Pays to be a Geezer. Proposed peak season NP pricing.

An increase in park entrance fees probably won't directly affect many of us - I am going to guess most of us either have annual passes (that for some reason wouldn't going up in price ????) or geezer cards. I am also not against inflationary adjustments to park entrance fees. However the argument that these increases are to help benefit the parks, when they are accompanied by a 13% budget cut to the NPS holds no water. If both Zinke's budget request, and the increased fees are enacted, the net effect would still be a large reduction in the NPS budget, AND to exclude lower income folks from the parks. The fact that this is only in peak season, only at popular parks and doesn't effect annual and geezer passes makes it pretty clear to me that this is an ideological decision largely about reducing visitation. Hoping that a fee increase is really hoping that the fees will price lower income folks out of visiting their parks - which is not a position I am comfortable with.

Permits are somewhere where I think there is an opportunity for increased revenue and more fairness. From talking to some friends who are back country rangers in the NPS, the permitting system is being seriously abused now that it is largely through Recreation.gov. On busy summer weekends in popular parks like RMNP, ~30% of the back country permits are no shows. We have experienced this as well when we have been backpacking - the permit system will show all the campsites occupied, yet as we hike in, at least 1/3 of the campsites have no one in them on busy weekend nights.

What happens is that during the spring when the permits for the next summer become available everyone who thinks they might want to go backpacking/rafting etc goes on line, pays their $25 and applies for what ever they think they might want. Then when summer comes around and life intervenes or they end up being less ambitious than they were when they had spring fever and they don't end up using the permit (it is only $25, no big deal) but seeing they just booked it on line they never end up cancelling. Particularly with rafting and backpacking permits, you can't really reuse these no show permits, as by the time you realize someone is a no show, there is not time to issue the permit to someone else, get to the trail head (often hours of driving from the back country office) and hike in the 3 - 10 miles to the designated camp site. Also, as Stalkinglight pointed out, not many folks have the time to get all packed out and just hang out at the back country office hoping for a cancellation that may fit their requirements.

I personally think they need to make the permits more expensive (make the permit $70 + $25, but it includes the entrance fee) and more interactive to get (you need to call the ranger and actually talk about what you plan to do). Or make a deposit- you pay $100 application fee, $75 of which is refunded when you pick up your permit on the day of your trip. Or a black list - you need a drivers license number, if you are a no show without canceling your blacklisted from the permit system for a year or two.
 
Spot on Rondo regarding permits and no shows.

Why I think it is good to be able to reserve a permit, BUT, a permit holder should be required to go to the permit office for the respective park and pick up their permit on the day it becomes effect. A "no show" by a certain time of day, opens that permit and use for folks on the daily waiting list (walk ups).

I didn't think back country permits were available on Recreation.gov. All the back country permits I've applied for have been directly through the back country permit office for the respective park. Of course, things could have changed in the last 5 months.

The reality is the federal government can not continue to borrow and spend. It doesn't matter which political spectrum you support, borrowing by the Fed simply is not sustainable. Budget cuts must begin somewhere. Why I supported sequestration; and yes, it put the hurt on many departments.

DOD experienced significant budget cuts the last 8 years. To such an alarming extent, only 50% of the Marine Corps combat aircraft are combat mission capable today! There were some bone headed decisions 20 years ago that put the Corps on its current and troublesome readiness path, but, 8 years of insufficient funding supporting current aircraft inventory with trained mechanics and spare parts and significantly undermined the Corps state of readiness.

So the budget issue is across the entire federal spending spectrum, not just at DOI/NPS.

But, we, as a nation have to stop borrowing money, manage the federal government within a balanced revenue/expenditure budget and attempt to retire some of the debt. Again, the borrowing simply is not sustainable, not even to operate our favorite NPs!
 
I don't think that visitors should have to bear the burden of supporting our NPs. That would be like charging families additional fees for using public schools. It's unfathomable that congress wants to cut the NPs budget at the same time saying they need more money to sustain them. This will only get worse as the proposed tax reform could cost an additional $2trillion in lost revenue. What are we going to pay more for next?? This ##@@ just makes me crazy!!
 
Yet the tax reform as proposed will repatriate 3 trillion USD and that will be reinvested into the US economy. For the Fed to sustain its operation in the black, there must be a positive ROI and a surplus. Deficit spending can not continue.

I didn't mean to imply that park visitors should bear the entire burden of park operation, they shouldn't. But, users should be required to pay more than a few token dollars which doesn't even cover the salaries of the rangers at the entrance collecting the entrance fees.

Taxes collected for schools are earmarked and a tangible investment with a very good ROI for the most part. Of course, some school districts are better than others.

DOI/NPS funding comes out of general revenue. An intangible source. Why it is hard to quantify and gets folks riled up, me included, when there is talk about budget reductions that are not fair and equatable across the entire federal government.
 
We are experiencing a backlog on passes currently. Seems others have figured it out also. It may very well cut down on visitation to the National Parks but those people are going to go somewhere (cue ominous music) .
 
During the 1980's and 90's bi-partisan bills were passed to sustain a balanced budget ( pay as you go) and reduce debt. By 2000, we had a budget surplus - what's happened since then?? Who's spending all of that money and on what. Hard to blame the American people for the mismanagement of our tax dollars.
BTW - my kids were going to school in Oakland, Ca in the mid to late 80s ( yeah , I'm that old) and the school district went into receivership. At the time the choices we had had were to move to a better community or private school for 6 years.
 
There are worse solutions than peak season price increases that I have heard discussed. For example, to reduce overcrowding at the National Parks, track each person's visits. When they surpass a designated number of visits, revoke their visitation rights. Count reservations as an actual visit so a missed reservation subtracts from their allowed visits. The limit could be either an annual limit, a limit within a designated time period, or a lifetime limit. This is a limited resource rationing approach.

I do support the user funding more of the costs of the park budget. How about the entrance fee being the primary support for vehicle related maintenance. The camping fee being the primary support related to campground maintenance. Overall ongoing park maintenance could be funded from general taxes.

Theme parks sometimes designate off season reduced prices for the locals. Years ago, I was told that October was best price for locals to Epcot/Disney World.

Because National Parks are a government function, they will suffer from the lack of vision and innovation typical of one size fits all government thinking. There are no inherent incentives for government employees to innovate. Advancement is more seniority related than for finding innovative solutions. There are no patents to the individual for improving service. I spent five years working for the feds & 6 1/2 years working for a state agency and I do volunteer work with county and city agencies so I understand those working environments.

Because seniors/retired persons usually have more flexible schedules, why not limit the geezer card/ to off season or weekday use. In fact, limit the annual pass to weekday use because someone visiting frequently enough to make an annual pass cost effective, probably has more time flexibility.

I grew up within 20 miles of Smoky Mountain NP and remember well the 5 or 6 hour drive time from Cherokee to Gatlinburg in July as I worked summer jobs in Cherokee in the mid 60's.

Paul
 
88% of the NPS budget comes from the DOI. Park entrance fees make up something like 8% of the NPS budget. Increasing the entrance fees by any 'reasonable' amount will have NO appreciable effect on the NPS budget and will come no where close to offsetting the proposed cuts. The only direct effect is decreasing the accessibility of the parks. Secondly, the heaviest users of the parks have annual passes or geezer passes, so the first step in transitioning to a 'user pays' model would be to do away with the annual passes and geezer passes and make the entrance fee per day or per hour, none of which are being considered.

Ideology aside, the NPS is almost universally supported by the public and across political lines the vast majority oppose cutting funding the NPS: https://npca.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/2566/b06101e2-c05a-4928-bad2-465fd5c6840e.pdf?1445978600

So while reducing the deficit is a noble goal, it is clearly not the goal of the current 'reform' effort which will clearly increase the deficit while cutting services such as the National Parks.
 
MY 2 pennies, and I expect to get killed for a few of these.
Having lived more than half of my life within an hour of Yellowstone, I am in favor of the increases. I believe the passes should be more also. I listen to people complain about the entrance fees, then spend loads of cash on crap, a lot of people spend as much time in gift shops as they do watching the geysers and critters.

I have traveled to other countries, and have not only paid much more for fees as a visitor, but have heard of restrictions place on foreign visitors as well regarding dates to enter. I feel some of these policies are worth looking into here as well.

A friend works maintenance in the Park(Ystone) and has told me about the dramatic increase in toilet maintenance cost because some of our guests don't know how, or simply refuse the use our toilets.

The overall degradation of the park is staggering. Roads, buildings etc. Throw in reduce budgets, and it has to come from somewhere.
And compared to amusement parks, I think 70 bucks is a bargain, especially if it is good for multiple days into both Teton and Yellowstone.
The parks are a great gift, I have issue paying extra, and if I offended anyone, my bad, come on out, give me a call, I'll ride you around and by you a beer at the Bears Den.
 
Advmoto18 said:
Yet the tax reform as proposed will repatriate 3 trillion USD and that will be reinvested into the US economy.

24.gif
24.gif
Thanks for the laugh.
 
Someone suggested that we look at park entrance fees over decades to see if they have kept up with inflation. I suspect many of us visited the parks when entrance to the national parks was free, when the parks were seen as national treasures that belonged to all the American people, when our taxes earned us entrance into national parks. Unfortunately, those days are long gone. Looking at how much i paid to enter national parks in my youth and what they cost now, that today’s cost has greatly exceeded inflation.
 
billharr said:
24.gif
24.gif
Thanks for the laugh.
The Fed, CNBC, Fox Business, Harvard School of Business, and many others have stated the repatriation of over 3 trillion USD will have a significant impact domestically. The BIG political and business question is...at what tax rate will corporations find acceptable and be willing to pay to repatriate the cash held overseas?

While repatriation will have little to do with economic growth as measured by the GDP, it will have a significant impact on domestic corporate capitalization projects; jobs.

During one of the Presidential debates, even Hillary noted the important significance of getting legislation passed/signed allowing repatriating cash (and yes it is CASH) held in overseas financial institutions/banks for US corporations.

International financing and investing isn't smoke and mirrors so much any more since the passage of the Patriotic Act 16y3d ago. Reporting of international holdings by individual investors and corporations is a time consuming process these days.
 
rando said:
88% of the NPS budget comes from the DOI. Park entrance fees make up something like 8% of the NPS budget. Increasing the entrance fees by any 'reasonable' amount will have NO appreciable effect on the NPS budget and will come no where close to offsetting the proposed cuts. The only direct effect is decreasing the accessibility of the parks. Secondly, the heaviest users of the parks have annual passes or geezer passes, so the first step in transitioning to a 'user pays' model would be to do away with the annual passes and geezer passes and make the entrance fee per day or per hour, none of which are being considered.

Ideology aside, the NPS is almost universally supported by the public and across political lines the vast majority oppose cutting funding the NPS: https://npca.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/2566/b06101e2-c05a-4928-bad2-465fd5c6840e.pdf?1445978600

So while reducing the deficit is a noble goal, it is clearly not the goal of the current 'reform' effort which will clearly increase the deficit while cutting services such as the National Parks.
I don't think so...

The NPS FY2017 budget request was 4.339 billion USD and solely sourced from discretionary/mandatory appropriations; Congressional authorizations.

NPS barely collects 200 million USD annually from all direct/indirect fees collected at all NPS park units.

And I completely agree, this is not a politically sensitive question for most Americans. The vast percentage of Americans support the NPS. But, sadly, there is not enough gold in the pot for all special interests and currently social interests gets far more attention than the NPS.
 
In 2004 corporations were able to repatriate billions of dollars under the guise of the American Jobs Creation Act. There is no evidence that more jobs were created. In fact the top 15 corporations that benefitted from this windfall cut 21,000 jobs in the following 3 years. The majority of studies indicate that the repatriated $ was used to pay down debt, increase dividends and stock buybacks. Why should we reward corporations that don't want to pay their taxes with another giant giveaway while the average American has to pay the cost with reduced services and higher fees !?
 
[rant on] At the risk of increasing the temperature of some, corporations don't pay taxes. They collect taxes from their customers, pass them through their accounting systems then deliver the customer paid taxes to various governments. You, the customer, pay all the tax in the price of the goods or service. If you don't understand this, it would be to your benefit & the good of the whole to read some non-Keynesian economics books. I recommend any by Milton Friedman or Thomas Sowell as a good start.[/rant off]

I apologize for any ensuing flames. :)
Paul
 
On our last visit to Canada, the park entrance fee was $C 10 per day per person and so we purchased the vehicle annual for $C 135 in early July which allows another visit one year later no later than the last day of July. 7 days of park visits was the break even point for the annual. Both charges, daily and annual, are higher than in the US even correcting for currency. Money well spent.
 
I doubt any of us will succeed in convincing others among us that corporations do or do not pay tax, that budgeting under sequestration is good or bad, that repatriation of corporate taxes will or will not occur given a strong incentive to do so (and as a practicing CPA and Registered Cynic I have lots of thoughts about of that, all of which I'll gladly keep off of these forum pages).

What I observe is the reality that user fees, in general, are on the rather dramatic upswing and have been increasing markedly for long enough to blame both sides of the aisle for it. I've seen ramped-up user fees for advance IRS rulings, NC Secretary of State filings, NC Department of Revenue filings and rulings, local personal and real property tax assessments of fees in addition to taxes, and so forth, ad infinitum, all over about the last 10 years, which has seen absolute domination of the policy makers rest on each side for some of that decade.

I read the official NPS piece about how the peak season rates are proposed and at which NPS units. I do not once ever recall seeing complaints about admission fees discussed in this or any of a half-dozen other forums which I regularly peruse and/or participate in. I distinctly recall reading lots of complaints about overcrowding among many if not most of the NPS units for which the peak season increases are proposed, and pretty much everybody complains (and rightly so) about deteriorated infrastructure at NPS units.

It's also often heard that some believe "government should be run more like a business". Well, if that happens to be within one's belief system, there's your answer to peak season pricing. Every private business will take care to observe what its peak season is and will do everything it can to maximize its revenue from items of limited supply while the demand is there. It's foolish not to. We call it "making hay while the sun shines".

As to "all of the fees (or is it only the increases in fees?) being earmarked for deferred maintenance", we'll see how that plays out, and we should as users bird-dog the NPS on this point to the greatest extent possible. But as a proposal for how the NPS may run its enterprise, I have no problem with peak season pricing, none at all. As mentioned a couple of times above, it's about the smallest line item cost among the list of costs of vacationing/visiting National Parks.

Foy
 
Interesting and worthy topic...

There are really two distinct topics; the federal budget appropriations and funding of the NPS. I'll leave the federal budget comments off for now.

As an Easterner I can distinctly remember the first time I visited Yellowstone. I was completely awed and commented at the time to my wife that if they charged ten times the admisssion fee it would still be worth it! That was almost 30 years ago..

As a general rule I am in favor of user fees paying to support a particular entity. Evan at $80 the geezer pass is still a huge bargain and I can't wait until the day when I can qualify but in the mean time I'll still buy the annual pass and consider it a bargain given the beauty and serenity we get from visiting our National Parks...
 
Back
Top Bottom