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
Replies
-
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.
Reducing visitation is not a stated goal of the free increase. Exactly the opposite, it's the goal of every park to increase visitation.0 -
This is why we need to elect public officials who will restore proper funding to the National Parks. Our tax dollars are supposed to pay for maintenance. There should not be a reason for any entrance fees at any of the parks.
I'm glad I'm travelling with my Dad to Joshua Tree this winter...he has the Senior Citizen lifetime pass that gets the whole car in for free. Wonder how long it will be before they stop issuing those...0 -
I saw this article and just caused me to ask more questions. Clearly the parks have been underfunded for several years, but this is suddenly an issue now? What proportion of the park budget was devoted to infrastructure previously and where did the bulk of the allocated funds go?
Limited resource meets unlimited demand. Seems to be a logical place to apply an economic solution.
Also a fantastic opportunity for vested interest groups to offer up aid - Sierra Club, Access Fund, etc. I see opportunities for a whole bunch of budding Eagle Scout needing projects.1 -
NorthCascades 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.
Reducing visitation is not a stated goal of the free increase. Exactly the opposite, it's the goal of every park to increase visitation.
Parks want to increase visitation, but at some point, too many visitors end up harming the ecology. However, I don't think they would ever state that as a goal of the fee increase, because it would be a public relations nightmare.2 -
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??
Only if you do juice cleanses.
It does make sense to have a user fee, rather than force non-users to pay through taxes. But jumping from $25 to $70 - or $50 for a motorcyclist - is obviously ridiculous and very fishy. That's either due to overspending - which seems to be the norm for government - or an attempt to reduce visitors to justify selling off land.. or both.0 -
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.
If the purpose is primarily to reduce crowding, then why wasn't it done prior to this? Seems awfully coincidental that there would be concerns about how crowded the parks are right after a cut in funding.2 -
I really dislike this idea. I think it will put the parks beyond the reach of many people who could get a lot from exposure to nature.
That said, I think I have been to almost just about every one of those parks on the list, except Denali. I'll still go.2 -
clicketykeys 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.
If the purpose is primarily to reduce crowding, then why wasn't it done prior to this? Seems awfully coincidental that there would be concerns about how crowded the parks are right after a cut in funding.
If the goal is to reduce the number of visitors (and I don't think that's a bad idea) I would rather see a reservation system or even a lottery rather than reducing the numbers by pricing out the less affluent.
eta: not directed at you, clicketykeys, just my general thoughts. I think your observation on the funding is dead-on.
0 -
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.
The government doesn't own the land and let us on it. We own the land.
I'm sure the Parks Dept has to walk a fine and difficult line - they want more people to enjoy the parks but if too many people enjoy the parks it is too much upkeep. Having said that, as others have said, the timing of this is too coincidental. And $70 per vehicle is too prohibitive.1 -
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.
It has nothing to do with the president and everything to do with control and increasing taxes. People must have short term memory loss. (https://naturalresources.house.gov/oversight/shutdown/) Remember when Obama was in office and they barricaded the entrances to the parks? Increasing taxes and fees on people is a liberal ideal that has overrun my state and it sickens me to see it.
I live in Washington State which has ridiculous fees and regulations on everything. You have to purchase State and National Park passes just to gain access to the majority of the land in the state. Then if you want to hunt, fish, or camp, you have to purchase more passes. My last family camping trip I had to purchase the Discover Pass, $35.00 to get access to the park. Then I had to pay $35.00 per day for a campsite. There were restrooms but they were out of service so we had to actually drive around the lake to get to bathrooms. So to camp in the state I live in for a one week trip cost $ 280.00 plus the cost of fuel and food. That's ridiculous! If this price hike goes through my family will no longer visit the parks just on principle.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.
AMEN to that!!!! I have lived in states that are controlled by both Conservatives and Liberals I can tell you that neither side has clean hands. They both want to pick and choose what freedom you have and what they should cost you. No one should vote for any fee or tax increase until our government figures out how to spend the money they have already stolen from the people.4 -
So who gets the additional revenue?
Just those parks with the increase or is it shared over the whole park system or is it just swallowed up in General Revenue?0 -
bikecheryl wrote: »So who gets the additional revenue?
Just those parks with the increase or is it shared over the whole park system or is it just swallowed up in General Revenue?
i believe the factsheet said - 80% would stay in the specific park that charged the fee; the other 20% would be spread over other parks1 -
The reduction in federal financial support for the National Parks is transferring (at least in part) the cost of maintaining the parks to those who actually use them rather than to the tax paying population at large.
Personally, as someone else mentioned earlier, I think that all of the National Parks should be free and paid for with federal funds but (at least under the current administration) that apparently is not to be.
FWIW, if you are disabled or a senior, you can still get a lifetime pass to use the National Parks for free. However, those passes aren't entirely free.
The "Access Pass" for the permanently disabled is still available for a $10 processing fee. The "Lifetime Senior Pass," which use to cost only $10 b4 Aug 2017, now costs $90 ($80 plus a $10 processing fee.
Non-seniors can still buy an annual pass for use of the National Pass for $80/yr and seniors, who can't afford the $90 fee for a lifetime pass, can get an annual senior pass for $20 and can trade in 4 annual senior passes (plus a $10 fee) for a lifetime senior pass.
See: https://store.usgs.gov/pass
Also, if you are a backpacker, hiker or off road driver, bicyclist, motorcyclist or ATVer, there are also many ways to enter a National Park for free w/o having to pay a fee at a National Park entrance.
I know many ways to do this at many very popular National Parks. You may not always be able to enter a heavily controlled and limited access area, like Yosemite Valley, but you can almost always get w/in the park boundaries w/o paying.
All you need to do is study a USGS map (or just a satellite or terrain view of a park on Google) to figure it out.2 -
It's a complex situation really. I want for national infrastructure to be maintained by the taxes I already pay. But I respect *(and pity) someone who never visits national parks may not feel that was value on their investment in the nation. To them, I would say that national parks stimulate local economies and bring foreign investment through tourism.
So while I feel it's fair for those who actively utilize specific pieces of national infrastructure to shoulder some specific costs of maintenance. I would not support raising park entry fees. Because I firmly believe that national parks should not be for those who can afford it. And in fact, kids from impoverished inner city districts probably need to get out into a forest more than anyone.. Just to see that there is a great big wonderful world outside of their hood.3 -
My father took us to a "National Park" whilst we were visiting family in the US - we live in the UK. My first impression on seeing the current fees was that he'd taken a wrong turn and we were heading for some sort of commercial venture. We didn't stay! They didn't cost when he was growing up there.
I can see why folks get annoyed if they think their taxes are just paying for other people's fun. But it's so much more than that - places like these are often of scientific and ecological value as well. It's also worth noting that in contrast to the UK there isn't really any other option for walking. In the UK we have things called "rights of way" linking up every village, often across private land, fields etc, plus streets in towns are much more pedestrian friendly so walking is really easy. Walking is more difficult in the US, but it's great exercise so should be encouraged.5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions