Parks Pass now $80!

I must have missed the discussion on this, but increasing the annual fee for National Parks access from $50 to $80 in one year??? That's a heck of a jump. At least you can still go to a Wilderness Area for free. For now.

Still pretty darn cheap if you ask me. I'll gladly pay it...

I'm sure there are people who'd be happy to pay $80 for a single visit and $300 for an annual pass. On the one hand, making national parks more exclusive could alleviate some of the crowding, but on the other it could mean the crowds will remain high, but demographically more like the crowds at Kirkwood or Breckenridge.

The last National Park pass I purchased was 50.00 (05), and I gladly paid it even with no National Parks within several miles of me. I don't believe the season pass is going to be 300.00, are you sure this info is correct?

Considering I pay 32.00 for a State Park pass here and I don't even get but a thousand or so acres, 80.00 for a National Park pass is still a deal to me - if only I lived close to one

I buy a National Parks pass every year and will likely continue to do so indefinitely, regardless of price. I'm not sure how many people are aware of this but if you purchase your pass anywhere but a park, the money goes into a general fund. If you purchase your pass at a park, i.e. at the gate, something like 80% of the funds stay in THAT park. So, since I live smack in the middle of Canyonlands and Arches I buy alternately from one of those two parks each year. The same is true of the funds generated by sales of the new $80.00 pass.

Bear in mind, this really isn't much of an increase. The old parks pass was $50.00 and the Golden Eagle stamp was another $15.00, for a total of $65.00. They have essentially combined the two fees and added $15.00 to the cost to allow access to all parks and almost all other federally managed areas that charge access fees (i.e. Maroon Bells, Oak Creek Canyon, etc.).

Consider the alternative: Yellowstone National Park, brought to you by <insert corporation name here>. There are proposals currently being considered that would allow just such a thing.

It is worthy to note that the National Parks are "functioning" under an enormous deficit. If raising the cost of the pass by $30.00 offsets the defict even a tiny bit, I think it's worth it.

Although I don't have the specifics off hand.... I do believe the program was also expanded to include most all monuments, memorials, historical sites, and other national sites, not just the national "parks." I think it's a bargain as well.

Lon

There is no way that anyone can complain about an 80.00 price tag to visit our national parks. It was a big jump this year, but I don't think that 30.00 is going to stop too many people from buying a pass. If you really do think that it is too much money..simply buy day passes when you get to the park.

There is no way that anyone can complain about an 80.00 price tag to visit our national parks.

I can. I can complain about anything.

Let us not forget that the US National Parks are public land. You and I, as members of the public, own that land. It's outrageous that we should have to anything to visit our land. We already pay thousands of dollars in taxes every year. Why isn't that money being used to maintain our land? What happened to it? The government just wastes it on...... Whoops! I see politics dead ahead so I'll leave it there. Readers are invited to fill in the blanks with their own pet peeve.

Furthermore, this land was set aside for all the people not only those who can afford the price of admission.

Gosh, I feel better now that I've said that.

Cheers,

Well, maybe I am naive, but to me $80 is still a good deal. yes, the parks are "our" land. However, the management of the parks is what we pay for. I think most of us appreciate the maintained roads, hiking trails, rest rooms, snow plowing, campgrounds, lodges, rangers, game management and research, security patrolling, emergency services and many more things the $80 pays for that I could list, but you already get the idea.

I am taking a trip in September to Zion, Bryce, Arches, Canyon lands, and Grand Canyon. $80 to spend 2 weeks in these parks is a bargain.

Sheesh! Now it's going to cost me eighty cents a visit instead of fifty.

Frankly it would be money well spent if it was a whole lot more, especially if more of it went to the individual parks.

I buy the Pass annually and will continue to do so even at $80, but like Mark, I harbor great resentment. It's no accident that our Parks are running under enormous deficit. We're funding a a humongously costly and deadly war in Iraq; welfare ranching occurs widely throughout the west on OUR public lands for a scrawny $1.35 per AUM (Animal Unit Month, 2007 rate - down from $1.56 AUM in 2006 - WTF!! ); the Forest Service builds the logging roads (using OUR tax dollars) and we taxpayers subsidize the cutting of OUR trees; OUR government undersells OUR public lands for oil and gas development; yeah, you bet I'm pissed off.

When our "government" pulls its head out of its bum and the extractive industries start paying their share, I'll shut up. Until then, I'm going to continue to kick and scream about the fees and fee hikes imposed upon me just so that I can take a walk on MY lands.

Do you people actually think your hard done by........ Far out. Come visit Australia, in Victoria the annual fee is $275 a year or $88 dollars a day to shoot in the state. If you travel to NSW or Queensland the same applies. If you want to shoot in Kakadu National Park and sell a image without paying the fee it's a $55,000 dollar fine.

Then you have Uluru - currently all visitors need a AUD20 per day permit for commercial photography of any type at Uluru plus you have to subsequently submit the images to the Traditional Owners for permission to use them. This applies to any photographer whether from overseas or from Australia and penalties could involve confiscation of gear - I kid you not. It should be noted that Uluru is on private land and is not actually a National Park in the common use of the term.

You think you have to pay to take images HA HA

If a person can afford the gas to get to a national park I think they can pay another 30 dollars. They could spend more time hiking and less time driving their huge SUV and they would easily make up for the extra entrance cost.

I don't know if you folks have had any serious medical problems lately but, speaking from experience, it can leave you with very little money. So I am extra sensitive to any increased taxes, even those under the name of park entrance fees. Whereas money is a real concern to my wife and me right now, I think that Michael Gordon's views pretty much mirror my own in this matter. Our public lands have traditionally been a place to recreate for those families of limited financial resources. Is raising fees going to be another way to widen the gap between the haves and have nots?

Keith, and perhaps Matt, are missing my point. If the system were equitable, I would gladly pay $50-80 *PER* National Park visit. Most NP's contain enough beauty and spiritual value to make moot any entry fee. Unfortunately, the system is screwed up. My point is that OUR tax dollars subsidize extractive industries that derive great economic benefit from OUR public lands, yet our arts receive the funding cuts, our schools receive the funding cuts, and so do our public lands. The U.S. government's inability to properly manage its books and collect honest fees from ranchers, oil, timber, and mining companies means that passive recreationalists such as hikers, birders, nature lovers, photographers and the like are required to pick up the slack. I'll stop for now.

As the bumper sticker proclaims, *if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention*.

I agree with you 100% Michael and I didn't even read the entire thread. The money we pay for entrance fees and inside the parks should go directly back to them. Not to the feds to waste on non-relevant politics. Then they turn around to commercialize places like Yosemite to further fund more destructive habits elsewhere. I have no problem with the fee, just how my fee is getting allocated.

And do you really think America is any different to the rest of the world????????/

If you think that OUR tax dollars are spent in any different way than yours you must have your heads in the sand.

The bumper sticker may say "if your not outraged you're not paying attention" but my own belief is "man dominates man to his own injury"

I don't really get your point, Keith, nor do I understand how it's pertinent to the topic. You're not really suggesting that I should just lay down and accept things as they are because the rest of the world is the same, are you?

I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.
William Lloyd Garrison

All the great things of humanity have been accomplished in the name of absolute principles.
Ernest Renan

The topic was

"I must have missed the discussion on this, but increasing the annual fee for National Parks access from $50 to $80 in one year??? That's a heck of a jump. At least you can still go to a Wilderness Area for free. For now."

That may seem like a heck of a jump to you guys but it's quite cheap compared to some other places in the world as I pointed out by what we Australians have to pay for photography over here if we plan on trying to make a business from the images we take. In case you missed that we have 7 states, if they all charged what Victoria charges per year, I would be paying out $1925.00 a year. Plus certain places charge extra. I didn't think $80 was a issue.

Then the topic turn political, you decided to have a winge about how your money is spent when you pay the fees, guess what it's the same everywhere and as this is a WORLDWIDE forum or supposed to be, I thought telling you that it's the same everywhere you go would be ok, but apparently I'm not supposed to express an opinion on this topic because it not pertinent to what you think the topic was about. Oh that's right I forgot this was a American board and any one else really isn't wanted, let alone make a comment on a political subject that may be different than yours.

As for the two quotes, who the hell are they, did they make a difference, obviously not or your country wouldn't be spending money having troops in Iraq the same as ours, they would be destroying the planet we both love.


A little off topic but we have a program here called 60minutes, they just did a story on the plight of Canada's Polar bears. They talked about the ice cap taking longer to freeze over every year and the bears now have major problems in finding food. They talked about global warming and then turned the story back to one of the biggest problems of global warming, the burning of coal. Australia is one of the biggest coal exporters in the world with a estimated 300years worth of coal at a export of around 25 billion tonnes a year. Our governments stand is our economy would be in recession if we don't keep selling it. Sad story but just so typical of ANY government today.

Anyway sorry for expressing my own opinion that although I hate to see what's happening to our planet, my belief in the plight of the world is very much different to yours.

Easy Keith,
I sure didn't read all that has you upset in Michael's comments. And I can't speak for him, but speaking for myself, a comment from Australia is as welcome and just as pertinent as one from the States. Regarding the posts in the different galleries, I highly value the photos from your wonderful country because they expand my world as I hope ours does yours. Anyway, please don't do that "America vs. us" stuff - we've got enough of the world mad at us without our friends in the natural world resenting us too.

Lon, you are correct that the increased cost does cover admission into other federal facilities, so that alone makes it more than worthwhile to me. I'm been paying $$$ for years to get into many places that weren't covered by the annual pass, so I'll gladly pay for this increase. Will save me $75-100 annually very easily.

Oh Yes, $80 is just terrible, the world is unfair. The cost of 4 ink cart rages, 30 gallons of gas, one or 2 months cable and WI-fi. Yes we are mistreated.
The government waste money, much of on all of us.

Discussions like this prove there must be very few real problems to worry about, NOT

Hi Keith,

Your opinion is welcome as much as that of anyone else. So keep posting.

BTW, the $80/year being talked about here is a visitor access fee - not just for photography, professional or otherwise. I am curious to know if the fee you mention is only for photography or for park access. Can you kindly let us know?

Thanks.

We have National Park fees also. Wilson's Prom which is a popular area in Victoria is $10 a day, $29.40 a week or $49.30 annual. Add that you need passes in most Parks in Victoria then it gets expensive real quick. Add the fee for wanting to do professional photography and in Victoria alone it could cost up to $500 a year.

posted by Michael E. Gordon on 02/23/07 at 01:10 am EST

<<Keith, and perhaps Matt, are missing my point. >>

I get your point Michael..I just think that if someone is going to be outraged it should be directed at the problems you have mentioned instead of the 30$ increase.

Hey Matt: IT'S ALL CONNECTED. Unfortunately, the extractive and livestock industries have a firm grip on our government, so no matter the number of letters I write or calls I make, I don't expect the situation to be changing anytime in the next century or so.

Does this concern you, Matt?
Wildlife refuges lack means to survive
"The system that spans states is being forced to choose between programs, and in some cases, animals, as staff and funding levels fall."

Somebody please tell me how this can possibly be when we permit grazing on the majority of western public lands AT A LOSS? Or how this can possibly be when the 1872 Mining Law imposes no royalty on hardrock metals taken from public land? Or how this can possibly be when my tax dollars are used to build free logging roads for timber companies who get free trees?

Somebody please tell me how this can possibly be when we permit grazing on the majority of western public lands AT A LOSS? Or how this can possibly be when the 1872 Mining Law imposes no royalty on hardrock metals taken from public land? Or how this can possibly be when my tax dollars are used to build free logging roads for timber companies who get free trees?

I have very mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I tend to agree with you. On the other hand, I'm rather fond of cheap meat, cheap metal, and cheap lumber. You and I, as consumers, will pay the cost of this one way or another. If the extractive and livestock industries were charged the true cost of these things, they would simply pass on that cost to the consumers.

I think the real problem is government funding priorities.

Cheers,

If the extractive and livestock industries were charged the true cost of these things, they would simply pass on that cost to the consumers.

As it should be, Mark. I don't eat beef or any meat for that matter, so why should I have to subsidize it? I have no problem paying more for anything, and I typically do. I'm well aware of the greater cost (globally) of anything produced on the cheap.

I do very much agree with your last sentence.

I don't eat beef or any meat for that matter, so why should I have to subsidize it?

You shouldn't have to subsidize it. Good point.

Cheers,

I said the same thing to my wife last week as we made a drive through East Zion, $80 is a small price to keep the areas clean and well managed.

I think I can agree (at least in part) with everyone: (1) Yes, $80 is not much to pay for what you get out of the park pass; (2) Yes, we are already paying taxes which should go to manage these lands; (3) No, you shouldn't have to pay for government handouts to wealthy industries; and (4) Keith, and everyone else in Australia is taking it in the shorts!

But seriously, here's the root of the problem. One party in our government would like to completely privatize the public land system and so continues to cut funding (or refuses to increase funding) to the NPS, hoping to bankrupt them. If this happens there will be all sorts of "benefits", like National Parks with McDonald's, paved trails, and waaay higher user fees!! But it's not just the NPS, the FWS and other agencies are being cut off as well.

Here check these out to find out more:
http://www.wilderness.org/OurIssues/Refuges/Funding.cfm
http://www.democrats.com/node/8625
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0520-09.htm