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.
Here in Pennsylvania as well . . . with the exception of Gettysburg which generates so much revenue and visitors that I don't see how they can possibly lose money. Of course, given the efficiencies of fedzilla, I suppose it is possible.
A few years ago, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania wanted to close down the Bushy Run battlefield from Pontiac's War, one of our local state historic sites. The locals stepped in, took it over and set up an auxiliary volunteer group to take it over. It is now better run that it ever was under state control.
Mt. Vernon has been successfully run by a Women's Auxiliary group since 1860-- yet another successful model of alternatives to national parks and historical sites.
The first step to creating a National Park is have either the BLM or USFS take over an area. Then sometime down the road the NPS takes it over. Prime example is the Mojave National Preserve, it started out with BLM and is now run by the NPS.
Pictured Rocks National lake shore is nice for the scenery but as far as amenities are concerned I’ll pick Tahquamenon falls state park every time (and the scenery is nice too)
Not even the Rosa version?
But, strangely enough, these are of little interest to many of his core voters.
When you raise the rates it keeps the rif raff out.
I don’t know about that. When I hit 60 something, the NPS issued me a Senior Pass for $10 which lets me into national parks for free for the rest of my life. I heard that I get a 50% discount on some concessions also, but I’ve never tried that.
I propose a Constitutional amendment that limits federal ownership of land within a state to no more than 10% of the total land mass of that state.
Best way to figure out if a favorite area is soon to be closed off as a wilderness or national park is to determine if there is oil or some other valuable mineral underneath it.
Department of Interior needs more lawyers. That’s exactly where the money will go.
That’s a great idea and a rational one, I believe 10% is probably a bit too high though.
It sounds lovely.
There are a lot of lands that — in my opinion — should have stayed state, BLM, or in private hands. In the early 1990s, there were about 324 or 326 national park units, from what I recall. Now I’m reading it’s over 400.
It aint theirs to sell. All federal lands..other than those created for defense purposes, should be GIVEN back to the counties where they lay. I would even agree that the National Parks be given to the states, but all USFS and BLM lands should be given back to the counties. If the counties do not want them, then the state takes them.
Shhhhhhh! The Feds will remember to withdraw that $10 lifetime pass. It is the one thing that the Feds have done right oin centuries.
Out here in the western region, we have several states where the Feds own or control more than 30% of the land mass.
http://www.nrcm.org/documents/publiclandownership.pdf
Alaska - 60%
Arizona - 41%
California - 40%
Colorado - 35%
Idaho - 61%
Nevada - 80%
Just to name a few.
Grabbing more state land and charging you to walk on it. Priceless.
Absolutely, it’s pathetic. I was referring to an amendment, if we limit them lets limit them a lot. :-)
Perhaps, if they did not have so much land to operate and maintain...
Any additional $$$ raised with increased fees wouldn’t ever get to the parks. They’d go into the General Fund and get pizzed away on the gimme dats. It’s a scam. Veto!
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.