Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Proposal to raise entry fees in popular national parks

Options
2

Replies

  • T1DCarnivoreRunner
    T1DCarnivoreRunner Posts: 11,502 Member
    Options
    clicketykeys wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    I'd love to hear what people think of this. So would the park service; if you have strong feelings, the comment period is still open.

    http://www.theolympian.com/outdoors/article180651396.html

    During that time period i]peak summer visitation season[/i, the entry fee would increase from the current $25 to $70 per vehicle. Motorcycles would be charged $50 instead of the current $20, and a walk-in or bicycle fee would jump from $10 to $30.

    These are the 17 national parks being considered for entrance-fee increases during peak visitor months in 2018.

    ▪ Acadia National Park, Maine

    ▪ Arches National Park, Utah

    ▪ Bryce Canyon National Park, Utah

    ▪ Canyonlands National Park, Utah

    ▪ Denali National Park, Alaska

    ▪ Glacier National Park, Montana

    ▪ Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona

    ▪ Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming

    ▪ Joshua Tree National Park, California

    ▪ Mount Rainier National Park, Washington

    ▪ Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado

    ▪ Olympic National Park, Washington

    ▪ Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park, California

    ▪ Shenandoah National Park, Virginia

    ▪ Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming

    ▪ Yosemite National Park, California

    ▪ Zion National Park, Utah

    I'd be good with this if there was a way to get some sort of subsidy for it to those who are very low income. I'd hate to shut out an entire income bracket from being able to see our national treasures. That said there is a balance between being free and running out of money to sustain the parks and charging so much that large swaths of the population can no longer see them. Just not sure where that balance is but some sort of graded pay system seems like a good idea.

    the balance is fund them fully from the top down and don't charge people a nickle to enjoy them. That's the balance.

    Ideally yes. Pragmatically what do we do to ensure there are still parks 3 years from now when we might have a chance pushing for such legislation?

    Vote against anyone who supported cutting the funding.

    I concur.
    jdlobb wrote: »
    clicketykeys wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    I'd love to hear what people think of this. So would the park service; if you have strong feelings, the comment period is still open.

    http://www.theolympian.com/outdoors/article180651396.html

    During that time period i]peak summer visitation season[/i, the entry fee would increase from the current $25 to $70 per vehicle. Motorcycles would be charged $50 instead of the current $20, and a walk-in or bicycle fee would jump from $10 to $30.

    These are the 17 national parks being considered for entrance-fee increases during peak visitor months in 2018.

    ▪ Acadia National Park, Maine

    ▪ Arches National Park, Utah

    ▪ Bryce Canyon National Park, Utah

    ▪ Canyonlands National Park, Utah

    ▪ Denali National Park, Alaska

    ▪ Glacier National Park, Montana

    ▪ Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona

    ▪ Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming

    ▪ Joshua Tree National Park, California

    ▪ Mount Rainier National Park, Washington

    ▪ Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado

    ▪ Olympic National Park, Washington

    ▪ Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park, California

    ▪ Shenandoah National Park, Virginia

    ▪ Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming

    ▪ Yosemite National Park, California

    ▪ Zion National Park, Utah

    I'd be good with this if there was a way to get some sort of subsidy for it to those who are very low income. I'd hate to shut out an entire income bracket from being able to see our national treasures. That said there is a balance between being free and running out of money to sustain the parks and charging so much that large swaths of the population can no longer see them. Just not sure where that balance is but some sort of graded pay system seems like a good idea.

    the balance is fund them fully from the top down and don't charge people a nickle to enjoy them. That's the balance.

    Ideally yes. Pragmatically what do we do to ensure there are still parks 3 years from now when we might have a chance pushing for such legislation?

    Vote against anyone who supported cutting the funding.

    this. There's literally an election next year where the entire House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate are up for reelection.

    Hopefully those parks are not destroyed already from drilling and mining by next year.
  • jdlobb
    jdlobb Posts: 1,232 Member
    Options
    midwesterner85 wrote: »
    clicketykeys wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    I'd love to hear what people think of this. So would the park service; if you have strong feelings, the comment period is still open.

    http://www.theolympian.com/outdoors/article180651396.html

    During that time period i]peak summer visitation season[/i, the entry fee would increase from the current $25 to $70 per vehicle. Motorcycles would be charged $50 instead of the current $20, and a walk-in or bicycle fee would jump from $10 to $30.

    These are the 17 national parks being considered for entrance-fee increases during peak visitor months in 2018.

    ▪ Acadia National Park, Maine

    ▪ Arches National Park, Utah

    ▪ Bryce Canyon National Park, Utah

    ▪ Canyonlands National Park, Utah

    ▪ Denali National Park, Alaska

    ▪ Glacier National Park, Montana

    ▪ Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona

    ▪ Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming

    ▪ Joshua Tree National Park, California

    ▪ Mount Rainier National Park, Washington

    ▪ Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado

    ▪ Olympic National Park, Washington

    ▪ Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park, California

    ▪ Shenandoah National Park, Virginia

    ▪ Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming

    ▪ Yosemite National Park, California

    ▪ Zion National Park, Utah

    I'd be good with this if there was a way to get some sort of subsidy for it to those who are very low income. I'd hate to shut out an entire income bracket from being able to see our national treasures. That said there is a balance between being free and running out of money to sustain the parks and charging so much that large swaths of the population can no longer see them. Just not sure where that balance is but some sort of graded pay system seems like a good idea.

    the balance is fund them fully from the top down and don't charge people a nickle to enjoy them. That's the balance.

    Ideally yes. Pragmatically what do we do to ensure there are still parks 3 years from now when we might have a chance pushing for such legislation?

    Vote against anyone who supported cutting the funding.

    I concur.
    jdlobb wrote: »
    clicketykeys wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    I'd love to hear what people think of this. So would the park service; if you have strong feelings, the comment period is still open.

    http://www.theolympian.com/outdoors/article180651396.html

    During that time period i]peak summer visitation season[/i, the entry fee would increase from the current $25 to $70 per vehicle. Motorcycles would be charged $50 instead of the current $20, and a walk-in or bicycle fee would jump from $10 to $30.

    These are the 17 national parks being considered for entrance-fee increases during peak visitor months in 2018.

    ▪ Acadia National Park, Maine

    ▪ Arches National Park, Utah

    ▪ Bryce Canyon National Park, Utah

    ▪ Canyonlands National Park, Utah

    ▪ Denali National Park, Alaska

    ▪ Glacier National Park, Montana

    ▪ Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona

    ▪ Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming

    ▪ Joshua Tree National Park, California

    ▪ Mount Rainier National Park, Washington

    ▪ Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado

    ▪ Olympic National Park, Washington

    ▪ Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park, California

    ▪ Shenandoah National Park, Virginia

    ▪ Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming

    ▪ Yosemite National Park, California

    ▪ Zion National Park, Utah

    I'd be good with this if there was a way to get some sort of subsidy for it to those who are very low income. I'd hate to shut out an entire income bracket from being able to see our national treasures. That said there is a balance between being free and running out of money to sustain the parks and charging so much that large swaths of the population can no longer see them. Just not sure where that balance is but some sort of graded pay system seems like a good idea.

    the balance is fund them fully from the top down and don't charge people a nickle to enjoy them. That's the balance.

    Ideally yes. Pragmatically what do we do to ensure there are still parks 3 years from now when we might have a chance pushing for such legislation?

    Vote against anyone who supported cutting the funding.

    this. There's literally an election next year where the entire House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate are up for reelection.

    Hopefully those parks are not destroyed already from drilling and mining by next year.

    fortunately, there's a lot of parks, but there will be loses.
  • youngmomtaz
    youngmomtaz Posts: 1,075 Member
    Options
    I am in Canada and would be outraged if those were the proposed prices for entry in our parks! Our governments waste so much money and give so much away that the costs should stay low. I fear if they are raised to that then the fears of a previous poster would be true, and the land would be sold and razed.
  • fitoverfortymom
    fitoverfortymom Posts: 3,452 Member
    Options
    BruinsGal_91 wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    worth noting. the trump administration just CUT a massive amount of funding for these parks, hence the need for increased admission fees. This entire scheme is a bid to reduce the number of people going to the parks, let them turn to crap, and then be able to sell off the land to private companies for mining, logging, drilling, and development.

    My opinion? National parks should be 110% funded by the federal government, and shouldn't have any admission fees at all. I can think of a hell of a lot of worse ways the government can spend my tax dollars than supporting national parks.

    Totally agree.
    BruinsGal_91 wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    worth noting. the trump administration just CUT a massive amount of funding for these parks, hence the need for increased admission fees. This entire scheme is a bid to reduce the number of people going to the parks, let them turn to crap, and then be able to sell off the land to private companies for mining, logging, drilling, and development.

    My opinion? National parks should be 110% funded by the federal government, and shouldn't have any admission fees at all. I can think of a hell of a lot of worse ways the government can spend my tax dollars than supporting national parks.

    Totally agree.

    +1
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,565 Member
    Options
    fitoverfortymom wrote: »
    g_poleman wrote: »
    Govt does not fund anything. It simply steals money from people (taxes) and then spends it however they feel. So lots of you feel the "govt" should maintain parks. Well what do you say to people who are not able to go to those parks??? Should they be paying for your hikes??? I for one don't care about your hikes. But I will play along. I will pay taxes to pay for your hikes if you pay for my food bill each week. How would you feel about that trade?? Also as for you anti Trump people - I went to Acadia in 2014 under Obama. Guess what - they charged money for things. So please don't bring your personal politics into this as though one side is saintly and the other side evil.

    I don't go to the Smithsonian or the National Zoo, yet those places are paid for by me and don't charge admission, and are maintained by the federal government. I feel as though our National Parks deserve the same.

    +1
  • beatua1
    beatua1 Posts: 98 Member
    Options
    Ahh fun, I've left the land of bro-science for bro-politics
  • Ainadan
    Ainadan Posts: 158 Member
    Options
    Ok, so I am fine with the government owning some land and allowing people onto the land for free. However, what you are paying for infrastructure improvements. You are paying for the toilets, trails, and cabins. Imo, those should be paid for by those who use them.

    Also, although it is supposedly $68 million increase in funds, I'm also wondering if the price increase is to decrease the traffic to these parks so that the improvements can be made more easily.
  • jenilla1
    jenilla1 Posts: 11,118 Member
    Options
    Ainadan wrote: »
    Ok, so I am fine with the government owning some land and allowing people onto the land for free. However, what you are paying for infrastructure improvements. You are paying for the toilets, trails, and cabins. Imo, those should be paid for by those who use them.

    Also, although it is supposedly $68 million increase in funds, I'm also wondering if the price increase is to decrease the traffic to these parks so that the improvements can be made more easily.

    I'm thinking part of this increase in fees is to decrease traffic in the most crowded parks - help discourage people from going. It's cool that more people seem to be interested in visiting the parks and getting out into nature, but the downside is over-crowding.

    This past summer I drove through Zion. (Drove through without even stopping because it was not possible to stop.) There was literally not a single place to park along the entire route - including pull outs along the road. I've never seen it like that before; it was crazy packed. They had people parking in a nearby town and taking buses to the park entrance. And Yellowstone was almost as crowded when we went through. No place to park and look at most of the exhibits. (I have an annual pass and I've been there a bazillion times, so it was OK to just drive through, or I would have been unhappy to have paid the full fee and not been able to even pull over and look at anything. Glad I saw all this stuff as a kid before it got completely overrun by massive crowds and turned into a traffic nightmare.)

    From what I've read, the fee increase seems to be impacting only the most crowded parks and will be in effect during their high-use periods. Less busy times of the year will have normal fees. Sad that some people won't be able to afford entry, but IMO it was already way too expensive. This fee increase would just encourage me to visit during the off-season or go to less impacted parks (or just enjoy the uncrowded national forests for free) which is probably what they are hoping it will do.
  • beatua1
    beatua1 Posts: 98 Member
    Options
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    beatua1 wrote: »
    Ahh fun, I've left the land of bro-science for bro-politics

    At least you still get to denigrate people as "bro" and feel superior.

    Excellent point, thanks!
  • blondie_mfp
    blondie_mfp Posts: 62 Member
    Options
    jdlobb wrote: »
    blondie_mfp wrote: »
    wow, that's quite steep. I live near shenandoah, and I would refuse to go hiking there if it cost me $70/trip.

    I wonder if the annual passes would rise proportionately as well?

    I'm not sure about the trump conspiracy theory, but nothing really surprises me anymore (I've lived in DC for too long I guess). I do agree that national parks should be accessible for all, though.

    it's not really a conspiracy. Republican politicians have spoken repeatedly about wanted to turn over public land to private companies. They don't even try to hide it, for them it's a core belief, and one that their constituency seems to agree with. They're completely open about their belief that the government shouldn't own national parks, and that that land should be mined, drilled, and developed.

    Cutting funding will hurt the upkeep and improvement of the parks, and increased entrance fees will drive down attendance. It's simple economics.

    The worse the state of the parks gets, and the fewer people go to them, the stronger the Republican's pitch that the land would be better used by industry becomes.

    thank you for the explanation! :star:
  • tomteboda
    tomteboda Posts: 2,171 Member
    Options
    jenilla1 wrote: »
    Ainadan wrote: »
    Ok, so I am fine with the government owning some land and allowing people onto the land for free. However, what you are paying for infrastructure improvements. You are paying for the toilets, trails, and cabins. Imo, those should be paid for by those who use them.

    Also, although it is supposedly $68 million increase in funds, I'm also wondering if the price increase is to decrease the traffic to these parks so that the improvements can be made more easily.

    I'm thinking part of this increase in fees is to decrease traffic in the most crowded parks - help discourage people from going. It's cool that more people seem to be interested in visiting the parks and getting out into nature, but the downside is over-crowding.

    This past summer I drove through Zion. (Drove through without even stopping because it was not possible to stop.) There was literally not a single place to park along the entire route - including pull outs along the road. I've never seen it like that before; it was crazy packed. They had people parking in a nearby town and taking buses to the park entrance. And Yellowstone was almost as crowded when we went through. No place to park and look at most of the exhibits. (I have an annual pass and I've been there a bazillion times, so it was OK to just drive through, or I would have been unhappy to have paid the full fee and not been able to even pull over and look at anything. Glad I saw all this stuff as a kid before it got completely overrun by massive crowds and turned into a traffic nightmare.)

    From what I've read, the fee increase seems to be impacting only the most crowded parks and will be in effect during their high-use periods. Less busy times of the year will have normal fees. Sad that some people won't be able to afford entry, but IMO it was already way too expensive. This fee increase would just encourage me to visit during the off-season or go to less impacted parks (or just enjoy the uncrowded national forests for free) which is probably what they are hoping it will do.

    So basically, you're saying they're applying economics.
  • Calliope610
    Calliope610 Posts: 3,771 Member
    Options
    If this increase prevents even one *kitten* from defacing or intentional damaging/vandalizing our national treasures, I would be in support.
  • ariceroni
    ariceroni Posts: 422 Member
    Options
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    Open for comments at parkplanning.nps.gov
    Comment period closes Nov 23, 2017 at 11:59 PM Mountain Time

    Thank you for posting this! For those of you interested, I tracked down the comment page: https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?documentID=83652

    Also, more specifics about the "peak" dates for each park can be found here: https://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectID=75576

Categories