National Park Service to potentially increase entrance fees

[kkt]

I am all for a lottery system, in theory, actually.  Such systems have worked on a smaller scale for hikes up Half Dome in Yosemite, for example.

I suppose the mess would be lodging management as people reserve and then cancel if they don't win the lottery and what not.  Also, the lottery would be gigantic.

So, theoretically appealing but probably not practical given the millions of visitors a year.

I think every campsite and hotel room reserved in advance would have one entry into the valley included.  Shouldn't need to be taking a chance on getting one without the other.

So...a lottery for people who want to stay in the park that is taken into account in the overall quota.  Might work, but again, this lottery might be too gigantic to run.  Millions of notification e-mails to send, millions of applications to get in the lottery, etc., etc.

And being the whole reason for the increase in fees is to bring in money to get some much needed work done, spending money to set up a lottery system to limit the number of people in the park and reducing attendance, is the exact opposite of the goals here!

There are two different goals.  The very heavily used portions of the parks are generally very small compared to their overall size.  For instance, Paradise at Mt. Rainier is very crowded during summer weekends, hard to find a parking place, crowded visitor center, etc.  But in other parts of the park you can be quite alone.  Raising the admission price would help with repairs, but keeping the crowded parts of the park manageable is also a goal.

[inkyatari]

I'd just buy the annual pass, which is a bargain.  When we went to Arizona in '14, we bought one, and it paid for itself in three days.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'd just buy the annual pass, which is a bargain.  When we went to Arizona in '14, we bought one, and it paid for itself in three days.

I'm hoping to get mine renewed in two weeks at the Grand Canyon.  I've kind of gotten into the habit of going to a lot of National Parks in the late fall if not outright winter.  Back in 2013 I had Great Basin and all National Parks in Utah practically all to myself after a big winter storm.  I just went a week after the storm when the roads cleared and had a blast pretty much being by myself.  Some of the parks on the list get to a point where they aren't even fun in the peak seasons if you go at the wrong hour.  Yellowstone comes to mind as being especially brutal during late June through August, good luck with parking there.

[briantroutman]

There are two different goals.  The very heavily used portions of the parks are generally very small compared to their overall size... But in other parts of the park you can be quite alone.

So perhaps the solution would be to lower the admission to the park itself (to encourage overall attendance) but somehow add a separate admission charge to areas of the park that are frequently congested (hopefully encouraging visitors to explore under-appreciated sections)?

[Bruce]

If the new fee schedule were to be approved, it needs discounts of all kinds. Discounts for in-state (or nearby) residents, discounts for those on low incomes (who are often deprived of the national park experience anyway). And there needs to be better public transit options to get to parks, especially those that are within a short drive of cities (but otherwise inaccessible for people without cars), and discounts for people that don't bring their cars.

[kkt]

I don't know why nearby residents should get a discount.  They already save money by not having to travel far.

I don't envy the Park having to determine who's a low-income visitor when they show up.  It would be nice but I don't know how to implement it efficiently.

Better transit options would be helpful, especially for parks like Yosemite that already run shuttles around many areas of the park, including some campgrounds and trailheads.

[bandit957]

A lot of low-income folks in the Midwest have probably never been to a national park in their lives. Luckily for me, I have, but I'm pretty sure there's some entire states in the Midwest that have not a single national park.

[Max Rockatansky]

A lot of low-income folks in the Midwest have probably never been to a national park in their lives. Luckily for me, I have, but I'm pretty sure there's some entire states in the Midwest that have not a single national park.

That depends if mean actual designated National Parks or National Park units.  Either way there are some nice choices in the Mid-West like Cuyohoga Valley, Mammoth Cave, Great Smoky Mountains, and even Hot Springs among the national park pool within short distance of most Mid-West population centers.  That's not even going into stuff like National Seashores or anything else the Park Service manages. 

[J N Winkler]

In terms of the 59 National Parks, here are the 23 states that do not have a single National Park:  OK, KS, NE, IA, MO, LA, MS, AL, GA, IL, WI, IN, WV, MD, DE, PA, NJ, NY, MA, NH, CT, VT, and RI.

But there is some arbitrariness built into this list.  ID barely qualifies as having a National Park because it has a thin sliver of Yellowstone.  AR has one because of Hot Springs, which was created at a time when bathing resorts (not just areas of great scenic beauty) could receive National Park status.  OK would qualify on the same basis if Platt District National Park, another resort, still existed.  And Cuyahoga Valley NP strikes me as a bit of a political project.

[bandit957]

I think Cuyahoga Valley was established to protect the area from suburban overdevelopment. It's a decent park though. It's better than having no national park at all.

[Plutonic Panda]

Meanwhile Trump plans to shrink Bear Ears National Monument!

[US 89]

Meanwhile Trump plans to shrink Bear Ears National Monument!

And Grand Staircase Escalante NM as well. I have to say, that is a very hot topic in local politics. Most interests in southern UT near the monuments oppose them, but there is a large vocal pro-monument population in Salt Lake City.

[Rothman]

Meanwhile Trump plans to shrink Bear Ears National Monument!

And Grand Staircase Escalante NM as well. I have to say, that is a very hot topic in local politics. Most interests in southern UT near the monuments oppose them, but there is a large vocal pro-monument population in Salt Lake City.

I find that generalization incorrect.  Although there was opposition to Escalante, Bears Ears was the result of three years of public outreach and the size was actually a compromised smaller size already -- local tribes wanted it to be even bigger.

[US 89]

Meanwhile Trump plans to shrink Bear Ears National Monument!

And Grand Staircase Escalante NM as well. I have to say, that is a very hot topic in local politics. Most interests in southern UT near the monuments oppose them, but there is a large vocal pro-monument population in Salt Lake City.

I find that generalization incorrect.  Although there was opposition to Escalante, Bears Ears was the result of three years of public outreach and the size was actually a compromised smaller size already -- local tribes wanted it to be even bigger.

The ranchers and farmers in that area, as well as outside interests who want to mine coal or drill for oil, opposed the designation. But you're right that the local tribes did want it even bigger (or most of them. IIRC there was one tribe that opposed it).