Bush administration raises park fees, advocates cry foul
The Bush administration is consistent-izing rates at 135 national parks, a move that will see some fees double. It will also tie future rates to inflation, raising them every three years. A National Park Service spokesperson says the shift is an attempt to simplify the current rate structure, bringing the types of fees from 17 to four, but parks advocates spy something sinister. "This absolutely is excluding Americans from visiting their public lands," said Robert Funkhouser, president of the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition. "The more you force the public away, the more you lose support for the parks." Visits to the country's 390 national parks and monuments fell from 287 million in 1999 to 273 million in 2006; attendance at Yosemite has fallen 20 percent since a 1997 fee increase. With hotel and food costs inside parks also rising, it's getting tougher to get outside. "It just makes no sense," says a Yosemite-area visitors' bureau rep. "Poor families are going to be priced out of the market."
source: The Washington Post, Associated Press, John Heilprin, 06 May 2007
source: The Denver Post, Jeremy P. Meyer, 06 May 2007
source: The Mercury News, Paul Rogers, 04 May 2007
Chuck Norris on Copenhagen
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
Comments
View as Flat
naturescene Posted 7:31 am
08 May 2007
I think the answer probably lies somewhere in between. I can understand why some people are up in arms -- there is an equity issue -- but I am in favor of park fees. Additionally, I think there are ways to implement the fees that will provide the greatest benefits.
For one, the fees should be put back into a separate Park fund rather than going into the general fund. Park managers would be able to use these funds to make park improvements, etc.
Consistent rates set by a central authority seem foolish to me. Each park should be allowed to set its own rate, based off of what it sees fit. Different parks may have different goals or mindsets. For example, Yellowstone may strive to attract crowds while the Congaree Park may draw fewer crowds and focus more on preservation of an old growth swamp.
Price discrimination is one way to address the equity issue. For example, charge less for children, seniors, and students. Perhaps geographic discrimination? Maybe all citizens of the state a park is located in can enter for free or at a reduced fee.
Permalink
naturenick Posted 2:11 am
09 May 2007
And if you compare a trip to a National Park compared to a visit Disney world, it is still a lot cheaper and probably a lot better for the environment.
Permalink
ramonaarenas Posted 11:54 pm
14 May 2007
Permalink