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
NorthCascades
Posts: 10,970 Member
in Debate Club
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
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
1
Replies
-
Open for comments at parkplanning.nps.gov
Comment period closes Nov 23, 2017 at 11:59 PM Mountain Time0 -
I think it's fine. I assume they put some thought/research into the dollar amounts, but if it means their revenue goes up, and thus the money they can put back into the park, I'm good with it. If it means a little less traffic, all the better.
If it's an arbitrary increase, or the added revenue isn't going back into the park (or related programs), then I'm not so sure...0 -
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.
30 -
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.6 -
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.10 -
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.1 -
I'm against the idea of charging people a fee to visit land they own. All of us own the national parks; if you're a citizen this land is your birthright.
I think a $30 charge to walk or ride a bike into a public park is exorbitant.12 -
I think it's fine. I assume they put some thought/research into the dollar amounts, but if it means their revenue goes up, and thus the money they can put back into the park, I'm good with it. If it means a little less traffic, all the better.
If it's an arbitrary increase, or the added revenue isn't going back into the park (or related programs), then I'm not so sure...
Currently the estimated maintenance backlog for the National Park Service is $11.9 Billion dollars.
Craig Sailor, reporting for The News Tribune wrote: “The nearly $200 million collected in entrance fees could climb to $268 million, the government estimated.” (This assumes a reduction in visits.)
$68 million dollars doesn't even begin to put a dent in the $11.9 Billion dollar maintenance backlog.
But it triples the entry fees at America’s most popular national parks and prices many people and families out.2 -
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.
I agree.0 -
It costs $90 to go to Disney World, per person! So $70 per vehicle is not exorbitant. It costs a lot to maintain the parks and I would rather pay at the door than run my money through a bunch of bureaucrats.4
-
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.
Agree...on all fronts.2 -
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.2 -
Terrible. Guess I will stay away.0
-
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.
Yup. I'd certainly be willing to contribute my share in taxes to support the no entrance fee, if I thought for a New York minute the money was actually going to be used for that purpose. It's a real shame the people who most need relief from overcrowded housing and lack of open space are the people who seem to be the most disposable in these situations.4 -
mltrainer1 wrote: »It costs $90 to go to Disney World, per person! So $70 per vehicle is not exorbitant. It costs a lot to maintain the parks and I would rather pay at the door than run my money through a bunch of bureaucrats.
Disney world is a privately owned business. Not land owned by the people paying for the privilege of walking on it.
I think the increase seems a bit steep for a one-shot increase. But the price also seems a bit disproportionate at the current rate given that I pay almost 1/2 that to visit my local state parks (and they are nice but nothing compared the parks mentioned).
It seems more prudent to just get an annual pass (it looked like that wasn’t increasing?) and then all the parks lose revenue.
All in all, I’m in agreement with full government funding of government owned land. But that’s not really an option here. It’s a little sad since it does seem like it may price people out of being able to visit.3 -
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?1 -
From what I saw the annual cost would remain the same -- I believe it is around $75-$85. I also think with the cuts they got from this administration I am not sure what people thought would happen.
I do hope they keep the program that gives all 4th graders a free pass for a year to the National Parks.0 -
mltrainer1 wrote: »It costs $90 to go to Disney World, per person! So $70 per vehicle is not exorbitant. It costs a lot to maintain the parks and I would rather pay at the door than run my money through a bunch of bureaucrats.
I don't own Disneyland.1 -
mltrainer1 wrote: »It costs $90 to go to Disney World, per person!
Disney World is private property, owned by someone else. National Parks belong to everybody. That's not flowery pose.1 -
I get an annual park pass, so it wouldn't change for me. Having said that, I agree that more money should be allocated from the general fund so that poor people are not prevented from visiting.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K 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
- 388 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 910 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions