy. That's something I'll never forget and I still think of the parks that way. But - that's old school thinking, I guess. My dad, if he were alive, would have been 100 next year.

[Mountndream]

Originally Posted by wannabeowner

I think attendance will start to drop, but I think that's part of the plan. Funds to manage and maintain the parks keep getting smaller and higher fees won't be enough to cover what's needed. Then the argument to open the parks to more mineral or timber extraction is easier to make. It also helps the argument to totally privatize the running of them. We'll be told it's necessary to "save" the parks.

If more people can't afford to go, ultimately, they won't know what their missing and won't fight to keep the parks public.

respectfully disagree.

The National Parks are still Very affordable. I recently stayed in Many Glacier campground for 11 nights. It cost 253 for that time. Add the $80 annual pass (more than the 70 increase) and i spent $333

Tell me where i can go for that long for that type of money. The parks are still very cheap and its somewhat funny to hear people who spend the kind of money on campers, big trucks and fuel to complain about an additional $35 for something so worth it.

also remember, that many people who are staying in the parks (lodges, hotels etc) are spending over 200 a night for a room. $35 over 7 days is drop in the bucket when you consider that

[wmtire]

A site team reminder, As per the guidelines:

General discussions of politics, general government policies, weaponry, gun rights and religion are not allowed in ANY areas of the forum. Discussions about current or pending legislation or regulations, weapons and religion that directly pertain to RVing are acceptable but will be closed or removed if they wander off topic or become disruptive.

Please keep the topic directed ONLY at the National Park possible increase of prices.

Any off-topic or political comments not pertaining to this will be deleted.

[Flybob]

Moderators note. This is a good discussion with valid points on both sides. Avoid turning this into a political discussion as that will be counter productive and risks being closed for site rules violations.

[DreiHunde]

I'm not complaining for me.
I'm complaining for that single parent who busts their butt all year working overtime, scrimps and saves just to take their child on summer vacation to see some of the most beautiful places in the world. When you have to count every penny for your one vacation a year these things hurt.

Been there, done that and don't have any T-shirts to show for it, because we couldn't afford it at the time. But I dang sure have the best memories of my life!

And while I can EASILY afford such things now (and so can she) I'll never forget and (now) truly appreciate how hard it was for her to take me on these adventures.

They need to look at cutting some bureaucratic waste, across the board. You know it exists.

[wicked1]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/new...rks/ar-AAu0JYv

[Lundy]

X2 on thinking of the younger crowd just starting off. I can easily afford the increase now that I am long in tooth. When we where first starting off with two young children it was a financial commitment to take them camping. We managed to pull it off and provided my kids with many great memories. I'll bet that most of the supportive replies are from the older crowd. The younger group might think differently and I understand their views as I remember those days vividly. With the cost off everything going up, higher park fees will just add the the financial burden of trying to camp.

[KMP44]

Originally Posted by Mountndream

I understand we all have different economic backgrounds, but an additional 35 dollars to enter the park is not a huge issue. The price of gas/ diesel is a bigger concern for a NP trip than the entrance fee.

Agreed, and park operation and maintenance has to get paid for somehow. The higher fee may affect some people's plans, while most people just pay the extra and go anyway. Its still a lot cheaper than Disney or most other private attractions.

Seems to me the argument against it is more one of principle. The concept of public land and National Parks belonging to everyone and being free or low cost a noble cause. I.E. the Smithsonian and all the public monuments in Washington D.C. They are all free (from admission charges). Obviously they aren't free to maintain, so its funded by the taxpayers. We've taken the kids several times and we always see something new. Again, the cost of travel & lodging is fairly significant, so free admission to the museums is nice, but it doesn't make or break the trip. I just find it pretty gratifying that these things exist for everyone to enjoy and learn from at no cost. Its amazing to me go to the National Archives and see original signed copies of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, or countless other historically significant displays and its all free.

The parks need money to operate and need to be maintained and preserved, so the money has to come from somewhere. Either everyone pays for it via tax dollars or park users pay for it with access fees (or both). Either way, this is one expense I don't mind paying my fair share for. I just think there is some value in the principle of keeping the fees to as minimal a level as possible as an acknowledgement to concept that these places were preserved for everyone to enjoy.

[TheWolfPaq82]

0.02 cents.
Higher prices cause lower demand.
Lower demand = lower revenue.
Lower revenue = need to raise prices.
Utility companies use this all the time. Promote energy savings...which is good...but lower the demand for electricity/natural gas. Lower demand and they lose revenue, so they'll tack on a "surcharge" which could be 5,10, 20% or more.
The park service will not reduce their budget because less people are there...you don't do that with your budgets. Some do, but many don't.
Rule number 1 when working with a budget....Don't have any leftover at the end of the fiscal year.
Simply my own opinion.

[NMWildcat]

Seeing as how this just a proposal, who knows what the actual increase will be, or if it will even happen.

Personally I think they could triple the current cost and it wouldn't affect the attendance. Sure, it would probably affect the make-up of the type of visitors. NPs are destinations, the entrance fees have been too low for decades. I think it's a good thing.

[Jeff95814]

Originally Posted by Mountndream

I have to argue that this is a good thing.

I understand we all have different economic backgrounds, but an additional 35 dollars to enter the park is not a huge issue. The price of gas/ diesel is a bigger concern for a NP trip than the entrance fee. Additionally, just buy an annual pass at $80 that will enable you to visit multiple NPs during the year. If you are over 62, you can buy the golden Eagle Pass and be done with it

X3

[Butch & Lena]

It is still a great price even if it was $100.00. Somebody has to pay to maintain the national parks and it should be every American who wishes to visit them... we cannot expect our federal government to fund it, we as Americans should!!!!!