You are here

Traveler's View: Rethink National Park Pass Fees

Share

The fee structure for the annual American the Beautiful National Parks and Federal Lands Recreation Passes needs to be revised.

Interior Department officials need to rethink the fees that are charged for annual park passes.

The current fee structure just doesn't make sense, and works at odds with the National Park Service's stated desire to see younger generations fall in love with the National Park System.

It was back in 2006 that the old $50 annual parks pass was phased out by the Bush administration in favor of the $80 America the Beautiful National Parks and Federal Lands Recreation Pass. At the time, then-Deputy Interior Secretary Lynn Scarlett called the pass "a cost-effective and easy option for those who plan to visit multiple federal recreation sites."

That might be so, but the rates for the passes need to be revised.

Why charge anyone who has reached 62 years old (or three years below the Internal Revenue Service's currently recognized retirement age) just $10 for a lifetime pass to all 394 units in the system, and at the same time charge someone just starting out their adult life $80 for the same pass with another significant difference: it expires 12 months later?

While we at the Traveler generally frown on park entrance fees, it's obvious that they're not going to go away anytime soon. But they could be made more equitable. Indeed, adjusting these fees could very possibly increase revenues for the National Park Service while possibly encouraging more young adults to visit the parks.

Let's look at some numbers.

In 2010, purchases of the annual $10 interagency senior pass raised $4,956,076, while sales of the annual $80 pass raised $20,327,810. Doubling the seniors' pass to $20 could turn that $4.9 million into $10 million. Do away with the "lifetime" duration of the pass and the numbers jump higher.

True, if you returned the cost of the annual parks pass back to $50, the annual revenue theoretically would fall to around $12.7 million. But that's not as significant as it might seem.

Using 2010's income figures, those changes -- upping the senior pass fee to $20 for a one-year pass and reducing the annual pass fee to $50 -- on the face of things would trim the Park Service's annual take to $22.7 million from $25.2 million. But if the senior pass were both increased to $20 and had to be renewed every year, the paper loss most likely would turn into a gain.

The guess here, too, is that a drop in the annual pass from $80 to $50 very likely would spur more annual pass sales, too, and so the chance of an overall decline in pass revenues would vanish.

If the National Park Service truly is concerned about declining park visitation and younger generations losing interest in the parks, charging those under 62 $80 for an annual pass is not the way to solve either of those concerns.

Featured Article

Comments

I have another brilliant idea.  Figure out a way to circumvent the legalities that prevent the park service from charging fees at the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.  So far as I know, it's a) the only major national park that *doesn't* charge fees, and b) the most-visited unit in the national park system.  This is incredibly unfair to the rest of the parks, and the visitors to the rest of those parks.  Not to mention the fact that GSM *needs* the winnowing that charging fees causes.  That park is being loved to death.

Yes, I understand how that "no-fee" clause got put into the park's mandate in the first place, but it's been almost 100 years.  It's long past time for that to change.


We need to clarify a few points, Megaera. (1) Great Smoky Mountains National Park is not the most heavily-visited of the 394 units in the National Park System. Although Great Smoky attracted a hefty 9.4 million visitors last year, that tally was eclipsed by both Blue Ridge Parkway (14.5 million) and Golden Gate National Recreation Area (14.2 million). It's true that Great Smoky's attendance ranked first among the 58 National Park-designated NPS units. (2) Great Smoky is not the only major national park that doesn't charge admission fees. None of the nine leading national parks by attendance charges an admission fee. Again, your statement holds true for the 58 National Park-designated NPS units.(3) This is perhaps a niggling point, but it's been three-quarters of a century since the state of Tennessee transferred Highway 441 (Newfound Gap Road) to the park, and while that is indeed a long time, it is not "almost a century."


Regarding Bill's comment about "bloated" regional offices. Where is that information coming from? According to the NPS Budget, in FY2000 the regional offices had 1068 FTE. In 2010, they had 921. Don't see a lot of bloat in there. Plus, with the increase in requirements for things like IT, contracting and purchasing regulations, and other complex isuues, the small parks (which are the majority of the parks) need the expertise that the regional offices provide. If anything, the central offices need MORE people in order to help the parks.


The fee program is either politicized, or it's not. If it is, let's be clear about it. We choose to subisidize certain population groups, and not others. Seniors get a discount, like at Dennys. I'm not sure why we subsidize those with the largest motor homes, and the most time on their hands to visit national parks. But so be it.

The fees for passes are arbitrarily set for marketing purposes. There's very little marketing research behind them.

The problem with the fee program for the NPS is that it lacks a goal. For the rest of the world, fees are charged to cover expenses and create profit for future expansion and operations. Raise your fees too high, people don't come, you're out of business. Put them too low, you're out of business.

For the rest of the world, such as Disney, Hilton, and every private enterprise, fee structures are set up to allow individuals to pay the highest individual rate possible. Try booking an airline ticket. You can pay a fortune and buy a first-class refundable ticket the day before the flight. Or you can get a seat on the same flight that's not refundable, not roomy.

If the NPS was mandated to cover 100% of its operations via collected fees, you'd see some thought behind the fee program, and the way parks are managed.

For now, it's one person after another coming up with weird philosophical statements on how much is right to charge people to visit parks. Because the system lacks a standard, all of these points can be made without having to worry about a measure of validity.

PS: This isn't a recommendation to cover operations with fee money. That's not possible given the fact that the NPS doesn't control its operations. There are some sites that would never make money, and advertising to increase visitation might be in conflict with the mission of preservation.


Megaera:
I have another brilliant idea. Figure out a way to circumvent the legalities that prevent the park service from charging fees at the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. So far as I know, it's a) the only major national park that *doesn't* charge fees, and b) the most-visited unit in the national park system.

 If you're referring to units with a "National Park" designation that are heavily visited (I'm not including some of the remote NPs in Alaska or other places) then Hot Springs NP in Arkansas doesn't have an entrance fee. There are others, although I don't think they're heavily visited.

Also - what's really considered a "recreational visit". I know at Golden Gate NRA, most of the visits aren't much different than a local person visiting a city park. They also have several businesses, including a management school, a sporting goods store, storage rental, a bowling alley, etc. I wonder if those visits are recorded as a recreational visit. At GSMNP, I'd think a some of the recorded visits are people just traveling through.


The numbers you give mean nothing without more info - Regional office employees are not GS-05's or WG-05's working seasonal without benefits, (as the vast majority of those in uniform in parks are) cleaning bathrooms, welcoming visitors or fixing trails.  Those "921" employees you mention are GS-12's and above, pushing 100K, and acting primarily in positions that spend most of their time and efforts justifying the existence of their own jobs.  Add on that a hefty travel budget, new "initiatives", conference attendance and a focus on areas outside of current park borders, and you get the "bloated" aspects.  If they did an audit and only kept those functions that do provide the experise you speak of, there would be far fewer inside those regional offices.

I am all in support of necessary adminstrative needs that support the park units - but park backlogs and service aspects need to come first when distributing funds.


Here's a real life example of why it is a flawed system.  My girlfriend and I were planning on visiting at least 11 NPS units this year.  The $80 pass made me do the math; I thought for sure that I would still come out ahead but was just curious.  Because so many units are "no fee" or only $6 or so, it wasn't even close.  As a matter of fact, it was still even less than the old $50 pass.  If it was still $50 I never even would have hesitated.  We've been to 3 so far this year and it has cost us $12 plus a $5 donation.  What really amazed us was Ft. Mantanzas which was "no fee" (we gave the donation here) yet required a water taxi (2 extra Rangers, gas, boat, repairs, etc.) to get to the fort.  It seems the management in the NPS finance dept is lacking to say the least.  


Blackfeet Dreamer:
Here's a real life example of why it is a flawed system. My girlfriend and I were planning on visiting at least 11 NPS units this year. The $80 pass made me do the math; I thought for sure that I would still come out ahead but was just curious. Because so many units are "no fee" or only $6 or so, it wasn't even close. As a matter of fact, it was still even less than the old $50 pass. If it was still $50 I never even would have hesitated. We've been to 3 so far this year and it has cost us $12 plus a $5 donation. What really amazed us was Ft. Mantanzas which was "no fee" (we gave the donation here) yet required a water taxi (2 extra Rangers, gas, boat, repairs, etc.) to get to the fort. It seems the management in the NPS finance dept is lacking to say the least.

    It makes more sense if you're making a trip in the west where the fees tend to be higher.

Yosemite and SEKI are $20. Grand Canyon, Bryce Canyon, Zion, and Yellowstone/Grand Teton (joint admission) are $25. If you stay more than 7 days, you theoretically need to pay an additional entrance fee when you exit or return. It can actually work out if you plan a grand tour.  Around Florida it might not make as much sense.

I remember buying one on a single trip. I calculated all the federal recreations fees I would have paid for that trip, and it was $56. Didn't quite make up the $80. Then later on I racked up at least $70 worth of fees before the pass expired, so it made more sense. The other thing was that I would make an excuse to schedule a visit somewhere where I could use that pass. That may be one of the incentives to issuing the pass.

It's also perfectly legal to give/lend a standard pass to someone else.  It can be anyone.  It doesn't have to be a relative.  It can be a friend.  The pass has room for two signatures, and it can be for anyone.  So you could easily just let someone else "borrow" the pass if travel plans don't overlap.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.