Posted on 12/29/2014 9:10:28 AM PST by jazusamo
Would you pay more to visit your favorite national park? The National Park Service hopes so. The agency is proposing to increase entrance fees at many national parks across the country in an attempt to raise more revenue from visitors to help cover the cost of park operations and maintenance.
The proposal comes at a time when Congress just authorized the largest expansion of the national park system in nearly three decades — but with no plan for how to fund it.
The defense authorization bill, recently signed by President Obama, creates seven new national parks and expands nine existing parks, adding roughly 120,000 acres to the park system. The legislation, however, provides no additional funding for the expansion, which includes Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument in Nevada, the Coltsville National Historic Park in Connecticut and the Harriet Tubman National Historic Park in New York.
Meanwhile, the National Park Service faces a $12 billion backlog in deferred maintenance projects. The agency estimates that 90 percent of its roads are in "fair" to "poor" condition, dozens of bridges are "structurally deficient" and in need of reconstruction, and 6,700 miles of trails are in "poor" or "seriously deficient" condition. As the agency prepares to celebrate its 100-year anniversary in 2016, the backlog is a glaring blemish in a system known for its crown jewels.
The National Park Service will now have to fund the operations of several new parks while attempting to address the critical needs within existing parks. And with no additional funding, the latest expansion means that the maintenance backlog could grow even larger in time for the agency's centennial.
The National Parks Conservation Association called the legislation a clear sign that the Obama administration is "making national parks a national priority." But as Kurt Repanshek of the National Parks Traveler recently wrote, the plan "will not enhance, but rather degrade the overall system."
"We like to view the national parks as 'America's best idea,' and members of Congress certainly like to point to a unit in their home districts," wrote Repanshek. "But if we can't afford the 401-unit park system we have today, how can we possibly justify new units?"
Even before Congress added the new parks to the defense bill, the National Park Service was exploring the possibility of raising entrance fees in several national parks. Yellowstone, Glacier, and Grand Canyon are proposing to increase entrance fees by $5. Other parks such as Shenandoah may raise fees by $10. If approved, the new fees could come into effect in 2015.
The proposed fee hike has some questioning whether national parks are becoming too expensive . Yet such modest increases are unlikely to have a significant effect on park visitors. Entrance fees represent a small fraction of visitors' overall trip expenditures — just 1.2 to 1.5 percent by some measures — with the vast majority going to food, lodging and travel. And these higher user fees could generate much-needed funding to help address critical maintenance needs.
Thanks to legislation passed in 2004, user fees collected in parks stay within the national park system instead of getting deposited into the U.S. treasury, and 80 percent of the fees remain in the park where they were collected. This allows parks to become more self-sufficient and rely less on Congress for appropriations.
Still, the proposed fee increase will not solve the National Park Service's financial problems, nor will it provide the funding necessary to support the latest expansion to the national park system. It is, however, a small step in the right direction. By generating more revenue from visitors, park managers can fund projects based on their necessity rather than on their political appeal.
As Congress just demonstrated, politicians are often more interested in creating new parks than funding the parks that already exist. The result is what former National Park Service director James Ridenour called "thinning the blood" of the park system. To truly make national parks a national priority, we must first take care of the parks we already have. Unfortunately, with a $12 billion backlog in our national parks, that is something we have yet to do.
Regan is a research fellow at Property and Environment Research Center, a nonprofit research institute in Bozeman, Mont., and a former ranger for the National Park Service.
The NP system is a magnificent national treasure and there is no good reason for conservatives to be negative about them. As for the NPS, they don't invent parks, they are simply made responsible for decisions made by Congress and the president.
The park rangers I have met have been uniformly helpful and courteous and obviously love the land. Would that some others around here did the same.
If memory serves me correctly Clinton signed many of the national parks over to the UN during his administration. Yosemite, for example, had a sign at the entrance (which has since been removed) stating that it was a UN park. So much for privatizing.
Run the fee up to about half the price of a hotel stay. Then, only the regime-supported worthy will be present in the parks. No more scary peasants.
I have been to the Grand Canyon since I was 10 years and have seen the progression. As a matter of fact, a good portion of the park was closed the last time we visited because of the expansion. It was pretty much a waste of time for us because of the closure. Who knows how many millions of dollars were spent on the new buildings, bike paths, nature walks, nature center, etc. etc. Costly to build, costly to maintain. Needless to say, I won't be returning.
Maroon Bells, which is a state park, suffers from the same “grand plans.” The park is closed to regular traffic after 9am and people are only allowed to enter by purchasing a bus pass and riding a bus.
Bottom line: I don't want to see a park from behind the glass window of an air conditioned bus.
If the trend continues, I fear that the fees will continue to increase and there will be a move to permanently close off portions of the parks effectively driving people away.
I absolutely agree. But voice such an idea to a typical liberal, and be prepared for a meltdown.
Any such program need not be traumatic, nor any great impact to the public (other than improving the federal balance sheet). Let's apply a few numbers to a hypothetical sense.
The Great Smoky Mountains National Park encompasses 43,560 square miles, or about 27,878,400 acres. Let's think in terms of a hotel/golf resort or two, carved out of a tiny part of the park -- I'll get to how tiny below.
A good quality 18-hole golf course can be built on 150 acres or so. A 36-hole course, plus a few pools, a dozen tennis courts, a clubhouse, and a luxury midrise hotel, and you're at 1000 acres or so. Add 500 residential lots, and say 2000 acres. Build two such resort communities, and you're using 4000 acres. Add room for access roads and buffers, and call it 5000 acres.
So, two 36-hole golf resorts with hotels and private residential lots, and you're taking less than .02% of the park. Yep, less than two one-hundredths of 1% -- which would be purchased from the Park Service (or the Federal Government at large), and which would generate property taxes and sales taxes forever.
Consider, also, that these developments would not remove prime parcels of land from the Park -- you're not going to build a resort on top of Clingman's Dome. Rather, the resorts would logically use land near the U.S. 441 entrances to the Park near Cherokee, NC and Gatlinburg, TN. If so positioned, such resorts could serve as buffers between the park and the kitschy collection of casinos, fast food establishments, and tourist traps that come up to the park boundaries.
Turn the national parks into Disneyland where only rich foreigners can afford to visit (except on gay days).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.