You are here

NPCA, NPHA Want National Park Service To Raise Entrance Fees To Parks

Share

A coalition led by the National Parks Conservation Association and the National Park Hospitality Association is asking National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis to increase entrance fees in parks that now charge them, and to expand such fees into parks that don't have them.

Doing so, they argue, would provide the Park Service with greater revenues as the agency moves into its second century beginning in 2016. 

In a letter sent to the director earlier this month, the groups urge Director Jarvis to implement proposals outlined earlier this year at a conference they organized in Washington.

Also supporting the call for higher fees are the American Hiking Society, theŽ American Recreation Coalition, the National Marine Manufacturers Association, theŽ National Tour Association, theŽ Recreation Vehicle Dealers Association, theŽ Recreation Vehicle Industry Association, theŽ Southeast Tourism Society, and the Western States Tourism Policy Council.

The proposal goes beyond simply raising or instituting entrance fees. It also asks the Park Service to consider allowing:

* Tour operators to increase their fees;

* Fees to be boosted during the high seasons;

* Daily entrance fees, as opposed to the current weekly approach, and;

* An "international visitor" package that would include a short-term entrance pass as well as "maps, services available on mobile devices and other park information and would have special souvenir value."

Under the heading of GREAT PARK EXPERIENCES & SUSTAINABLE FUNDING, the groups made the following suggestions to the director:

The National Park Service has a unique opportunity to make some important changes in its park visitor fee structure that would result in significantly increased revenue for the national park system in its next 100 years while enhancing the park visitor experience. Currently, NPS collects entrance fees, recreation use fees, transportation fees and other special fees under a variety of legal authorities, including the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004. The changes below could be done under existing authorities.

NPS should adopt a Centennial park fee program with two goals: (1) increased revenue for park operations that will enhance the National Park Service’s capacity to serve the visitor; and (2) a program that allows visitors to continue to enjoy the parks at a reasonable cost.

Some important ideas to consider include:

* A “dynamic” fee structure that (1) provides for higher fees during heavy visitation periods and reduced entrance, campground, backcountry and other user fees when parks are less visited; and (2) creates seasonal and shorter-duration passes for targeted groups, such as an international visitor pass that could include maps, services available on mobile devices and other park information and would have special souvenir value.

* Implementing individual park entrance fees at the level the National Park Service has already established for different park classifications, and modifying those fees at appropriate intervals

* Considering expanding the number of reduced fee days and free days to encourage park use by people qualifying for federal assistance programs

* Assessing alternatives to the current “carload” pricing, including charging per person fees for each adult after the first two adults in a vehicle, and consideration of charging per day fees.

* Reducing the volunteer hours required to receive a single park entrance pass, and accelerate earning of passes through volunteer efforts at parks unable to collect fees

* Reviewing park units not now collecting fees to determine whether there should be additional units with entrance and related fees for all or portions of the year, using technology to reduce collection costs and add convenience for visitors

* Increasing vital services to visitors served by tour operators to be offset by appropriate fees with adequate planning notice before implementation

Comments

Yeah Lee,

You are right again. Foolish me. I forgot to apply the NPS logic to your argument. Fees probably do not decrease visitation to parks. Thanks for clearing that up, former NPS employee but not retired NPS employee.


Smokies, that report was completed in 2007.

Here is a link to visitation since 2007: https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/System%20Wide%20Reports/5%20Year%...

Here is a link to any kind of visitation you may want to calculate: https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/Reports/ReportList

I note your report argues that implementation of entrance fees causes visitation to go down, and then uses Smokey Mountain National Park to show it. Smokey Mountain National Park does not charge entrance fees. It shows that the visitation in Shenandoah went down in 2006 from 1997. Visitation was alot higher in Shenandoah in 1994 than in 1997. Why did it go down so much in 1997? In fact, in 1991 through 1999 park vistation went down almost every year. Is it possible that the fee had nothing do with declining park visitation, considering that it had been declining for years?

Your source specifically uses 1997 and 2006 as benchmark years. Did you know that visitation increased in some parks when comparing those dates? Zion, Yellowstone, and Glacier, for example.


Visitation is affected by many factors and none of the studies or commentary above have even attempted much less succeded in isolating the impact of fees. However, there is no reason to believe that the Parks would be immune from the basic laws of supply and demand. When price goes up, demand goes down. While other factors may be in play, there is little doubt that visitation would be higher without fees than it would be (all else being equal) with fees.


When prices go up demand goes down is generally true, but when other forms of recreation goes up in price the park service could follow suite and add or raise fees and still be competitive.


could follow suite and add or raise fees and still be competitive.

But less competitive than they would be if they didn't implement/raise fees. There are still plenty of free alternatives for recreation.


The reports I linked to show that, regardless of fees, sometimes park visitation goes up and sometimes it goes down. You can wish it were different all you want, but that doesn't make it true (all else being equal).

Supply and demand isn't in play when price has nothing to do with supply.


I totally agree. The choice is when costs go up to run the park; raise user fees, raise taxes, or reduce spending (or a combination). Being a little less competitive may also reduce cost?


Interesting. Yet Disneyland's attendance goes up every year. Have they cut fees lately?

Let's see, a day at Dizzyland costs only $86 for someone ages 3 to 9 and just $92 a day for anyone 10 and older.

If logic cited above was correct, wouldn't Walt's Place be closed up by now? Or is it just that some folks feel they are entitled to a free ride in our national parks?


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.