Bush administration raises park fees, advocates cry foul

This Land Was Paid By You and Me

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."

straight to the source: The Washington Post, Associated Press, John Heilprin, 06 May 2007

straight to the source: The Denver Post, Jeremy P. Meyer, 06 May 2007

straight to the source: The Mercury News, Paul Rogers, 04 May 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (3 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

it all depends on the function of parks

Are national parks meant to be tourist attractions so that people may enjoy the beauty of America or are they there to ensure the preservation of a natural landscape?

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.

by naturescene at 2:31 PM on 08 May 2007

Good for Parks

I think raising park fees is one of the best things that the Bush administration has done for National parks. I agree that these extra fees should go into some sort of specialized fund for conservation projects within in the parks.

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.

by naturenick at 9:11 AM on 09 May 2007

parks fees

Unfortunetly the park service is on the bottom of the food chain when it comes to their piece of the govenmental monies. If services are going to be delivered, the easiest thing to raise is park fees. The good news is enterance fees stay in that particular park. In the cause of Yosemite, the park figures dropped after the major flood they experienced in the valley which took out a lot of camp sites and tent cabins, which they didn't replace in attempts to adhere to the Yosemite management plan. Depending when the snow melt is so the high country opens will reduce visitation numbers also. I don't believe 20 for a 7 day visit and 20 dollars a night is excessive for staying in Yosemite. In that pariticlar park, they have to limit the numbers of people in some why shape or form. Otherwise, we would love it to death!

by ramonaarenas at 6:54 AM on 15 May 2007

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?