Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm sure many of you are aware of the National Park Service's proposal to dramatically increase admission fees at the largest and most popular National Parks. A typical auto pass costing $30 now will rise to $70, putting it in line with theme park admission fees.
Is this a good thing, or should it be shot down on sight? I will admit that I have an Access Pass to the parks, meaning this will not affect me a bit, although I do see a big plus in reduced crowds. Nothing worse than being stuck in gridlock when trying to enjoy nature. However, this has the potential of discouraging families on a budget from being able to experience the wonders of our esteemed national park system.
If the fees collected go directly to my two blue state parks, I'm fine with it. If they are collected from my state to benefit some other state, I'm not good with it. I am very tired of seeing blue state money going to red states. There should be complete visibility on the amount collected from each park and exactly what infrastructure the money is benefitting. I have no issue to contributing to my own state parks though - they are stunning and we are proud of them.
I'm sure many of you are aware of the National Park Service's proposal to dramatically increase admission fees at the largest and most popular National Parks. A typical auto pass costing $30 now will rise to $70, putting it in line with theme park admission fees.
Is this a good thing, or should it be shot down on sight? I will admit that I have an Access Pass to the parks, meaning this will not affect me a bit, although I do see a big plus in reduced crowds. Nothing worse than being stuck in gridlock when trying to enjoy nature. However, this has the potential of discouraging families on a budget from being able to experience the wonders of our esteemed national park system.
Thoughts?
As someone that uses the parks very regularly (my yearly pass always pays for itself in just a few months), I'm fine to pay more. I'll keep going because I love the parks, and I support their purpose for existing.
I worry that more expensive parks will mean less people will feel open to going to them, and that would be a bad thing long-term. A population that is disconnected from the natural world won't feel the need or desire to protect it. And it will continue to need protection.
In an ideal world, National Parks would either be free or be as cheap as possible to enter.
I suspect attendance numbers will go down, which will justify even more massive cuts and/or closures. I wonder if it will push more people to buy passes, or whether the pass price will increase as well.
I suspect attendance numbers will go down, which will justify even more massive cuts and/or closures. I wonder if it will push more people to buy passes, or whether the pass price will increase as well.
I worry about this, too - but I don't think we (the American people) would allow it to happen. That is, a current National Park to either close or sell off parts of its land to private interests...
But, then again, the risk is there. Especially if the general population shows less and less of an interest in the parks.
They saw us coming when they charged the first penny and people paid it.
It would be nice if they were free for all to use. But it does cost money to keep them up and to maintain their facilities. What other payment system would you propose?
totally against it. fees are high enough already. more push-through inflation transferred to taxpayers because govt. wastes money hand over fist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.