I thought I would post the National Park Service’s press release from last week that addresses some of the fee increases we discussed today during our presentation at Zion and other national parks. Among the many interesting points the article addresses, one fact stood out to me. The article points out that Mount Rainier charged a $5 entrance fee in 1914, and adjusted for inflation, that would be $123 today. However, current prices at Zion are $15 per person or $30 per vehicle. I think it is interesting to think about how much cheaper it has become to visit national parks today as they have become more popular.
Wow. All the research we have done on this topic and I didn’t even think of the price adjustments relating to inflation. There are so many layers to this problem! I bet the entrance fee in 1914 wasn’t for carloads either. So it has gotten incredibly cheaper to visit national parks while the nearly $12 billion backlog in maintenance and cost of operations have continued to rise. I think we will see some significant policymaking from NPS/DOI and some legislation from Congress on this issue in the next few years.
Matthew, thanks for sharing, I really enjoyed your presentation. As someone who loves our National Parks, and grew up visiting them, this problem evokes a lot of mixed feelings. Last summer I was at Yosemite and the campground felt more like a mix between a refugee camp and Disneyland. I agree something needs to be done, but I wonder if fee increases is the way to go? I would hate to see a national treasure become something that is financially out of reach for families. I understand the fee increases have been nominal, but parks and camping have always been cheap vacation for families who can’t afford luxury travel. I like the idea of permits more, it seems more equitable. I do agree though that something needs to be done.
Could something else be done to subsidize our parks? I’m wondering with what other funds they are already subsidized, if we’re paying taxes to ensure the upkeep on our parks – can we simply raise that tax? If not, could we monetize the parks in other ways? Getting more money from vendors, etc.? I do think that part of having a national park is having it be accessable by everyone, regardless of their financial situation.
Thanks for the feedback, Pat. Our group agreed that we would not want fee increases to stifle opportunities for low-income families and individuals to visit our National Parks. We actually contemplated this in our paper, and provided a counterargument that we simply did not have time to address in the presentation. The counterargument suggests that increased fees do not need to take away opportunities to visit the Parks because relevant government agencies or parks could provide a subsidy or discount to low-income individuals who qualify. I’d be curious to hear what you think of this counterargument! Do you think it resolves the concern of equity among park visitors? Would such a program be difficult/expensive to implement?
The $5 entrance fee for Mt. Rainier really makes you wonder if the current fees have simply been neglected or there has been a conscious decision to not raise fees for such a long time. I felt that the comment during the presentation that a small increase in fees would not economically bar people who would have wanted to come to the parks in the past is very important. Before hearing this I didn’t think to look into the costs that are already associated with getting to these remote places, and that individuals that can afford the whole trip will not then be financially crippled by a price increase in the park’s fees. I personally feel that the parks should raise their fees. While there would be public push back, just as their would for any price increase, it seems more feasible in today’s world to raise the fees on the visitors than to try and renegotiate contracts with the vendors in the parks who presumably also have lobbying power.