So, trump wants his heirs to inherit his wealth tax free, but wants our descendants to inherit our National Parks for a high fee.
trump believes America, like our national parks, are HIS birthright to do with as he wishes, and should be treated as money generating exclusive enclaves (excluding most of us) like he does with his walled off properties for the rich, and as he wants to wall America off from the non-elite world.
The intentional massive funding shortfall for the National Park System will be trump's excuse to privatize the parks for the benefit of the elites. This is how the plutocrats finally have the financial inertia to control all of a financially weak government that used to be for the people. Giveaways of public land is much like tax giveaways from the public to the 1%.
The People's parks are not the People's if they have to pay an arm and a leg to see and experience - National parks we already own and pay for through our taxes.
Before the parks are starved nearly to death financially they will be killed off with air and water pollution.
Before historic preservation is erased it will be replaced by revisionist historical propaganda by the likes of empty star generals.
Before long there will be trump golf courses, hotels, resorts and casinos in greed-themed parks that will then charge an even bigger premium and exclude most of us.
And, before you know it the 1% plutocrats will demand we all pay them for existing, breathing and working on American soil.
46
Buy an annual pass for $70. Unlimited entrance to all parks for four people in one car. Cheap. Way cheaper than the amusement parks that people take their kids to. Hundreds of dollars for trips to Magic Kingdom, Busch Gardens, etc.
41
"...free, like the great museums of Washington". Don't give them any ideas.
26
Add to this litany of Trump era stupidity: no one seems to have noticed that the Trumpsters have eliminated the federal historic tax credit (administered by the National Park Service) from the so-called tax reform bill, after decades of wonderful results. A historic tax credit that was promoted by Ronald Reagan AND Jackie Onassis, a credit program that more than pays for itself, by the way, in economic impacts. A tax credit that has saved thousands of historic buildings in small towns and big cities, across this great country, for 35+ years. This used to be a bi-partisan "given" - that our natural and artistic American heritage was linked, and something to be protected for future generations, for all to enjoy. Not anymore, apparently. We are being robbed by these ignorant thugs and gangsters, and its past time to fight back.
51
If you are worried about crowds:
Call the park and ask for advice for the dates you are going.
Pick a less popular entrance (West Yellowstone is busy, drive through Jackson Hole or come in from the west or come in from Cody or come in from Gardiner or even over the Beartooth, one of the best highways in the nation).
Stop by the visitor center on the way in, or the night before, and ask the poorly paid, over worked but typically very involved and interesting park rangers what to do. There are hikes that having parking lots outside the park and many hikes on the way to Fairy Falls. There are no bad areas of Yellowstone or Rocky Mountain or Grand Tetons or any park, just busy areas and backwaters. Only the first mile of most trails has any crowds, grin and bear it and you will soon be alone in the wilderness.
Hit the big sites early in the morning, at lunch time, at dinner time, at twilight. Bring lunch to eat on the trail, I personally like italian subs.
Enjoy some lesser known parks near by, don't forget to look at national forests, BLM land, etc.
Do on-line research before you go.
I would say enter in the evening and camp, but campgrounds are hard to get into and the latest idea is to build more campgrounds for rich RVers ..
23
Are we worried that those pesky people with more money than us will be able to live out in the beautiful places? Here's the practical way to ''amke them share.''
Every night the Hard Left cries that the national debt will increase because of defense spending, or perhaps the Wall of Protection. Now they cry that the national parks might be too expensive for the urban poor to visit.
I used to worry that elite nature lovers would be the only people who get to see our amazing wilderness because roads to allow mom & pop suburbia were being fought every step of the way.
What I'd do is get gas & diesel stations, quick-stops, motels, and similar ways to make visits possible at more and more of these places. We'll need recharging stations ever so far all the way there but it is past time to democratize the wilderness.
As out of shape as Americans are, we will also need wheelchair-friendly parks, as well as railings and landings for the still-walking crowd.
If you want conveniences out in the boonies, you may see litter and awful-looking cars or people. But let's make our parks friendly for all Americans to resist the idea of selling land to the rich loners with dreams of owning castles.
7
Maybe it has been suggested already within the Comments but why not prorate the amount paid to the Natl Park Service based on the value of the vehicle used to enter the park? Owners of German SUVs pay SIGNIFICANTLY more than those arriving in 10 yr old Honda Civics. Oh sure there will be the cheaters, etc. but it might instill SOME bit of fairness.
13
Gutting the budget isn't helping and crowding can be handled with real planning. Instead of cutting funding invest some real dollars to upgrade how people travel in the parks and increase places for people to stay that can handle the numbers. I'll bet with real planning there are ways to improve how people experience the park without damaging the environment. For once do some real planning and look forward not cutting back. Oh whoops, I forgot, let's make the Parks impossible to visit so no one will care when we begin extracting every mineral and dollar we can. Zinke will be all for it.
19
Our national parks are significantly overcrowded as the NY Times just reported https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/27/us/national-parks-overcrowding.html
I was in Yellowstone this summer and the National Parks service reported that 50% (yes, that is correct, google it) of visitors to Yellowstone are from the People's Republic of China. They come in buses by the tens of thousands. I have no problem at all sharing our great national treasures with people from other countries, but I also have no problem with charging them more than Americans pay. How this would be done I'm not sure.
31
To Donald Trump, National parks represent lost revenue. They’re too nice for us plebes. He wants to turn them into golf courses and resorts.
.
What was it that Al Czervik said on Caddyshack? “Country Clubs and Cemeteries are the two biggest wastes of prime real estate.” Trump replaces parks for country clubs - but otherwise the attitude is the same.
10
I avoid most national parks because too often they’re packed with people. Being loved to death. So frankly, I couldn’t care less if people have to pay more. Maybe it’ll give the flora and fauna a break from CO2 and the heavy tracks of humankind.
18
Trump likes to punish those with the audacity to stand up and oppose him, and Parks employees have been doing so since day one, much like the unsung librarians who were first on the front line when Bush signed the Patriot Act. Parks employees were first to warn of Trump removing nearly all the scientific data from the White House website, and some of the first to expose his targeted cuts to important, successful climate programs. The Rogue National Parks employees' twitter feed trolls Trump with delightfully clever irony.
Donald Trump can't win a fight with logic, and he can't win it on morals, merit, or creativity. The only way he can win an argument is by applying gobs of ill-gotten money. Even his itchy nuclear trigger-finger is an extension of this illness that possesses him. In his mind, he paid for those nuclear warheads, by golly, and he's gonna use them!
From the National Parks and Puerto Rico, to Obamacare, to North Korea, every situation comes down to his method of appeasing himself with either an aggressive application of wealth to whatever is causing him irritation in the moment--or the aggressive removal of wealth from it. That's all he knows.
39
There are many things I despise about Felon Don, who does not (as far as I can see) have any redeeming qualities. But with all his affronts to our political system, freedoms and way of life, one of the epitaphs of his presidency will surely be his disgraceful environmental record. To wit, in less than 9 months in the White House, Felon Don has:
- tried to kill the Paris accord on lowering emission levels;
- attempted to resurrect the long-dying coal industry;
- made plans to shrink and eliminate areas set aside for conservation;
- got the ball rolling on opening most of the outer continental shelf and pristine lands like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, sensitive areas near national lands to mining, and protected sea conservation areas to fishing;
- rolled back anti-pollution and pro-conservation regulations;
- appointed and nominated non-scientists and anti-scientists to science positions and anti-environmentalists to environmental protection positions;
- and proposed destructive budget cuts to EPA and the national parks, even while proposing to increase admission fees for the most popular national parks, as Mr. Egan notes here.
And that's just a small sampling of Felon Don's anti-environmental activism. He is an old man, unlikely to be around to see the long-term effects of the damage he is wreaking. But future generations are likely to suffer the consequences for generations to come. And for what? Some short term profit for the already rich? Sad!
42
How about letting low- and middle-class people in for free and charging upper-class people, say, a couple hundred (or thousand) dollars to enter? Or even more. Let's see how they like being excluded.
14
Should people bring their income tax statements, certified of course, to show the park ranger?
13
Thank you for this column, Mr. Egan. There have been too many ways in which the Trump Administration is changing our country and it is not for the better. It is my hope that Congress will wake up sooner, rather than later, and that everything will straighten itself out. But, this is pie-in-the-sky pipe dreaming, so I will not hold my breath.
10
Take a closer look at the Yellowstone Club in Montana if you want to get a potential future glimpse of over the top opulence within our parks. It is beyond and above what the average American will ever experience. Keep in mind, those owners maybe spend about 2 weeks a year at their mountain manses, if even that.
To all who defend the YC, I know it is a private club and not on Nat'l Park lands but that property was bought from the federal gov't. and borders federally owned lands.
Can you say boondoggle?
23
Those justifying an increased admission fee completely miss the point. These are OUR national parks. Admission to them should be zero, or at least nominal. We don't charge people to enjoy rainbows, smell wildflowers, or thrill to the sight and sound of wildlife. So far as paying for Park rangers and public facilities that facilitate public use, the American public should collectively pay for it. It's our National legacy. We should want to generously share it with everyone.
7
National parks and public lands are our greatest American treasures, land being the bedrock of our shared commonality. We all own these lands, our taxes pay for them, we should all have access.
But at the same time, there is the "tragedy of the commons." That which is owned by all is respected by none. And use of something special by everybody at the same time will destroy it. And some "recreation" is actually wreck-reation. Land managers must provide public access, but must also preserve ecological resources undiminished into the future.
Ideally our public lands would be well funded, and land managers would be allowed to make the call on fees, access and activities. Many places are being "loved to death" and higher entry fees might cut back on degradation. But this should be the call of biologists and land managers. Not politicians.
16
The parks are *overrun* with people. I've been to both in the past year--it's unbelievable. Graphs of the numbers of visitors go almost straight up.
Something has to be done or the idea of our National Parks--at least the popular ones during summer--will be only an idea. You won't find any solitude or untrammeled nature dodging RVs and buses and mobs of tourists as they race from one checkbox on their list to the next.
The $70 entrance fee per car is a steep increase, that's for sure. But consider the context of that increase. That $70 gives you a week in the park. For $5 more you can buy a year pass (to all the US National Parks, an amazing deal). Many categories of people (military, elderly, etc) pay little or no fee. And these higher fees apply *only* during the peak season and only at those listed parks that are being overrun.
If you do the math it jumps out at you--if you live nearby and can go more than once a year, the $75 yearly pass is a steal. If you live further away and will only visit one park a year, the $70 week pass is not a major factor in your trip cost. (Consider the $250++ rooms in the parks if you are concerned about the parks only being for the 1%, not the entrance fees.)
Tour buses, long making good money off the parks, are facing deservedly steep increases as well.
Taking a family of four to the movies costs about $70, with $13 tickets and popcorn and drinks. A night at the movies versus a week in Yosemite. Still seems like an amazing deal.
23
1. Anyone who can afford an automobile (national parks aren't accessible without one), a long drive and a hotel stay, as well as several days' vacation from work, can certainly afford a $70 entrance fee. This argument is silly.
2. Kelly was exactly right about the Civil War (War of the Rebellion, if you prefer). There were attempts at compromise in 1860--1861, all of which failed because the Southern "fire-eaters" refused to compromise. They would not stay in the Union with Lincoln as President because he wanted to put slavery "on a path to ultimate extinction". Pointing that out is not racist, or pro-Confederacy---it puts the onus on the secessionists, where it belongs.
Imagining the issue in 1860 as between abolition and slavery and suggesting that Kelly was criticizing the abolitionists for refusing to compromise is ahistorical: Abolition was the position of a small minority, and could not have carried, or even come close, in any state.
9
Make the national parks free for U.S. citizens (passport or proof of citizenship required) and charge everyone else the 70 bucks.
24
Can we also address Zinke's claim that this price hike is a way to address the maintenance backlog? $12 billion of deferred maintenance. $70 million in new revenue is the barest drop in the bucket so why impose that added hardship on hard-working Americans. If the administration is honest about wanting to address maintenance then show it in the budget!
It's like counting on the pocket change I find in the couch to pay my mortgage.
13
Has Donald ever been to a national park?
37
Timothy Egan's opinion piece clearly shows that nothing in the public trust is immune from being poisoned by the Trump administration. Add the National Park System to the EPA, the Affordable Care Act, and many projected budget cuts, and you have a government that is in thrall to private interests. I strongly suggest that everyone who opposes the fee proposal for the National Park System call their member of the House of Representatives and their U. S. Senators and make their voices heard that they are unalterably opposed to the fee increase. The only way this can be stopped is with relentless public opposition, which can be translated into the voting booth in 2018.
6
Look at the upside: Fewer tourists will hurt the red state economies where many of these parks are located. Good!
Come to Phoenix where you can hike, always free of charge, in the Phoenix Mountain Preserve, 11,000 square acres of pristine desert in the heart of north-central Phoenix, the nation's fifth largest city. Some parts are as rugged as the Grand Canyon itself and it is all beautiful. No motorized vehicles. No camping. No guns. Just hikers, pack animals and mountain bikers.
The land was bought by the residents of Phoenix in the 1970s who voted to tax themselves to pay for it to keep the land forever out of the hands of real estate developers.
Like Donald Trump.
Just one thing: Enjoy your visit, then go home!
6
Paul, can we assume you're a dem and in favor of our current high immigration numbers? If so, az like the rest of the country and all its public lands are just going to become more and more crowded as more and more people are stuffed into the same land mass. PC meets reality.
3
It makes sense from a kind of twisted perspective. The other part of the plan is to turn over park service concessions, which now bring in a lot of the money to support caring for the parks, to private parties who will then upgrade and charge a lot more to people who want to stay there. To support expensive lodging and tourist services, it's good to make sure that the people who can get in have money to spend and, of course, they will not want to mix with the riffraff of American families. It is an even better plan than actual sale of public lands, because long term leases can let rich people do whatever they want without having to pay property taxes. And to get leases they will have to agree not to protest mining and extraction in the parks so even more wealthy people can benefit. You just have to get into the oligarchical thinking to see the logic of these plans. Why should ordinary Americans be able to interfere with the wealthy enjoyment and exploitation of national treasures?
7
A handful of the parks are being loved to death. Too many people want to visit them and there must be some form of crowd control. Increasing the fees are one way but $70 is a bit too steep for most. How about charging more for those tours and buses that dump endless 1,000's? Or higher rates for foreign visitors?
I see lots more foreign visitors at our parks today than Americans.
5
The cost of maintaining the national parks should fall on the beneficiaries, namely the visitors. That means a significant entry fee. If the parks are our national heritage and the fee causes a financial hardship for some visitors, the solution is to offer a reduced rate to people with low income. We already have programs that validate low income - food stamps, free school lunch, etc. People could use the same credential to get discounted entry into the parks.
4
I have had the privilege of visiting and volunteering in our National Parks for most of my life. The biggest change I have noticed is how poorly managed they are now and how low morale is among Park personnel. Part of the reason is lack of proper funding, but by far the biggest problem is the turning over operations to private concessionaires and contractors. These people have no interest in maintaining the Parks or preserving the natural resources. They are primarily interested in the bottom line. When I see the difference between the tremendous facilities built by the CCC and WPA during the depression and what they are doing now, it is heartbreaking. The Parks are quite literally falling apart. Many Park personnel, including Rangers, are seasonal, earn very low wages, and have no job security. Raising fees while cutting funding and turning over Park operations to bottom-line companies who hire low-pay, low skilled employees is a recipe for ruining our Parks, not protecting them.
20
I applaud Timothy Egan for taking on the politics of Trump's mercenary assault on our national parks and monuments. It IS a political problem.
Destruction of the parks' botany, wildlife, and natural features such as glaciers and waterfalls increases daily, and Trump's climate-change deniers grow more guilty with each loss. The administration's giveaway of public lands to private corporations is appalling. How many generations will it take to undo the worst of the damage this administration has already done?
4
For the sake of accuracy, I think this article should point out that the proposed $70 fee to enter specified parks is for a carload of people to all use the park for a week.
12
I keep reading articles about this, and they typically fail to mention that:
(1) this increase only applies 5 mo/year in 17 parks
(2) it's $70 PER CARLOAD for a 7 day pass
(3) an annual pass good for a carload of people for all national parks in the whole country is $80.
Armed with that information, my thought is that (1) all of the parks are still accessible at least during some seasons at the prior rate--and most parks will be at the prior rate year-round; (2) the cost of a week's pass is still less than the cost of dinner and a movie for my family of four; and (3) for most people traveling from elsewhere to a park for a vacation, the $45 increase during peak season is not going to be a big chunk of their travel budget. I don't like Trump at all. But I don't think that this fee increase renders the park system inaccessible to most Americans.
18
The mission of the National Parks is to provide access for all of us. The fee increase creates a hardship for lower-income families. Public lands should be accessible for all.
3
"All national parks should be free, like the great museums of Washington.".
No.
It costs money to hire park rangers and curators.
It costs money to keep up bathrooms, roads, maps.
Nothing is free.
And pretending that these things don't cost money is just adding to the moral confusion plaguing our country.
People think they are entitled to things they are not "entitled" to.
If you want something, please be prepared to pay for it.
$70 per day for a family entering by car is not a lot of money.
If you think it' snot worth that money, go someplace else.
12
Thank you for this column, Timothy Egan, beautifully stated. Yes, the National Park Service is still America's Best Idea. Keep it solvent, increase its funding, and, for God's sake, keep the Grabby Old Party's greedy hands off our parks!
13
Yes, this is Federal government at its best. Kind of like the tax subsidies ordinary middle class Americans pay so Tesla can make cars for the top 1%; cars that ordinary middle class Americans can't afford. Kind of like the 75% subsidized-by-ordinary-middle-class-American tax payers Obamacare that Congress and their staff receive, but the ordinary tax payer does not. And the list goes on. And the elitests wonder why there is anger in the American populace.
5
Answer: One who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
Question: What is today's Republican?
20
The Republican reasoning that Tax cuts for the wealthy that result in deficits are ok vs. spending that improves America's social safety net, education opportunities or national infrastructure are at the heart of their thinking. For example, If they can underfund our Public Lands Agencies & management and then blame the Government and these same agencies for being bad land managers the goal of selling off our National Public Lands Heritage inches closer to reality. The reason were $12 Billion behind with maintenance in our National Parks and Monuments is exactly because of this mentality.
7
"... free, like the great museums of Washington?" Now you've done it. You've let Donald know there is something else he can charge for.
My suspicion is that Donald wants to reduce government because he ran out of people he trusts to appoint. If he can't fill jobs, he looks bad. So he makes his own truth by eliminating agencies.
Meanwhile, I'm trying to keep track of Donald's cuts to understand how much it will cost the next administration to restore, and what the loss of all that institutional memory will mean to the Executive Branch.
3
We've already paid for our national parks through our taxes. They should be free to all Americans, and to foreign visitors, too. Where do we get this nutty idea that you have to pay over and over again, in various ways, for the same public good?
2
Lets get used to this. We are no longer citizens we are subjects. We are ruled by a tyrant who oversees an aristocracy. We used to have a Constitution and its still in its box at the national archives but it means no more then the old Soviet Constitutions. And we deserve this because we let it happen. We always thought we would fight for our country, we were wrong.
5
If you are really interested in these great lands the only thing that will save them is their expansion, a reduction in the footprint that humans make (get rid of many of the concessions, does a rubber tamahawk shop really add to your outdoor experience?) and finally work to reduce the number of Americans. As our population booms towards a half billion at mid century (sorry liberals, but this will be due almost exclusively to immigrants and their offspring), the parks, our air, resources, open space, everything will be sacrificed to accommodate a number of humans this continent was never meant to support. If you want to live in a country with even a modest chance of being in harmony with nature the only real chance will be fewer of us. The increasing cost of admission is just a symptom of our larger problem.
6
"Wherever Hugo"does not understand the depth of understanding this journalist has for our national parks. I have heard Mr Egan speak of the beauty and importance of family use of our national park system while he was growing up and on his own family's use of the parks. Thoughtful critique is not a lost skill.
3
Please keep your wonderful exposes coming. The ONLY hope we have to stop these colluding mauraders of our country is to shine a bright beacon on their evil ways. The daily assault on us by them is breathtaking. Are they working off an insidious list? What or who can we harm next? What constituency, other than the .01 percent have we not betrayed? They certainly have no shame, for they are as brazen as the great train robbers. Out in the open, explained by the duplicitous Sarah Huckabee in the most Orwellian double speak , and rubber stamped by the politburo Ryan and McConnell. Thanks you, mr Eagan for shining the spotlight. The least we can do in dark times
3
Many of the commenters here correctly point out that the main problem with NP congestion is automobiles, and there are ways to avoid this, such as designated parking lots on the periphery of the parks, with public transportation in the parks themselves.
That said, raising the entrance fees at selected National Parks are only a foot in the door to raising fees at all National Parks. This will certainly reduce visitors to the parks, but as fewer and fewer Americans visit these parks, public support will weaken, and privatization will become more likely.
The public comment period on the proposed peak-season entrance fee proposal will be open until November 23 of this year. The planning, environment and public comment website is parkplaning.nps.gov/proposedpeakseasonfeerates. Written comments can be sent to 1849 C Street, NW, Mail Stop:2346, Washington, DC 20240.
3
Dear NYT: Has it occurred to you that the reason "You may have missed this, between the indictments, the terrorist attack, the Civil War revisionism. But..." is because you are failing at journalism? Actually, I knew about this a few weeks ago, thanks to the Alt NPS, who is doing a fantastic job reporting the actual, real, policies coming out of Zinke's "interior", and the ramifications the actual, real, policies have for the American public. There are many, many absolutely devastating policy and rule changes that have real, terrible, consequences coming out of the Trump administration. Perhaps if you spent a little more effort reporting those, and a little less to making sure we hear about every vile tweet emanating from the tiny mind and fingers of the "president" and analysing his every month and move to death, we would all be better off, and better able to focus our efforts. And, maybe, just maybe, reporting on concrete policies and their consequences might - just might - assist the scales in dropping from the eyes of many of his supporters. None of us WANT to be priced out of our National Parks - not even Trumpists want that. None of us, not even Trumpists, WANT brain damaging chemicals in our water. Most of us, even Trumpists, when confronted with specifics, want pretty much the same thing. Personal attacks and insults haven't been effective at all so far, so why don't you try reporting the facts, and detailing the consequences? So we don't "miss" anything important?
2
I am a left-leaning liberal with a very negative opinion of Republicans in general and Trump in particular. I love the outdoors and consider our National Parks, Wilderness areas and other public lands our greatest treasure. And not only do I support the proposed increase in entrance fees, I would make it much steeper. I would charge entrance fees of at least $ 100, perhaps more, for every single park. The parks are being overrun by people with no outdoors culture or ethics, people who only go to a National Park to take selfies, have a picnic, leave behind lots of trash, make noise, and generally ruin these places for those of us who appreciate them for the unique natural areas they are. If raising fees to exorbitant levels is what it takes to keep the ignorant and intrusive rabble away, let's do it.
9
Raising the entrance fees might eliminate the overcrowding and litter problems, not to mention the endless selfie-takers and people stealing baby animals. I support the increase. The parks can do what many museums do by having a "free" afternoon once a week for the hoi polloi.
7
This article leads readers to believe that the cost is $70 DAILY. This is only true for the drive-through types who try to pack in as much as possible on that one week whirlwind tour vacation. These are the folks who most likely only get out of the car to snap that selfie, harassing wildlife in the process.
The $70 admission is for a car full of people for an entire week - not a single day. Anyone traveling to see our wonderful National Park system can also purchase a yearly pass for $80 which admits you to 2,000 parks and conservation areas. Military personnel can obtain the pass for free, those over 62 pay only $20 (or $80 for a lifetime pass). Once inside our parks, standard activities are included in the fee.
The comparison to Disney attractions is quite apt, however. My experiences in the parks this past summer proved that far too many Americans treat our parks as if they ARE Disney rides - children run amok, adults ignore "stay out" signs, people climb on anything and see no problem breaking off mementos or leaving behind graffiti and trash. The few folks who are hiking to enjoy the astounding beauty and quietude of the outdoors are indeed few. Even the campgrounds, other than the most remote ones, are mostly party zones. Sitting in stillness in the vast outdoors is becoming a lost art.
If raising the fees discourages these irreverent tourists who are there for the ego boost of a "been there, done that" social media brag, then I say hooray!
8
Why no mention of how we the people can have our voices heard on this issue? Participate in opposing this newest insult to our American heritage.
Submit your comments today, or allow trump to take away public access to our parks.
https://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?documentID=83652
4
I have this horrible vision of POTUS, his enablers, and minions as the hungry ghosts of Buddhist lore. Always grasping, always lusting, never satisfied, incapable of serving the common wealth because they claw all to themselves. The damage they've done is heartbreaking; the damage they are poised to do is frightening. Somehow, they need to be exorcised from government, and our nature.
7
Look at the actions of these immoral men, are so-called "leaders". Making it too expensive to visit national parks. Proposing another tax plan to hand even more money to the already filthy rich. Trying over and over again to take away healthcare from Americans.
In the film "Gladiator" the Emperor Marcus Aurelius says this about the possibility of his insane son, Commodus, becoming Emperor after he dies: "Commodus can not rule, he is not a moral man". This is what we now have. Men (and they are almost all men) with no morals, no ethics, no compassion, no humanity, ruling the world. These are dark times indeed for the Empire.
5
Boy, this one really got to me. I have bee sort of bent out of shape ever since the the rape of Yosemite Valley by Delaware North. This act is one of the best examples of the how greed and ignorance are what really drive "business".
Government is not, has never been the "Problem". Government is a problem for the greedy ignorant because Government of for and by the people is looking after the Common Good.
The People's problem is and has always been the greed and ignorance of individuals whose only concern is their own greed and self aggrandizement. It is these diseases which have infected our Public life. They have become so virulent and viral that a few hundred of these have now purchased our government and are using it as a business to make a profit for the few who are wallowing with the present pig in the White House trough.
6
Note to Editors: I had to do a Search again for Mr. Egan's article, which, by the way, is much better than Mr. Brooks' article on sex!
Growing up in the 40's in California, the highlight of the summer was a family camping trip to Yosemite! Those were the days of the actual Firefall from Glacier Point.
It is with sadness and anger that I helplessly watch Trump - aided and abetted by this GOP Congress - tear down our country and destroy so many good things!
How is it that this GOP controlled Senate voted to approve Trump's cabinet appointments of secretary's that are chosen for their zeal to destroy the very thing they are supposed to be leading?
4
I have no problem with raising the entrance fees for our national parks. Many of the facilities are in desperate need of repair and replacement to support the vast numbers of visitors.
As usual, though, many of Trumpanzee's actions have no strategy behind them. Here's an idea.....let's reduce our wasteful spending in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan by $500 million or so and give that money to our park system for repairs and new hires. It's about time we did more for our citizens and less for countries who don't like or appreciate us in the first place.
5
Let's not forget that those national parks are ringed (if not smothered) by the gated mansions and fourth homes of the 1% already. This is just an assurance that those dusty people they try to forget won't spoil the view.
3
The overcrowding at national parks just shows that we need MORE protected natural areas for people to visit and recreate in and enjoy, not fewer.
How very ironic that the administration is trying to gut the national monuments designated in the last 20 years and also to gut the Antiquities Act which gives the president the authority to designate them.
People to need to speak up loud and frequently in any way they can to protect our natural heritage and birthright as Americans.
4
The Republicans would love to privatize the parks, and they are actively giving federal land away in a fire sale to their rich connected friends for drilling and real estate development. It's no surprise the GOP are starving the parks by taking away their funding, and if anyone thinks the $70 fee is going toward fixing the infrastructure, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell to you. That fee will go right back to trying to decrease the huge increase in the deficit caused by the tax cut for billionaires.
These national treasures belong to all of us, but not for long if the Republicans get their way.
5
Our National parks are overcrowded and in need of additional resources. Having the luxury to spend a day in such magnificent surroundings is a bargain at $70. Going to a movie costs a family of 4 more than that!
4
These are "public" parks and were established as such. Ironically, it was the Republican Teddy Roosevelt—who loved hunting and camping and slept under the stars with John Muir—who is partly responsible for preserving the the idea of national parks for all the people to enjoy.
But alas, the gold-plated, phony Trumpster is totally alienated from nature. He and his political party worship at the alter of money and the extraction industries.
No, they conveniently refuse to grasp what public means and why we need it. These are the deciders who truly believe because they are rich, they are better than everyone else and have been chosen to have dominion over all the earth, which is simply there for them to plunder, ruin for everybody else, and aggrandize themselves. Ask the Kochs.
But here is the really sick part. For them, it is none of this "To whom much is given, much is expected." No noblesse oblige or responsibility to society for Trump, the GOP, the Kochs and the other nefarious wizards of Wall Street behind the curtain pulling the political strings.
Worse, these shameless humans are not only greedy; they suffer from avarice and find being rich ever so much enjoyable if they can take from the little people and render their existence subservient and miserable.
So, by all means raise park entrance fees, price the little people out of the market, and let the rich use those national park lands to make money for themselves. After all, who is nature for?
2
Mr. Egan - You probably need to talk with Lt. General Kelly. You might discuss his views of the sanctity of the battlefield.
You surely and with utter disdain misrepresent his views on the major battles that shaped our country and on the honor of the men and women who fought for it.
You should feel more responsibility for your writing.
Of all the many hideous things the current administration has proposed, this one makes me sick at heart.
I hope some of us who love the parks will take this as a call to increase our donations to them (which, as Mr Egan says, rightly should be free to all of us.)
2
Will we recognize our country when Trump is finished?
2
As a reply to Roberta Winter: is it not strange that two weeks ago a friend mentioned the French Revolution in regard to Donald Trump and his billionaire friends? Then, last night in a conversation with relatives concerning the so-called new tax cut, cut, cut, the French Revolution was brought up and its causes seriously considered. And, now, less than thirty minutes before I began to write a comment in regard to Trumpism and the French Revolution, Roberta has eloquently invoked it. It is a small sample, yet a true sample, of what Americans are beginning to discuss. Trump cannot be controlled; he will destroy our parks, our values, our democracy, unless he is forced to resign or is impeached.
2
It is unfortunate that "the 1 %" cannot be made to pay for the maintenance and upkeep of "their" national parks.........
2
I don't think it's a stretch to say that a sizable percentage of Trump voters couldn't find a single national park on the map, so it's meaningless to them. So, this is just another toss of Red Meat to the base: "We don't want 'those people' in the parks." As far as Trumipsts are concerned, only tree huggers visit parks and we don't need to do those Lib-ruhls any favors.
As for it only being some parks in some months, don't kid yourself... that's just for now.
2
$70 to bring your entire family to the Grand Canyon et al & enjoy majestic splendor for a week OR pay $100 per person per day to visit an amusement park. You do the math.
4
There are many valid alternatives for funding the Park Service that do no involve harming what the national parks are all about, the people. Keeping the estate tax will not only keep the national parks fees low but will only impact those who can afford an increase in price and this is one viable option that could be used instead of increasing national park fees. If the price is raised to seventy dollars many people will have to forgo visiting the parks and taking in the natural beauty that the United States has to offer. It seems counterintuitive however, Trump does not care about the national parks as they do not provide him with any benefit in any way. We need a President that cares about the environment and will not use it as another sector in which he will cut budgeting to fund his selfish agendas.
2
I am no Trump fan, and I detest many of the new policies from Secretary Zinke. But Timothy Egan overstates his case here. Some amount of perspective is appropriate. The $70 entrance fee pays for everyone in one vehicle, not just one person. Also, the fee buys a pass for an entire week. So for a couple, or a family of four, looking to do some camping or hiking, this is still a comparative bargain. There is nothing wrong with the users of the parks paying a little more to offset the effects of their use. This is similar to a toll fee charge on drivers who use a specific road.
Anyone who has visited these parks must admit that the Park Service does a good job maintaining trails and facilities. So the fee is charged against those who actually benefit most directly - those who use the parks.
If you want to bemoan the cutting of the budget for the National Park Service - go ahead! I'll join right in. If you want to complain about the priorities of the Trump Administration - I'm right there with you!
But don't undermine those arguments with a silly claim about how a $70 weekly fee for a carload of people is a re-purposing of the parks for only the 1%. Even with the higher admittance fees, the Parks are a good value, and the higher fees will be born by those who most directly benefit from the maintenance of the parks.
7
If haven't already done so, go to:
https://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectID=75576
and leave your comments about this egregious betrayal of the public trust. Cut and paste your comments from here. Send the above link to your friends and followers. This shall not stand!
1
Numbers are wonderful creations.Full of whatever meanings we give to them when we select and target certain ones.And overlook others.For example, this article chose not to include the estimated $58 million it costs, annually, to secure Trump Towers for our democratically elected, Real-Estated-President.When he is in NYC. Not in NJ. FL, or carrying out, as best as he is capable of doing, in a range of international venues. Even as the President’s official abode is the White House. The latter is itself an interesting label. There is no Constitutional reference to it since its construction began in 1792 (a few numbers after the Constitution was created and signed) and it was first occupied by President John Adams in 1800. SO, it wasn’t part of the original(ist) plans for the USA. Numbers are “something else.” In so many ways. Could it have legitimately been referred to, ( only temporarily), as “The Black-American-House,” as a “perk” for President Obama? All of our other Presidents being White, male and Christian. This article’s author is legitimately concerned about increasing the entrance fee to National Parks. Numerous comments, playing with cost/person over time, conclude that this is not an issue meriting our concern. Of course. For those who can afford all of the costs to get THERE. Be there. Enjoy there. Another numerical consideration: How much is the contemporary “entrance fee” for becoming a 4 year-8-year White House tenant?Transparent and hidden? Who pays for it?
Trump's National Park is 5th Avenue, with his gilded name emblazoned on the front of a cement paradise...that's all the 'nature' he needs...
1
LOL if you can afford the travel expenses to get and stay there you can afford the entrance fee.
4
Typical Conservatives policy. In Canada the Conservatives Government of Brian Mulroney (1984-1993) imposed fee to visit Museum which before was free.
I do not know how he does it. Every time I think this president can not go lower he manages to dive deeper. I feel that he needs to rub our noses in the mud because he can not get what makes life worth living. What a pathetic, shallow man.
3
They just want to take the land and mine it and if nothing else build condos on it.
Everything is about money now. Pure capitalism ends being kleptocracy.
1
The House of Trump thinks of it's resorts, golf courses, hotels and towers as the model for 'national parks ' for the future. Our White House is part of the Trump family empire of profitable greed.
3
The necessity of protecting these awesome sites goes without saying a word after visiting several of them. Undermining those protections by cutting the budgets by Trump and Zinke is stunning and nauseating. Beauty to Trump is gilt toilets, gold draperies, a huge income that represents power over people and not buying power, and an ability to demean others and get away with it.
Zinke must think the populace is incredibly stupid to believe that he can cut the budget by $330M and lay off 1200 employees and THEN argue that he is going to be able to rebuild the infrastructure of the parks by a fee increase that is projected to yield $70M,
One of the Parks I've visited recently can't afford the manpower for all of their the entry kiosks well enough to assure that everyone pays an entry fee and you never see a ranger once you get into the park. Perhaps we'll be blessed with an opportunity to view graffiti on the rock structures in the near future.
These budget cutting clowns can't even get their estimates right. Their estimate of $70M increased income is likely to be an overestimate. At least some of the Parks in the West suffer from rudimentary camping facilities and sanitary facilities and, instead, offer either a day trip or "drive through" opportunities to add some panoramas of stunning beauty while on a trip to another destination. I'd be forced to drive around the park and not pay a cent if there were a $70 toll.
3
I've just returned from a 16 day trip down the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon. While on the river trip, I imagined Trump in the raft, camping out every night, peeing and bathing in the river, setting up his tent and rolling out his sleeping bag. It was a mind-boggling exercise in imaginative thinking.
1
The recent revelation that a Montana neighbor of Mr. Zinke - a neighbor who owns a two-year old, two-person business - was awarded a $300 million contract to fix the electric power grid in Puerto Rico tells you what kind of administration this is and what kind of person Mr. Zinke is: dishonest, corrupt, and interested in doing favors for friends through the machinery of government. Fortunately, adverse publicity resulted in the contract being terminated. We can expect more such illegal behavior from this, the least qualified, most morally bankrupt cabinet in American history. The smart money is on Ryan Zinke to be the first - but not the only - member of Donald Drumpf's cabinet to be indicted by a federal grand jury. Let us hope that three years from now the press is still free and the courts are still independent. It's a 50-50 proposition at best.
5
What would you expect differently from a president who has probably never been more than a hundred feet away from a flush toilet his entire life? Certainly not an appreciation of wilderness, remoteness, and the magnificence of nature.
1
Brilliant, as always. In the age of technological miracles, you think it would be possible to rig it so every time Trump opens his mouth to denigrate the people's America a rendition of This Land is Your Land would start up to drown him out. I'd pay for that app.
2
Being the world's cop and big brother does not come cheap. Invading nations over false assumptions costs trillions. Both Democartic and Republican administrations have been starving the NPS for decades. They are in great need of repair and upgrades. The parks are not a priority for either party until we as citizens force them to make it one.
Even with the proposed entrance fee increases, our beautiful, unique national parks are a bargain. For the cost of an NFL replica jersey, the latest Pixar movie and a tub of buttered popcorn at the XD Cinema or dinner for four at IHOP, you can have your mind blown by the beauty and expanse of the Grand Canyon or marvel at the acumen of ancient builders in Mesa Verde. BTW, the fee is good for the week.
3
I can only offer my thanks to Mr. Egan for his service.....as I get tired of typing fleshed out particular thoughts with encomium after encomium due him, Paul Krugman, Gail Collins, Michelle Goldberg, et. al. (even sometimes including Mr. Stephens, or ... if but rarely .... ' our' Mr. Brooks of kind conservative-heart and the mistaken belief that we're interested in his unenlightened and unprepared 'social philosophy').
I can't begin to imagine how frustrating and exhausting it is for you, Mr. Egan, to confront, in thoughtful and erudite measure, and week-after-week, the sins of the evil and ignorant 'boss-of-bosses,' his comfort-'nepotists' w/o distinction, experience or conscience, his cronies, and his bizarro-world cabinet choices -- every one of whom seems better suited to his and her previous roles as antagonists of the important work expected of, and once done by, the agencies and departments they now direct.
1
The fight over this price hike obscures the very real problem of traffic and overcrowding in our national parks. Increased fees may not be the solution, and Trump and Zinke obviously have no good intensions for the environment with this proposal, but there needs to be some kind of discussion about the negative impacts of cars and RVs in what should be wilderness. I would love one day to visit a Yosemite Valley without the ever present noise and smell of motors intruding on the music of waterfalls and rivers, where we could take bikes, shuttles or light rail and leave our vehicles behind, outside of these sacred wild places.
5
Sorry to disappoint Mr. Egan, but the National Parks have always been for the 1%. When the crown jewels of our National Park system were established - Yellowstone, Yosemite, Glacier, etc. - the vast majority of our population had neither the time nor the resources to visit these remote and costly areas. It was only with the post WW2 economic boom and development of the interstate highway system that the vast middle class were able to see these magnificent sites in person. Our newest parks have all generally excluded easy access by the general public, and lodging options in the older parks are now limited and expensive. It's no coincidence that the parks with good road access - Zion etc. - were established when only the 1% owned automobiles. When the great unwashed were able to drive, too, road and parkway construction ceased to be a priority. For anyone visiting a park today, an increase in admission fees from $30 to $70 is infinitesimal compared to the thousands of dollars already spent on travel and accommodation by the time they've reached the park gate. Unfortunately, most of these parks remain out of reach to the vast number of Americans, but not because of the price of admission.
6
The National Parks are extremely crowded. As the article says, last year was a record year. Many are tourists from China and Europe. The US is safe to visit, unlike other tourist destinations. The long lines on trails in Yosemite, the traffic jams in Yellowstone---there's simply not enough room for everyone. Forget about enjoying nature. It looks like Main Street in Disneyland. There has been talk about limiting the number of visitors to the parks.
The US has added 100 million people over the past 40 years. China has an expanding middle class who love to travel. The article says nothing about the damage to the parks and the animals by all those people. Something needs to change. The National Parks cannot be free for all anymore.
8
While I strongly disagree about cutting the Park Service's budget by $300 million and shrinking some of the existing parks, I do think that raising the entrance fees is a good idea. I went to Yosemite last year and the price was $35 for our car for a week. That was less than going to a 2 hour movie for a family of four. I remember thinking that it was too cheap and they should increase the cost on the most popular parks to help pay for the wear and tear from the record amount of visitors. ($70 for week-long camping trip is hardly pricing for the 1%) Entrance fees also allow us to charge international visitors who are using our parks without paying the taxes to maintain them. Yosemite seemed half filled with non-US citizens.
10
I wonder how much time the president has spent in our National Parks over the last couple of decades. If he had spent time there he would realize the treasures that we have as a country that benefit us all. The parks do generate billions for the local businesses around the parks, are there for us all to go to to appreciate our wonderful country. Parks protect our biological diversity, teach us about the natural environment, and enrich greatly us as a nation. To begin to charge more for entry fees while under funding the National Park system is a slippery slope that benefits none of us.
2
You know Sally I wonder how many Americans have ever set foot inside one of our 58 national parks. Having been to most of them all I see are endless lines of tour buses filled with foreigners. Most Americans are too busy staring into their phones to bother with staring at the natural beauty of our country.
2
My family stopped at a national park out west for a picnic during a day long drive to visit friends. The entrance fee for the six of us was already over $70, too much for us to enjoy our ham sandwiches amid natural splendor. We ended up at a municipal park nearby, which was free. Any entrance fee to national parks is too much.
4
Our national parks weren't designed for your ilk to stop by for a bite to eat and then head back down the asphalt ribbon. You have no idea and probably could care less what you're missing.
7
While I agree with you in principle, it's hard to ague that the National Parks should be totally accessible to anyone, at any time. Many of the parks at which this increased (weekly, not daily) fee are parks where the number of visitors has greatly exceeded the capacity of these protected lands. Trails, parking areas, roads, and camping spots are overcrowded. Facilities are unable to keep up with the flood of people entering these parks. For many of these parks, having this many visitors degrades the land itself: causing erosion and pollution, making these places inaccessible to later generations. Limiting the number of visitors by increasingly the fee is one of the only ways that we can prevent this destruction of these natural lands, and perhaps the only way acceptable to the current administration.
Underfunding the Park Service is an entirely different issue. Limiting the number of visitors, funding the park service, and maintaining and expanding protected natural lands would both be helpful in maintaining these cultural resources for the enjoyment of current and future generations, and should be done.
However, there are still many ways to experience these places without the greater fee. An annual pass costs $80, and gets you into any park across the United States for the entire year. Many parks also have much cheaper entry fees. Some are even free! Personally, I recommend Congaree National Park in South Carolina. Or visit in the off season.
10
Raising fees only serves to limit who can visit these parks by purely economic means. The parks were preserved for all, not just those with expendable cash. If anything the national parks should be the free escape available to all.
As you say, the number of visitors does need to be limited to preserve the natural beauty justifying the establishment of the parks in the first place, however this could be achieved through an equitable permit system, rather than just upping fees to the proper pain point as you suggest.
Other parks systems already use a lottery combined with day of permits to preserve the condition of the area while providing equitable access not dependent on economic means.
3
If overcrowded, required reservations can easily - and equitably - balance the attendance and capacity.
So can raising prices, making these national treasures available only to the wealthy. How very nice for them! And for their families, for un-taxed generations to come.
"While I agree with you in principle, it's hard to ague that the National Parks should be totally accessible to anyone,"
You then go on to to explain that the expanding herd should be culled - which is to say - keep the riffraff out so swells can enjoy the parks in the future.
Nice.
The national parks should be self sufficient, that means the fees pay 100% of the costs including long term deferred maintenance. There needs to be a transition period. Now a middle class family can easily afford that. Disney parks are much more expensive.
2
Why? Should roads also be self sufficient? Dams? Harbors? The Army?
1
Apples and oranges. Do you compare a commercial theme park of manufactured tacky fake castles and faux "old time" main streets, owned by a profit-seeking entertainment conglomerate to a cathedral of nature? The handiwork of Mother Nature (or the Almighty if you prefer) compared to a high-class Coney Island or Las Vegas without the gambling tables?
The genius of our ancestors in America was to set aside, against corporate developers, resource exploiters and their political lackeys, a few breath-taking places to step back, enjoy, and relax while admiring the scenery. Sure there can be reasonable entrance fees, and concession fees paid by the authorized eateries and hotel operator in the park. But the parks belong to us all even if we never venture there and see them only in documentaries or online videos. Our tax dollars are well spent there.
1
"Should"? Says who? Says someone who brings up the price of going to Disneyland by comparison, as though going to Disneyland could ever compare in any way at all to visiting Yellowstone of the Grand Tetons. And never mind those lumpen who are less than middle class. The get nothing. The greed and vulgarity of some Americans is frankly astounding.
2
Just another regressive tax hoisted on the backs of the ordinary American citizen. This tax bill will result in a huge increase in the national debt that will give republicans an excuse to cut SS and medicare benefits.
7
Well, sounds like an appropriate move, for the GOP. How dare poorer people presume to have the right to visit their own national parks. The hubris of some people is astounding. It's much more important to facilitate tax breaks for rich gamblers who spend their time playing the market, than to take care of national treasures. Next, Zinke will be advocating that only a Trump Hotel can save the parks. Anyone with any wisdom at all can see that. Geez.
107
The NPS is working to make the unique parts of our parks LESS accessible.
Its oficial policy, and is of course highly endorsed by the very sorts of people who write for the NYTimes. I refer of course to the usual suspect left-wing greenie do-gooders.
You used to be able to just leave Yosemite Valley and enjoy a nice day hike to the top of Half Dome. Now you need a permit. Ditto climbing to the highest point in the 48 contiguous states, Mt. Whitney. You used to be able to
camp most anywhere in National Parks without a special permit. Every year there are more and more restrictions. And this goes on forever.
This article refers to use of National Parks not as outdoors playgrounds,
but only as packaged urban destinations. Its those urban aspects that
costs big bucks, not hiking trails.
6
But saving all those city folks who cannot judge their ability to climb Mt Mount Whitney or get stranded in the wilderness from misjudging their strength and stamina cost a fortune in rescue operations. I have watched as helicopter pilots risk their lives in rescue service. As you can see for the safety of the public we can't just let people run everywhere in up every gully. But to raise the costs to visit is a sin. Don't you just wonder if Donald Trump every visited one of those parks or even a national monument? And what about the lifetime free passes for seniors?
1
The fact of the matter is that the parks are overcrowded and, in the case of some hiking trails, dangerous when so. Permitting, while unfortunate, has been a fact of national land use for decades. There is only so much space available and I personally prefer to visit Penn Station in NYC, not YNP.
1
Doug McDonald,
According to its mission statement "the National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations." Are you unable to imagine that access to parks or portions of parks might have to be limited in some way, in order to preserve them unimpaired? What would you consider a fair way to limit access, to ensure our parks are preserved for future generations?
1
Everyone should comment on the proposed rate increase. It might help, can't hurt!
https://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectId=75576
5
Thanks, Sally, for posting this. I just went to the site and made a comment. It's not hard to do and didn't take a lot of time, and I hope it will really help.
Donny does not love the USA. Everybody in agreement with me say, "Impeach!" to everybody they love. Let's get the ball rolling on this.
5
As always, you are wise beyond your years (whatever they are) in rising the alarm of Trump's stupidity in trying to harm Nature, as safeguarded in the National Parks, of which our ignoramus in chief has not the faintest idea. Knowing the prices of 'future real estate' in protected lands and zero about its value as a living heritage to be protected is classic Trump's arrogant ignorance. And lackeys like Orrin Hatch (from Utah) are the last thing we need to compound the destruction of Parks Trump has in mind. Opposing the current brutus ignoramuses in power is our obligation and duty. The prudent allocation of resources to protect and make Nature's marvels widely available is a must. Educating it's visitors in proper care of the land is, of course, part of the deal.
2
We've long passed the point of whether or not this Administration is the worst in the history of this nation. The real question is how do we return him to spin his lies as a delusional civilian.
5
I'd start by putting him in a room with you Rodger. You sound like a logical, well bread liberal. Don would eat you for lunch.
What's wrong with the new politicization of our national parks? With Trump, you just can't count the ways. And that's part of his strategy: Government by blitzkrieg. He fights his wars in public and in private, so even if the public part gets blunted turned back, the devious changes going on behind the scenes (in budgets, regulations, personnel) can do pretty much the same damage.
Recall the assault on ACA, or the EPA, and now the parks.
Call it the evil genius of Trump. Were I religious, I'd call him Satan.
3
National Parks are public property and rightfully belong to "We the People." But, of course, Trump believes he's a dictator and so views it as his personal property. Just like he treats his wives.
2
For some of us this marks the rape of the last refuge from Trump's rape and pillage of all else, the constitution, medicare, social security, health, disability benefits, not sugar by cyanide coated with lies..Meanwhile he uses goading toward war to distract us from our country's relentless march toward fascism
under the most comprehensively criminal administration in history.
5
It obvious. The fewer people that CAN go and visit the Parks, the fewer people that will FIGHT for them. They will be up for sale, or lease, to the highest bidder. And by Lease, I mean Environmental Rape. To me, the most beautiful place on earth is the Olympic National Park in Washington State. You will take MY Park from my cold, DEAD Hands. Seriously.
9
It's still very cheap considering how cool the parks are. This idea that they should all be free is pretty stupid. Nobody values free things.
8
It’s as if the idea of the US has been commodified beyond recognition. The perps don’t care about the content only the result. More money. And that is the reason the perps can use the myth of the US to cover the grifting.
Such an aspirational nation that gave up on the aspiration and now use it as a cover for financial hegemony across the planet.
Wars and more wars because a war like people, colonists, grifters, liars have accumulated great wealth to control the civilization.
3
"All national parks should be free, like the great museums of Washington." Oh, God, don't jinx it!
6
Excellent column. My wife and I recently visited the national parks in Utah. They are as beautiful as advertised- and more.
I read where there is a proposal in the Trump administration to allow uranium mining in parts of the Grand Canyon. Ever been to Moab, Utah? The Moab Reclamation Project is cleaning up millions of tons of uranium trailing's from the 50' and 60's at the expense of tax payers. And who is behind this push -- the Koch brothers. Also, there are parts of national parks where visitors are not allowed because of the previous mining of uranium. We never seem to learn.
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2017/grand-canyon...
7
Great article Mr. Egan.
What the American voter needs to understand is that this is the state of affairs you get if you want to starve and kill off our federal government.
This mismanagement of our, and by "our" I mean the public's, natural resources along with reprehensible delayed maintenance of our built public infrastructure and our hollowed-out, resegregating public educational system is what you get when you want to blow up government.
You want small government, America?
Well American voters and nonvoters alike, this is the result deservedly you get.
Michael Bain
Glorieta, New Mexico
8
The higher the price, the fewer people visit, the fewer people visit, the National Parks will start to lose popularity... once they are no longer considered a "crown jew" of America they can be parcelled out and given to the highest bidder, closest backscratcher, and/or to pay off a debt. That is what kings did in the past with their forests and lands, and that is what Trump will do fo Make America Great Again...When our democratic norms are washed away all that remains are power, greed, and corruption of the capitalist oligarchy.
9
I wonder how many, if any National Parks, our President has visited. How many quiet moments, away from TV/media , has he ever experienced walking the lakes, woods, canyons, historic sites, cliffs of our most valued resources.
"I hope that the United States of America is not so rich that she can afford to let these wildernesses pass by. Or so poor that she cannot afford to keep them."
- Margaret (Mardy) Murie
Former Wilderness Society council member
4
The national parks are overrun by too many people. Some of these people don't care and trash and maraud as they visit. I am all for raising the fee as long as the fee stays in the park, to raise awareness on how valuable these parks are. There needs to be free days as well for those that can't afford it. I had a cabin once on the borders of RMNP, and you could cross country ski in on trails without paying a fee, in summer you can hike in from other forest service lands for free. So if you get out of your car and walk or ski you can get in for free. Might do some Americans some good.
7
I grew up near Mt. Rainier. I consider it my backyard--a glorious backyard I share with the American people. My wife and I still visit the park frequently, and while there is certainly work that needs to be done there, the situation isn't so dire as to merit such an increase in entry fees. Really, something else is going on here, I believe. Meanness. The meanness of criminals, liars, sadists.
7
So David please bestow your wisdom on me. How is that work needs to be done at Mt. Rainier yet you see no need to raise entrance fees? How does that work?
1
To prove Julius Caesar's generosity to the Roman people, Marc Antony read from Caesar's will (as per Shakespeare)--
"Moreover, he hath left you all his walks, his private arbors and new-planted orchards . . . to walk abroad and recreate yourselves."
Now, to prove Donald Trump's generosity to the American people, comes Ryan Zinke with new proposals for our national parks, the places where we recreate ourselves--
Tripling the entrance fees
Cutting the Park Service budget by almost 300 million
Eliminating more than 1,200 full-time employees
Shrinking at least two national monuments
Providing special places for "VIPs, deal-makers and insiders"
Marc Antony followed his list of Caesar's "generous gifts" with the words, "Here was a Caesar! When comes such another?"
But today's answer to such a question could only be, "Never again!"
6
Zinke understands that the more contact that we, the people, have with the unique beauty of our parks the more difficult it will be for his crowd of frackers, miners and grazers to destroy our environmental heritage anywhere in America, whether in national forests, grasslands, rivers or parks. Many of the activists that oppose his destructive agenda were first exposed to the unreplaceable beauty of our country by inexpensive family or club outings to national parks and wilderness areas. This is just one more tactic to attempt to limit the outdoor experience of future generations and thus their loyalty to our lands. It is malicious, and it will fail.
9
Paul,
I think you've understood the true goals of the Trump administration's financial supporters very well. The question is: are Donald Trump, or any other elected or appointed government figure, the deciders? Or are they merely front men for the 0.1%, who gain the lion's share of profits from fracking, mining and grazing while leaving their messes for the rest of us to clean up?
Sometimes the sanest reaction to an insane situation...is Insanity. As a People, we are governed by a self-described Sociopathic Personality Disorder. Our "President" holds, as his goal and purpose, absolutely No
Obvious evidence of "Service" to anyone...beyond Himself. Yes, I am guilty of having been Proud to have been Served by President Obama. I am
Grieved by the Occupation of this same Office....by this Public Insult to
the same Office by Donald Trump. An average 80 year old, tired of the presence of this Twittering Fool.
7
The national parks have been taken away from Americans in another way, too. American college students are largely frozen out of the summer jobs market in them. Xantera (owned by right-wing billionaire Philip Anschutz) runs the many of the concessions, and it prefers to hire H-2B visa holders from abroad, for once in the country these visa holders can’t change jobs.
333
Does this behavior and favoritism REALLY surprise anybody? Cheap labor is cheap labor.........
1
A valid point -- but I think you're referring to the J Visa program, Summer Work and Travel that is intended for foreign college students to work (legally) in the US, no?
The H2B program is for more highly skilled workers, who are sponsored by their employers. [That's also a work visa program that is abused by employers, to the detriment of talented and willing American workers.....but in a different category].
Either way, your point is well taken; I wasn't aware that another one of the uber-wealthy insiders was using position, power and influence to better their financial position.
The Swamp didn't need to be drained...an entire new crowd of bottom-dwellers has occupied Washington and all political circles, to the detriment of the middle class. Infuriating!
The H-2B visas are a Democratic hallmark of our diversity Alice. It gives foreign students the opportunity to come work in America and experience our national parks. Would you rather Trump keep those people out too?
1
Ryan Zinke... all hat, no cattle.
37
Reality check, Mr. Egan.......when was the last time YOU visited a Natl Park?
Thats what I thought.
6
I'm not crazy about the outdoors and CT has only one National Park, but I just went to it. The parks are for us. It is not a case of "use it or lose it"
1
Wherever Hugo
If you read Mr. Egan, his books, his columns, with any regularity you would know that he has written extensively on the National Parks.
So, I'll attempt to answer your question, for Mr. Egan: He visits the National Parks often.
Troll in waters you're familiar with. That probably would not be the National Parks.
1
Hunh? You assume that a person who has written extensively on the West, parks, and the environment hasn’t visited a park. This is pretzel logic that begs the question....has Hugo ever visited critical thinking.
1
Coming soon: Trump International Yellowstone Resort and Sky High Golf Course.
8
It's no surprise that Trump is willing to destroy the national parks. The only part of the outside world he can appreciate has a fairway and holes to pop little white balls into. He's an ignorant man who never bothers to learn anything new, and he has a soul too small to understand the enormous value of nature.
70
Scandalous.
2
Well, at least this will affect Trump Nation, many of which are poor and will be paying higher income taxes according to their party's plan just released. When the rich who will be paying even fewer taxes now make them all rich they'll be able to afford to go to Yosemite. Don't laugh. That's how the McConnells and Ryans are lying about their tax plan.
7
Lies, and dammed lies!!!
Our national parks are our government's finest achievement. The people who are in power now--and I'm not just talking about Trump--want to discredit the government in our citizens' eyes as much as possible so we the people will be okay with surrendering our government services to private profiteers. Anything the government does really well will thus be under attack.
21
They are??? I thought that the rule of law and economic opportunity for those who are capable were the best things. A small minority of our population ever goes to such a park, I have only been in one and that was when I lived close to it.
If you've never been to the Grand Tetons in Wyoming, you've really missed something spectacular. If you've never been to Acadia National Park in Maine - Ditto.
The National Parks are America's wonders.
1
Bravo, as usual, Mr. Egan. As a daily reader of the Times Op/Ed pages and Comments section, I belong to the faithful choir of forward-looking believers that wants the best ideas to win. I'm concerned that your heartfelt and intelligent critique may not be reaching the critical audience most in need of persuasion - Trump's base and the Fox News faithful. At this late date in the struggle for reason and common sense in the debate over priorities and policy, maybe we should try an aerial pamphlet drop. How else do you fight the fire of propaganda from the right? Protests and rallies are too costly and ineffective. I'm afraid that the current media tactics aren't cutting it. What's next?
16
But the best idea is for the parks to be self sufficient, a transition period will be needed.
1
You have said several times in these comments that the national parks shpuld be self-sufficient, as if that statement is self-evident. It is not. Why is it wrong for the people, through the agency of their elected government, to set aside ans maintain certain lands for the enjoyment of the public?
TRUMP Never met an idea connected with decency, civility, culture and community, he didn't want to commoditize. So why should he stop at despoiling the National Park System. In Trump's World, the 1% can't possibly have exclusive access to what they want to hog all for themselves, without jacking up the entrance fees to the national park system to exclude the undesirables of the 99% who disrupt the pleasure of the 1%. The idea of establishing national parks and monuments was precisely the opposite. It was to be able to roam free in a free land. What's surprising is that the founder of the national parks, Teddy Roosevelt, was a Republican. Where did the GOP go so off the rails for so long? Trump's name cannot even be mentioned in the same breath with Teddy Roosevelt and, perish the thought, Lincoln. Why, the fact is that Trump is not even a Ford. Gerald that is.
10
I love the parks, but would support capping visitors in the environmentally sensitive ones. Of course the rangers already do that with the permitting system for backcountry camping, etc.
5
Let's not forget that the national parks compete with giant corporation amusement and theme parks for our vacation dollars, and that a group of people who are willing to entertain themselves, rather than settle for being entertained by a canned commercial experience (reality tv anyone?) are anathema to this administration. Thinking, independent, creative people are harder to control.
11
Thinking, creative people will always appreciate our national parks and make room in their budgets for a $70 car fee for the whole week for them and their whole families, or the $50 yearly pass . . .
Just as other people will always pay steep air fares and enormous entrance fees, and owe thousands and high interest on their credit cards, to take their families to Disney World.
While our national parks are our heritage, we either have to vote the environmentally aware into office or have to pay to maintain them ourselves.
Since with the aid of GOP gerrymandering and GOP anti-science forays into our school systems, we continue to vote GOP, it behooves those of us who care about the parks to fund them until other Americans see the light, whenever that is.
This article is MISLEADING. The $70 admission applies only to the WEEKLY pass. The authors feeble attempt to outrage me by comparing it to the admission price at Disneyworld failed miserably. Try getting a carload of people into Disneyworld for a week for $70!
As someone who lives near a national park (Glacier), I see the damage the sheer number of people creates in the park during peak season. Every year brings a new record crowd. $70 for a whole week at Glacier for a carload of people is still a bargain. It won't affect locals like me, because we buy a Glacier annual pass for $50.
I agree that the national park budget should not be cut, and even if it wasn't, this increase would still be needed IMHO.
If you think that $70 for a week is too much, you can still get the "America the Beautiful" pass for $80, and it will get you into ANY national park for an entire year. That's a darn fine bargain.
121
Yes, the $70 admission doesn't seem so bad for a weekly pass but I'm betting most visitors spend just one day, not a week. There is no cheaper way for a car to enter to spend the day; there is no daily pass.
3
And those passes need to cost more and for some be limited to times when the park is not that popular as well. Yes they are still way too cheap.
2
Most people do not go for an entire week. Yosemite, for example, is full of day-users. They'll be paying the same $70.
Also, if the weekly pass goes to $70, you can be sure that the price of your $50 annual pass to Glacier will soon skyrocket. It's sinmple economics.
4
A president who doesn't care if millions of Americans cannot afford health coverage is certainly not going to care about them having affordable access to our national parks. But the headline here, about the parks being for the 1% is off the mark. The reason that Trump and the GOP Congress don't keep fees low and don't support adding land to our over-used National Park system is precisely that the 1% don't go to national parks. They have other options. It would be more accurate to say that this fee hike is simply one more way to generate revenue for the federal government without putting any tax burden on the 1%.
5
Aside from being a charlatan, our president and his disciples have little regard for outdoor recreation. We are an obese and sedentary society with an estimated cost to our government of $150 billion a year. Common sense would say to increase opportunities for exercise and outdoor recreation. Getting people outside and away from their devices would go a long way in making us a more connected and healthier society. But there is no forward thinking with this administration. Can you imagine this president walking any further than the distance between the putting green and his golf cart? Because of visionary and forward thinking government servants, I've been very fortunate to have had reasonable access to state and national parks. Frustrating that this one person could diminish that experience for future generations.
6
Thank you, Tim, for writing about our parks. It's important to keep the plight of the parks in the forefront of people's minds. I live an hour outside of Yellowstone. Park tourists are critical to the local economy. Visitors should not be discouraged. With adequate funding, visitors could be better managed so that they do not damage the resource. Our parks are life-changing experiences -- we should always try to encourage people to experience their majesty. I have never met anyone, except my father, who after visiting a national park thought that we should support more coal mining and natural gas development. There is an imminent threat to Yellowstone right now -- a gold mine has been proposed right outside its doors and it has obtained the preliminary permitting. A lawsuit has been filed to block it, but we'll see....I think that the biggest threats to the parks are the lack of an adequate budget and the possibility of allowing logging, mining, drilling, or any other commercial activity (inside or nearby) which depletes natural resources. The Trump agenda of reversing or reducing the size of Obama-designated national monuments is petty and cruel. We should preserve special places for future public enjoyment, not reduce or exploit them. But many people in the rural community where I live value jobs that extract natural resources. They take for granted that this stunning country will always be here. Lack of education limits their opportunities to do anything else.
11
Mr. Egan is mistaken. Visitors are not paying just to enter the park, they are paying for all the costs of all the "improvements", such as paved roads. Entry to U.S. wilderness areas and national forests is free preicsely because there are no "improvements" to be paid for. It is perfectly reasonable to expect vistors who use all this infrastructure and the amenities to pay for it. Yellowstone is bordered by the Bridger-Teton, Shoshone, Galatin, and Targhee National Forests. You can walk or ride you horse in from the Natinal Forests and not be bothered.
9
And perhaps these should not be free either, they require maintenance and monitoring. You get lost and folks find you, etc.
1
"It is perfectly reasonable to expect vistors who use all this infrastructure and the amenities to pay for it."
--------
That's what taxes are for. Do you pay every time you play tennis in a public park? Do you pay when you go to the library and check out a book?
1
Residents of Mount Desert Island, Maine, home to Acadia National Park, sure did not miss this increase! As you say, WE OWN THESE LANDS! And they used to be open free to all. It was the Reagan administration that decided "taxpayers" (ie, Americans) shouldn't have to pay for these parks, only those who "use" them. The sequester and other short-sighted Republican funding cuts have left us with this maintenance backlog! And while $70 might not seem like a lot for a week-long family vacation, what about the working class family who lives an hour or two away? Will they have to forego their annual day trip? (day and week cost the same) Besides violating the principle of the parks as National Treasures and burdening struggling families, these increases exacerbate an us-vs-them attitude that many here feel toward the Park Service. Sadly, many of them blame "the government" and vote for "outsiders" like Trump and Co.
10
Or they might have to cut back their cable, internet, or phone bills. It is a choice and the parks should be self sufficient. If we had a surplus and all higher priority items funded the parks could be free, that is never happening.
1
The working class who live a couple of hours away? They could get a pass good for an entire year, the amount of which would be about half of their cable bill for a month.
When places get too crowded and too expensive, travelers have options - the world is a big playground for tourism of all kinds.
I am surprised that the Republicans didn't out-right purpose to sell off the National Parks (to Trump). Oh wait Raygun tried that by proposing to sell to his rich buddies (i.e privatization).
Certainly many parks are very crowded in the peak season and the local economies do depend upon that heavy influx. Yes the parks do need increased maintenance and increased funding to accomplish that maintenance which I am sure most visitors would gladly pay if all that fee would stay with the park service.
On the other hand it may be that the republicans are just trying to starve the parks so as to open them up for mining, logging, cattle grazing etc.
8
Yes any fees should stay with the park service, and probably with the park they are from until it is properly maintained. perhaps some of the popular things in DC need admission fees as well.
Many National Parks are heavily visited, yet the profiteers want to shrink the national monuments that take some of the pressure off the over attended parks. The proposed $70 entrance fee is the precursor of rampant concessionary development to satisfy the 1 percenters.
Already the rustic lodges of the past, with simple rooms, bath down the hall, have been turned into luxurious dens for the swanks & pretenders. Yes there will be relative quietude in the wilderness, without howling generators & blaring tv sets favored by the riffraff, but the ambiance will lean toward the inauthentic & adulterated.
6
I bet you can camp in a tent in many of these parks, please do.
I've waited too long to visit our grandest vista's. Now sadly, these parks are in need of repairs with too many crowded tourist spots wearing out high traffic areas; I can add now high costs to enter the most famous parks, coupled with capitalist dreams of extracting the minerals and wealth from the land.
Why we insist in hollowing out and degrading this great land is almost beyond comprehension. Money, and greed though is at the roots of these changes.
Perhaps, the broken window theories of poor neighborhoods needs to be applied to these national resources.
3
Mr. Egan is right (congestion notwithstanding) to state that entrance to our National Parks should be free--maintained by a generous budget paid from our tax dollars.
This is not only because, as Dayton Duncan accurately suggests, they represent what is best about America--the radical American ideal of equality--accessible to all; but also because they represent the worst of America.
Many of our National Parks and monuments are memorials to America's genocide against its own people. They were created on lands considered sacred by native Americans who were forcibly removed or killed by the thousands along the Trail of Tears.
To those who love nature, their stark beauty, wildlife and wilderness areas offer solace and spiritual renewal and to first-time visitor a contrast to the rapacious nature of man inspiring the need to preserve a rapidly degrading planet.
Given the importance and complexity of what our National Parks represent, Congress needs to rethink its approach to managing and ensuring access to "America's Best Idea."
6
Raising the entry fee on some national parks and slashing the budget of the NPS are different sides of the same coin. That coin is the ethos of right wing conservatives: government should not provide anything private industry can do. Just like Betsy DeVos does not believe in public education, privatize and profitize education.
In Mr. Egen's neighborhood (Seattle) there is a local commentator (Paul Guppy) who believes the city of Seattle should not run city parks. On a national level there are many conservatives who believe there should be no federally managed lands, all lands can be managed better (exploited) locally.
I remember a few years back there was a republican plan to "Disney-fi" some popular national parks. Rep. Reichert was overwhelmed with the negative backlash over this proposal.
Overuse is a huge problem for many parks but there are better ways to address over use and abuse. The bast thing we can do as citizens is get noisy about protecting and funding our parks.
6
The entrance fees must be raised to generate revenue. Later, when it is time to sell off the parklands to foreign interests to decrease our debt, buyers will see their value and be willing to pay more.
The next owners can build walls around the parks to keep out the riffraff, and fly in the truly deserving who can afford the rates for exclusive, quiet getaways. Of course, they'll show us pictures on Fox State TV of all the glamorous arrivals, so our lives will be enriched beyond our imaginings, more than we deserve for the route that we allowed them to choose for us.
4
September is still high season. We did the "Utah Five", and park employees confirmed what we saw with our own eyes. Zion was as crowded as Times Square, which I'd been to the week before. Very unpleasant. Hotel rooms were scarce, and priced for high demand. Whatever solution is found, and it should not be raising admission fees, needs to include September as high season.
2
Timothy.
Thank heaven for small favors. I thought Trump would sell all of the parks off. Just making them unaffordable to many seems almost like a win.
2
The solution to this....like nearly every single problem facing humanity now....is fewer people.
This is our very near future. A future where the world is largely trashed, developed/urbanized, or both. As we move forward, more and more people will be fighting each other for less and less opportunities to see and experience the natural world. Managed Natural Spaces....small segments of relatively pristine natural environments surrounded on all sides by the wreckage of humanity. The Managed Natural Spaces will, absolutely, without question, become an experience only for the 'elite'.
All because there are too many people.
Too....many.....people....
4
it's not just trump; it's the GOP agenda to make public lands less available to We, the People, and more available to industry.
Orrin Hatch has led the charge along with Rep. Rob Bishop, also of Utah, and the chair of the house natural resource committee--who's tried to kill the Antiquities Act for years, who's tried to kill the highly popular Land and Water Conservation Fund, who's tried to literally allow our public land to be given away--and who also receives a higher percentage of out-of-state "funding" than any other member of congress.
as a Utah resident and small business owner in a community that thrives on our public lands and National Parks, I condemn this agenda.
6
Commodity is right. This administration is doing whatever it can to break our public land into smaller, bite-sized pieces that can be sold or leased for private profit. Look at them reducing the size of some of our parks. Look at them moving people who don't seem to appreciate the wilderness or public land into positions of power. Look at them cutting the NPS budget. Look at them trying to convince you that wilderness is compatible with mining, drilling, and overgrazing. Look at them putting the profits of a few corporations above the livelihoods of millions of ordinary people. And look at them telling you it's for your own good.
Please call your representatives and let them know that you want our public land protected and accessible.
I love the idea of taking the wall budget and giving it to the NPS. Having functioning ecosystems with their reservoirs of clean air & water will keep us a lot safer than some ridiculous fantasy wall.
Thank you for writing this column! I am so worried about our public lands and environment in general. If you think DT's administration isn't accomplishing much, look at what they're doing to our environment.
2
As an avid visitor of our National Parks I can attest that out of the 331 million visits to them last year, 90 percent of the people were non-Americans visiting our country. Additionally the park entrance fees are good for seven days and are per car, not per person. It would cost a family of four $2.50 per day, per person for a week's visit to any of our National Parks if the entrance fee were raised to $70. A yearly National Park pass would grant unlimited visits to all our country's national parks for much less than that. The NYT knows no limit to how low they'll go to make the administration look bad. Sad.
42
I am not sure that 90% of our park visitors are foreigners, or that the Times has to try to make this already foul administration "look bad," but I agree with you on the relatively cheap vacation our national parks would be even at $70 a week. I would spring for the yearly pass.
The argument, by the way, that we could charge foreigners more could have some merit -- but then we woukd be modeling ourselves on, say, Greece, which allows its citizens to go museums and parks for free, escape paying their taxes, and retire at 55, while fleecing the non-Greek tourists whose visits keep it from going under altogether.
Most things in life are not free, among them our best things.
Besides, the "one percenters" don't go to our national parks. We donot need to fear they will over-run the trails. They are busy elsewhere.
Excuse the typos in my comment. Mr. Egan's op-ed is exercising because it is so wrong-headed -- probably designed as click-bait, and I have fallen for it.
It's not the NYT "making the administration look bad'. It's the words, deeds, and total lack of moral character this admin demonstrates- day in and day out.
3
I think it's a great idea. No one needs to go to Disneyland. Let's help the greater number.
Probably the biggest longest lasting damage that this most awful of administrations will do is not the things that appear on the front page every day. It is the continual low on the awareness often behind the scenes bureaucratic move that weaken or destroy some part of public life or inheritence. Things that ic takes decades to create can be removed or destroyed in almost no time, too often out of the view of the public. After all with all the destruction coming from this administration its hard to keep up.
5
Rich people already have exclusive access to Nature Conservancy lands - they need the NPS too?
User fees based on demand are fundamentally vital to the health and welfare of our national parks. The national parks has wanted a demand based system for decades. Since Tim can't make his point without personal attacks on Trump, he should be related to the fake news category.
1
Unless there is a massive shift in the Earth, it’s hard for our most spectacular parks to be “accessible” to all since there are located in the huge West, far, far from most of Americans. Why wouldn’t the people who use the park Pay for it and if you are of limited means send in your receipt along with proof of income and get a refund?
2
The question of access to our national parks and related NPS areas has long been a personal gripe of mine. One of the most amazing places I have ever been is the sand bar at the very southern tip of Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC. Breathtaking, and a perfect family day. The problem is access. 'You can't get there from here' unless you first pay private boats to take you to the lighthouse dock, and then pay a private jeep to take you the four miles to the tip. The NPS got none of that money. For my family of four it was almost $200 just to get there. Or you can use your own yacht, I suppose. Still, I recommend it highly.
I have since seen numerous instances of park access being profoundly limited based on ability to pay. I have nothing against private businesses profiting from the parks, although NPS should get a share of that. I bitterly resent though the idea that citizens should be unable to get into such public places of wonder except as marks to be fleeced.
Now we see a push to cut the NPS budget while setting prices so high that many retirees, families, and low income people will be unable to afford them based on entrance fees. Have we forgotten who the park owners are - We the People!
4
"All national parks should be free, like the great museums of Washington."
When I read this, I imagined President Trump saying to one of his aides: "The Smithsonian is FREE? We need to fix that now!"
3
Since the first of the year I've been thinking about what is missing in Donald Trump. Now I think I know what it is: Donald Trump is a man without a soul. There's nothing that he is passionate about unless it is a trinket or some such item that can be turned into a personal or capital gain. He is a nihilist in many ways.
Our president is a hollow man. He is a shell. He has no passion for anything that exists because it is beautiful and exists for its own sake, exists for the glory of all such as our national parks, wilderness areas and national forests.
Even Lenin (who Trump reminds me of with his scathing remarks in this post-truth world of American politics we now find ourselves) had an appreciation of the natural world of the alps, according to Robert Service, where he hiked and camped before 1917.
3
Teddy Roosevelt weeps
167
I'm not sure if Edward Abbey, who said, "Wilderness is the only thing left worth saving," would weep. Certainly his Monkey Wrench Gang wouldn't.
There is no end to the willful failure of Trump and his shills to enforce the law to preserve and protect America's national parks and monuments UNIMPAIRED. Trump's Department of Environmental Destruction also just proposed to re-open the Grand Canyon watershed to uranium mining after half a century to shut it down. This abomination threatens the precarious water supply of all living things great and small who live and visit a vast region of the Southwest encompassing the Grand Canyon and many other national parks, monuments, and protected areas surrounding it.
2
Another example of the undoing of a noble America and its ideals. Our National Parks are natural treasures that MORE American taxpayers should experience! In fact, their grandeur, splendor and serenity could help enlighten even those who've become crazed robots glued to Fox News. Budget shortfalls could be helped by significantly raising entrance fees for the busloads of foreigners that clog the parks to help maintain and repair our beautiful natural oases and encourage more Americans to breathe the fresh, pure air, hike the glorious trails, be mesmerized by powerful waterfalls, and opened to the reality that we're all in this fragile United States and together we should join to preserve everything that the current inept administration is working so feverishly to divide.
1
User fees have always been the mantra for the rich. Want to use that road in front of your house, pay the toll. Want to fix that bridge you cross on the way to work, pony up for the repairs. Police and fire fighters, pass the hat.
1
I don't think Trump has ever set foot in a national park. His idea of the great outdoors is a golf cart. Just a tiny cut in defense spending would restore funding for the NPS. And Zinke could do his bit by ending his profligate spending on flying around the country private jets.
4
I'm curious. Has dt ever been to one of our breathtakingly beautiful National Parks. He spends hours watching television; has he ever watched Ken Burns series on our National Parks. I doubt it.
He seems to care only for golf courses and bricks and mortar and, oh! lets not forget, gold plated fixtures.
1
Trump's idea of getting back to nature is one of his golf courses. Far harder to understand Zinke's motivations, he grew up in Montana after all, and is constantly claiming to being committed to preserving our wildernesses. But, big payoffs help a lot people compromise their principles.
3
As you said, they are ours- all of ours, as citizens. We already pay for them as taxpayers. Charge tour buses and non-citizens, but no American should ever pay a red cent to enter a National Park.
I think we should add a check box to our tax return for the National Park Service. Let taxpayers vote the budget- not the money changers in D.C.
For those interested, here is the history of fees in our National Parks.
https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/mackintosh3/fees2.htm
2
Mr. Egan, if Donald Trump truly wished to "make America great again," he would direct his budget sycophants to pour more money into the National Parks Service--not less.
This "president" wishes to cordon off the grandeur of America for himself and his own. What of "we, the people?" Our taxes help to finance the network of parks, many of which, as you write, are badly in need of repair.
We have, instead, a "president" whose mission is to provide a glut of pleasures and access to the one percent--all for their use and enjoyment--while the rest of us "others" work to make it possible.
No longer, it appears, are our national treasures held in high awe and esteem. A president unworthy of the title wishes instead to spend money where it is unnecessary (a border wall) to please a rabid partisan base. These parks are, or should be, special places which stand out in the sharpest relief to the places we inhabit daily. Other countries dare not neglect their own natural treasures. Would Justin Trudeau trash Canada's magnificent Banff National Park?
Why, instead, can we not repair roads and build railroads (not airports) to improve access to these grand places? I, for one, am weary of all the talk in Washington about budget deficits and estate taxes and loopholes that benefit very few American citizens. Where is the love that a president should have for this country? The one we have now loves only himself, his family and his class.
If we don't maintain what we have, we'll lose it.
1
It should be expensive to view these parks. It keeps the riff Raffa out and gives much needed funding to the upkeep and preservation of them.
Tongue firmly in cheek, I know. But if you want to see what completely free access to green spaces looks like, come to Prospect Park the day after any sunny summer weekend, and you’ll see a lot of garbage strewn about everywhere, along with spent barbecue ashes. Do picnickers think our NYC Parks Department workers are their personal maids?
People take better care of stuff they pay for. And not just through their taxes.
Go see your national parks and monuments ASAP because they could all be on borrowed time. Consider that if Trump wins a second term and is followed by another Republican, there may not be any national parks in 15-20 years. If you don't think there are some very rich and ruthless people pushing for the complete privatization of our national parks, then you are not paying attention.
1
Your obvious distaste for Trump overshadows your thinking, Tim. Anything 'free' has no value and the consumer treats it accordingly. Have you been to a national park recently? The facilities, the parking, the famous sites are all overrun with more people than they can accommodate. Our love of our parks is destroying them and entry price is an imprecise, but available metering mechanism.
4
Doug
More idiotic conservative hoo-ha from you, and your mindless pals.
What is this "If you don't pay for its worthless" stuff?
So, you despise your Evangelical churches because they don't charge admission?
You'd be willing to pay an annual fee for the oxygen you use up spouting these diatribes?
Whatever water you use should come at a rapidly increasing price, in consideration of its increasing scarcity and the likelihood we'll be polluting the rest of it in short order?
You boys are excellent at marshaling and eloquently stating powerful arguments for any point that occurs to you and then running in the opposite direction when your whim demands it.
"What the heck? Pay an aesthetics fee to live in San Francisco? But I always hated the view..." I can hear you now.
1
Your quote of the price of every thing and the value of nothing describes this administration accurately. To wash the cruelty and scandal of Washington off of my spirit, I go outside. Outside to the truth and honesty of nature to feel clean and see the truth again. Desecrating and fouling these natural places and hampering access with fees for the people that benefit by them most is the plague of those that know the value of nothing. Oh, Ozymandias! "Half sunk a shattered visage lies" "The lone and level sands stretch far away!" Sand Dunes National Park here I come!
1
Trump exists to daily poke a stick in the eye of people who oppose him.
It excites his dopamine response.
It excites his base .
That's the only reason he does these things.
He's a hateful man.
One can only hope it's a terminal condition.
3
Teddy, is that you I hear spinning in your grave?
2
This is the perfect example of Trump's legacy. A long line of wreckage, ruin, and loss. He is doing damage that cannot ever be repaired. There is no fix for gone.
4
THank you for pointing this out many things that this evil administration is proposing. Many of the dumb ideas can be fixed. But the lack of disrespect for the environment, and the lack of respect for the value of the social investment in our future of our national parks is a trait I will never forgive. These people forget we stole this country we need to remember it is not thier right the privatize they are the worst caretakers ever
$70 entrance fee to a National Park?! -- Shame!
The current inmate of the White House destroys this natural heritage, as well as all intellectual and scientific that this nation has produced.
That's for a week, for the car and everyone in it, not per person. American families spend that much on junk food and soda in a week, the remains of which we find on our roadsides and, dare I say, even in our national parks. I am not the only one who carries other people's garbage down off mountains.
Our National Parks are one of our countries greatest treasures. My husband and I plan a vacation every year to visit a different park. We hike, enjoy the beauty and meet interesting people. We are seniors so we do get to use the Golden Pass for our entrance fee. Raising the entrance fee so much is the wrong way to fund the parks.
Having hiked in Grand Staircase/Escalante, I am sick about the idea of this beautiful area being used for mining.
We just returned from visiting Arches, Canyonlands and Mesa Verde. The parks were PACKED with families, international visitors, seniors, all enjoying the opportunity of being outdoors. Has Donald Trump every been to a National Park?? Did he ever hike in a slot canyon? See The Wave??
I plan to let my representatives know how I feel, although, I doubt it will make much difference. Any better solutions??
2
I grew up in a family, of what would euphemistically be called modest means, but we could always afford camping trips to New York' s beautiful state parks.
The attack of the American right on anything green, that is owned by the public, identifies the American right as the greed heads that they are.
I am now 72. I am glad I lived when I did. When I lie on my death bed I won't be thinking about my hours in a cubicle.
3
The leasing fees collected from the private corporations who will be exploiting the land for oil, minerals, timber , grazing etc. should cover the cost of admission to the parks. I thought this guy was going to cut the best deals. This doesn't feel like winning in my book.
I could not disagree more. It is about time the National Park Service started charging a realistic admission fee. For years they have been essentially free, with only token admissions. People do not value anything that is free...and each park is a treasure. Someone has to pay to maintain those treasures. As for only being available for the 1 percent...get serious. The new fees are about equivalent to taking a family to the movies. Anyone who can afford to get their family to Yellowstone or Yosemite or Zion can afford the fee to get in. I will agree that more geographically accessible parks should be free or have a fee that makes them more open to the public at large.
Of course the National Parks belong to all of us (at least for now, thank goodness) It would be great if they were fully funded and free to everybody. But that's not going to happen. The next best choice is to charge a reasonable fee to enjoy them so they can be maintained for another generation, who hopefully, will take better care of them.
4
The existence of a public sphere and the notion of public ownership unite nations in ways noxious to plutocrats and oligarchs. Doing away with public ownership of parks,and open space is an assault on democracy. Trump and company are engaged in a systematic program to destroy even the idea of public ownership.
What will we pass on to our children? If Trump prevails, it will be servitude and the abject poverty of broken spirits.
1
Uhh ... we were okay with the national park fees when Clinton tripled them. I camped "illegally" in Yellowstone because I couldn't afford the admission fee or camping fee as a young professional. But then, my good progressive friends told me that it was good for the NPS to cover costs by pricing the working class out.
We've really got to address our hypocrisy of claiming they're "our public lands" when we're not allowed to use them, when the poor are priced out, and when they can no longer be used to feed us.
2
I cringe when anyone in the Trump administration invokes Theodore Roosevelt.
Roosevelt by the way, was instrumental in the founding of the Museum of Natural History, which I haven't seen mentioned by anyone. Not a creationist museum.
2
Trump and his cabinet have set out to destroy the agencies they oversee. Trump is the antithesis of the "Midas Touch". Everybody and everything he touches turns to sludge.
2
This administration’s indifference toward national parks is a fallout of the culture war that put Trump in office.
To some the parks seem to be a haven mostly for granola eating hipsters, environmentalists, European tourists, and other elitists (read mostly democrats), so why not raise their fees? Since game hunting is not allowed in the parks, there’s nothing much to do there for the manly man Trump voter anyway.
Ideologically, many conservatives were never terribly fond of the notion of preservation of public lands to begin with. You know, drill baby drill and all that.
Thank you Mr. Egan.
2
Thank you for bringing this issue to the forefront. And I think your estate tax suggestion is spot on - this is truly our legacy.
1
This is nothing more than a way to cut benefits to working class Americans, many of whom take their annual weekly vacation in a national park. The parks belong to the people. The billionaires who stand to benefit from Trump's tax cut already have their million acre ranches and the Yellowstone Club, accessible by private plane for most. Today's NYT showed that workers have gained no real wage increase since the 70's. Getting more jobs through the miracle math of the Trump Tax Plan doesn't mean higher pay, it does mean cutting funding for all of the programs essential to the middleclass, education, healthcare, and access to pristine parks. The French revolution is starting to look better all of the time.
9
I do not trust anything that comes from the Trump administration, but eighty dollars to use a national park for a whole week for the entire family isn't going to break anyone's bank. It costs almost that much just in gas to get anywhere, and abstaining from taking the family out to see two movies a year will cover the costs. People pay for what they want to pay for including people on welfare.
I reside (for nine months of the year) at the edge of Acadia National Park and use it almost daily to bicycle and hike. I would not be affected by the proposed fee increases because with "great wisdom and age" years ago I purchased a senior lifetime pass to all national parks ($10). I find it difficult to understand how the proposed $36 weekly fee, let alone the current $12 weekly fee, could be justified to bike or walk through the park. I agree with Mr. Egan that the fee for visiting our national parks should be $0. In a country where civilization and human well-being were priorities, there would be other ways to fund the national parks.
12
You are correct that the parks should be free, except that would mean we would have to tax the rich, those with the majority of income, assets, investments, and cash, fairly, and that simply is not the Republican thing to do...
1
National parks are overcrowded and underfunded so surely the remedy will be higher entrance fees. Capitalist logic at its finest, except then we cut the budget so the additional fees go somewhere else, perhaps to subsidize coal mines. And price becomes a mechanism that rations access, presumably because ability to pay is a logical and acceptable way to limit numbers to avoid over-saturation. That it also excludes low-income people is merely a plus.
Except it does not have to be this way. Even Mexico makes access to parks and museums free on Sunday. Of course there are crowds but crowds one day per week is seen as a reasonable alternative to exclusión of much of the population. By why should price be the filter?There are other forms of rationing besides price. To make the argument that just because someone has more money they reserve priority access is to impose on American society the notion of social hierarchy we struggled in the 18th century to overthrow, a struggle commemorated in some of our national parks.
The real problem is the confusión between education and entertainment. Ryan Zinke and Donald Trump conceive of the parks as entertainment and therefore to be "sold" as a commodity. This notion did not originate with them, they merely perpetuate and reinforce it. But a central purpose of the national parks was to educate the American people about nature and history, to assure future generations would appreciate our heritage. We embrace our heritage, we don't sell it.
12
Thank you for this timely reminder that there are many other things we need to be paying attention to in addition to the big headline items like taxes, health care, etc. Yet more items for thoughtful candidates grounded in common sense and local values to discuss during their 2017-18 campaigns. Yet more points for us the citizens to bring to the attention of our state and national representatives, while reminding them that we will contribute to candidates - possibly even incumbents, depending on performance - and that we will vote in 2017 and 2018.
4
Any Trump voters planning trips to national parks in the coming year are going to get a lesson in Trump/Republican values. For decades, a trip to a National Park has been an affordable family vacation for people of modest means. Less so, now. So much for family values.
I just purchased a Lifetime Senior Pass. It cost eighty dollars plus a ten dollar processing fee. Before August 27 it would've cost ten dollars. I can afford it. Many can't.
Comes the revolution, we can implement an income-based system of park fees. Donald Trump would pay ten thousand dollars to get into Yosemite. We ordinary folks would get in for free.
Okay, that's a fantasy. But it would make sense to use some form of lottery to fairly regulate the flow of visitors to high-traffic parks. A system based on pricing is effectively a class-based system. We all own it, but you only get to use it if you can afford the fees. For me, that looks like a bug. For Republicans, it's a feature.
7
It's people from Iowa, your state, and people from states like Iowa, that elected Trump. Thank you very much. Trump won't have to pay $10,000 to get into Yosemite because he's not anywhere near as rich as he says he is. That's one of the reasons he won't release his tax returns. Everyone will see how unsuccessful he really has been in business. Soon someone at the IRS, maybe someone with a terminal illness, no dependents, etc., will hack Trump's tax returns and release them to the NYT so we can all see what he's been hiding.
1
I happen to agree with the sentiment and many of the points in this column. However, I am tired of columnists, talking heads, lobbyists, tweets, politicians, etc. getting Americans all worked up for the wrong reasons. It is true that we should keep park admission as low as possible and it is true that this increase would not make a dent in the country's budgetary disaster. However, it is simply false that an increase to the admission fee would have meaningful impact on park visitors. I spent this past August visiting Grand Teton and Yellowstone parks. We did it as a family and enjoyed free admission which is granted to families with children in the 4th grade. This is a wonderful program that generates interest among children. However, the free admission makes little difference. Unless you happen to live on the edge of one of these parks, the admission fee is a small fraction of the costs you incur in a visit. Figure in airfare, car rental, gas, lodging or campsite fees, food, etc. and the park admission is negligible...even at $70. Also note that those admission charges are usually for a car-full and extend for a week. How many family activities can be enjoyed for a week for $70? Again, admission fees should be as low as they can be. But this should not be treated as a class warfare issue as this increase will make little difference in terms of who gets to visit the parks.
9
Obviously $70 is not a problem for you but if you think it isn't a deterrent for many families in America you are mistaken. With all the tax breaks headed for the wealthy how you cannot see this as a class issue if beyond me.
3
SJG
What is truly sad about your comment is that you, like most Americans, have no idea that for many of our families, $70 is a deal breaker.
Take a trip to a national park: you scrimp on the car, you borrow the equipment; you pack food and water to drink on the way; you bring layers and layers of the only clothes you own that you feel good about showing to the public; you use truck stop bathrooms and sleep in the car. And you make it to the park. And you find there's not a chance you'll ever get inside.
Welcome to America, where one in seven children seriously does not know of there will be a next meal or where it will come from; where its lucky to have a house, but it would be luckier if the windows weren't broken and the toilet didn't flush into the kitchen. And the landlord (like, Jared Kushner) turned on the heat.
Yes, $70 for a park pass is an excellent deal. For 40% of America maybe.
But why should our government, so called, be soaking us for higher fees, or any fees, when they refuse to care for these parks and, in fact, are perpetually in the process of considering leasing, say, the Grand Canyon for uranium mining.
Or, as our foolish President did recently, deciding that cutting funding for maintenance and encouraging increased use of disposable plastic bottles of water make a good combination.
2
You're welcome to speak for yourself and your financial situation. But not everyone is in the same place.
2
Many people who visit national parks do so in RV's and pay hundreds of dollars for a single tank of gas. While I agree that parks should be free and well funded, until then, the price hike–$70 dollars for a camper full of people for a week's time –is still a bargain.
9
I don't think you get Mr. Egan's point here.
....and many people who visit national parks are traveling with their kids in the family car, trying to find a way to share nature with their family on a tight budget. For them, $70 is NOT a bargain.
2
Perhaps the fee should be per adult. More fair to the single parent with one child and a tight budget.
1
Entry fees to our national parks are usually based on the car and are good for a week. We can also get yearly passes.
Again, it all boils down to our priorities. Some people purchase wide-screen TVs every few years, have cable, and so on. They send their kids out for fast food a couple of times a week and see the latest movies. That's fine. We spend on what we like.
Admission to our national parks even with higher fees is a fraction of those expenses which even the poor people in my Brooklyn neighborhood indulge in.
My sneakers are probably 25 years old, the TV about the same; but my trips to Acadia National Park give me more pleasure than anything else except, perhaps, decent health for me and my family. The place needs maintenance. While ideally the federal government would see fit to maintain it, the truth is that those who visit can stand to help out. We can't rely on the Rockefeller family (or other rich locals) to keep picking up the tab especially now that David is dead.
6
imagine if our tax dollars actually were spent in benefit of the commons...instead of asking taxpayers to keep subsidizing wealthy people and corporations...
The article said the proposal is to also slash the park budget by $300 million. Post. But read too.
1
Well, B., if your sneakers are 25 years old I can't imagine you've been one to take much advantage of our national parks.
Parks created, by the way, and generously funded during a time of far more limited national prosperity than today.
How on earth did they pull that off? I mean, we have more money now than we know what to do with, and we won't do it.
The problem is we give almost all of it away to one out of a hundred Americans, who toss it into gold bunkers in their basements and let it fester. Or buy themselves a few politicians.
The rest we throw away on an entirely unnecessary military, badly run, profligate in its spending, and, of late, horrifically inept in the field.
For that duet of greedy practices, the only meaningful priorities in American political life, we destroyed our education, trampled our cultural life, sentenced anyone not already rich to lives of insecurity and want.
There is no "our priorities". Not that they don't exist, or that they're not clearly stated; its that our rich have finally managed to be rich enough that they simply don't care what we think. And they don't anymore bother to hide their contempt.
If Acadia National Park needs attention, and they all do, look to those running our government into the ground. People who spent decades reducing the financial care of these almost sacred places. Tell them to restore the funding our nation gladly bestowed during its most dynamic and secure eras. Tell them to give us our money back.
If - and only if - this fee increase was coupled with increasing the budget of the NPS (having the new fees bring in $70 million and increasing the budget by $210 million) then it would be acceptable in my view. To be honest, increasing the fees to bring in $210 million and increasing the budget by $630 million would be appropriate. The current maintenance backlog of $11.9 billion would then be whittled away in only 14 years.
I also support the idea of two-tier pricing. One level of entrance fees for Americans and a higher level for foreigners. Many years ago I visited the Kremlin and Moscow and discovered that Russian citizens paid an entrance fee one-tenth of what I was charged.
However, cutting the NPS budget by $300 million while adding these fee increases is unconscionable. It is a tragedy to our national heritage.
73
This is complex issue, and one that can't just be written off as "conservatives want to jack up prices because they don't care." The massive NPS budget cut is a huge problem, and will hopefully be renegotiated, but national parks are a treasure and many of us who visit are willing to pay more to see them. These price hikes, also, only affect several "destination parks", which have been complaining the last few years anyway that too much traffic is having ecological/environmental harm. Less demand by higher prices would help this. The admission price is also not what keeps most people away from getting to these parks, it's the travel, lodging, etc. This price hike doesn't affect 90% of national parks.
The federal government (on both sides of the aisle) needs to make a better commitment to funding these sources of national pride, but it also needs to let the parks come up with their own strategies for increasing revenue. Higher in-season ticket costs, lower daily pass costs but higher weekly rates. They could also charge higher use rates for facilities, where much of the maintenance costs come into play, or simply start to decommission some of these "creature comfort" facilities, and let these parks be what they really are, our last images of wilderness, not cushy nature resorts.
8
Why? Why, why, why? Why rob to people of access to our collectively owned national treasures? How in the world does making it prohibitively expensive help anyone?
The National Park Service is not a business. It will never turn a profit. Nor was it intended to. I make no apologies for loving these parks, and I want others to love them too. Making them exclusionary by pricing is 100 percent wrong. These parks are for all the people, not just the wealthy.
37
That new daily fee is more than the annual fee for Canadian National Parks. Less than C$68. And 2017 is free to celebrate their 150th birthday.
10
Well, Canadians have a sense of pride and recognize they are members of a society. Canadians actually care about each other, knowing that they, as a collective, make up the entire country. Would that I had immigrated there years ago, when it would have been possible. Living in a civilized country would be such a joy.
1
This is not a daily fee. It is a weekly fee.
I think we should certainly keep the estate tax and raise the entrance fees to the national parks. Maybe not by as much, but by some number. The parks are overcrowded and something must be done to lower the traffic to the parks. I am more concerned with the abuse of public lands and the low price paid for this! Honestly raise the price, just not so much.
4
If you're worried about the abuse of public lands at low cost, then you ought to be fighting for reasonable (I.e., increased) royalty rates charged to extractive industries for oil & gas and hard-rock minerals. They are way out of date.
7
A lottery or reservation system, already in place in some parks for some activities in some seasons, is a better way to freeze visitation levels. Using price increases is not a democratic way to control crowding in and impacts to parks that belong to the people - ALL the people.
5
Many people coming to our parks are from outside the USA and therefore do not pay taxes to help support the parks. Entrance fees should be higher with "discounts" for citizens. The budget should NOT be cut to protect our parks BUT additional entrance fees can help with their maintenance and to provide additional park rangers. Now, the budget has ALREADY been cut so much that parks are being staffed by volunteers rather than have the number of rangers needed. And park rangers are underpaid. The biggest cost of going to a park is travel expenses and especially people who are flying here from other countries can most certainly pay a higher fee.
14
Most museums in Europe are free - including for non EU visitors. Our parks should not penalize foreign visitors. Our government should establish a budget which makes low entrance fees possible. The increasing number of visitors is an issue, but daily visitor limits are better than economic barriers to controlling visitors.
5
Yes very good point, it is reasonable for visitors from overseas to pay more more in entrance fees since they don't pay taxes to support the parks as Americans do.
2
If you go visit Japan or Europe, you will not be charged more as a foreigner. In fact, you'll find many national parks and monuments are free to enter, as are museums, and that funding for the arts keeps plays and music at a reasonable price as well. If they aren't charging us why would we charge them?
7
There is no question that our National Parks are in sore need of increased funding, and increasing entrance fees is not going to solve that problem. But increasing these fees as part of the solution is not, per se, a bad idea. And any reasonable fee increase is not going to kill the family vacation. Just consider the cost of putting the family up in a hotel for one night.
The real problem with our most popular National Parks is that we are loving them to death. At some point we are going to have to control and limit access just as we already control the number of people who can obtain backcountry camping or river-running permits. There are just too many people being let loose on some of our most beautiful and fragile landscapes. I once made the mistake of trying to visit Yosemite in midsummer. Never again. I have been less harassed and jostled on New York subways.
8
Yes, the NPs are overcrowded and highly popular. But using price as a way to reduce visitors means restricting those with the least available funds. There are other ways to allocate scarce resources than ability to pay. How about a tax on the top 10% of earners to cover the full cost of the national parks, make them free to enter, and have a reservation and lottery system to allocate spaces?
4
I love the "backlog of maintenance" excuse. As if this was somebody else's responsibility -- why didn't the creator arrange for on-going funding? And of course the maintenance is for public access and education -- why would we want to enable that?
3
David,
You're obviously not fooled by Trump's transparent plutocratic motives. If only that were more common among US voters 8^(.
It is vitally important that we make the parks as accessible as possible so that ALL people can enjoy them. Not only are they a national treasure, but they also show what America values. By making parks readily accessible allows people to experience the bounty and beauty of America before it is all gone.
As Theodore Roosevelt said: ""We have fallen heirs to the most glorious heritage a people ever received, and each one must do his part if we wish to show that the nation is worthy of its good fortune."
Remember, people of many different means experiencing the grandeur of our parks VOTE! They are the ones that will prove that indeed the nation is worthy of its good fortune.
16
Two more quotes from Roosevelt:
"The lack of power to take joy in outdoor nature is as real a misfortune as the lack of power to take joy in books." Hmmm..
"It is not what we have that will make us a great nation; it is the way in which we use it."
Words of wisdom for you know who.
15
The key, Jeff, is in the words "Each one must do his part."
Teddy Roosevelt tried to give us all a Square Deal, to level the playing field, to insure clean water, clean food, a decent work week, and so on. But you can lead a lazy-minded people only so far. I think a lot of Americans vote against their better interests and too many seem uninterested in our great, beautiful places; and since that is so, it behooves those of us who love them to fork over a bit more.
And for businesses to get involved. For the record, Acadia National Park has in recent years used free buses to cart people (and their bikes) about from spot to spot. They are small and maneuverable -- and subsidized by L.L. Bean.
An eighty-dollar weeklong pass per car is not going to break anyone's back. It costs more to take four kids to the movies and get them all popcorn and soda.
I agree. I have supported the parks for many years, especially Yosemite. I've contributed to the Yosemite Foundation, and hold a senior pass that is a bargain. But in order to get people motivated to do something, they need to know about it.
Ansel Adams went to Washington in the late 30's armed with photos of the Sierra. Most of the politicians had no idea of the beauty of this area. As a result of education, Kings Canyon National Park was founded in 1940. People have to see these places to understand.
1
We have been to several parks in recent years. Clearly something must be done to balance the impact of the numerous visitors that are overwhelming the parks. Money has always been a regulator. Campsites have always been regulated by reservations. Perhaps reservations (ie park is full) may be needed. Plus, the idea that the parks should be free is naive. We have always paid for the parks through taxes. I would recommend giving the tax payer a choice in where their tax dollars go. Also, I would recommend a mandatory class with a required certification before entering to educated the masses on how to properly treat these areas. This class could be included with a reservation and entry free.
1
Wouldn't it be great if we could take 5 HOURS of defense spending and not make the $330 million dollar cuts and restore funding to the NPS budget. Or better yet, let's take 7 days of defense spending and transfer it to the NPS. That $11.5 billion (yes only on 7-days worth) would cover the entire maintenance backlog of our wonderful parks.
Now, more than ever, we need to make the parks more accessible to all generations - especially kids - not less. It's all about priorities.
180
Trump, his appointees, and the GOP only seem to think about the present. Most of these old guys won't be around in a few years and they do not care or are they concerned about inheritance as you suggest in your article. It is not in their DNA to look past making a few quick buck today at the expense of future generations. Whether it is Parks, the environment, health care, social services for the common good of the majority of American citizens or being good citizens of the world these guys do not care unless there is money in it for them here and now.
27
John Q Doe,
Your comment makes complete sense. If only they represented a governing plurality of US voters. Our fellow citizens appear willing to sell their collective birthright for a few more dollars an hour.
1
Trump only sees value in things that bring profit, and now wants to force National Parks to become playgrounds for those with means by price gouging families who sometimes travel thousands of miles to experience them. It’s like paying a toll to get into your own house. He does this while attempting to divest existing parks and monuments of thousands of acres, opening lands sacred to Native Americans, to oil companies, developers, and logging companies. Trump, America’s worst idea, is destroying America’s best idea.
44
My husband has a Golden Age pass that he got for $5, I think, that's good for the rest of his life. With it, he and his companions can enter any national park or wildlife refuge for free.
I have one that I bought a few years ago for $15. It has benefits that are a bit more limited, but still a great value for senior citizens who want to enjoy our national treasures.
The price for the next iteration of those passes have gone up to $80. And they are still touted as a great value. It's kind of ironic that this is happening as the baby boomers are entering their retirement years.
When I was a child New York State parks were all free. Now, the entry fees for them keep going up as well.
There are many ways to ration scarce resources. Pricing them out of the reach of many people is only one solution.
It's kind of like saying that purchasing unaffordable health insurance is a choice. You may want it. You may need it, but if you can't afford to pay, you're out of luck.
We seem to have made the decision that public services ought to be allocated based on the ability to pay. It's not just health insurance and entry to national parks. It's schools, police, roads, and even necessities like water.
195
Reading the stream of comments here, it looks like the demand is such that we should be creating more parks and monuments and expanding current ones, not nibbling away at them. I guess a market based economy only applies to private enterprises.
104
You are spot on! I went to 7 parks this last summer the people love them the traffic was a real problem we need more parks and they need to be bigger! People need places to go and there is only so much land it needs to be saved for all of us and the future, as for turn a profit or at least pay for there selves I don't about that but increasing the cost to access will have a effect on lower income people.
3
Exactly! When the population doubles, double the number of well-maintained pieces of our natural inheritance in which to recreate ourselves!
1
National and state parks are our commonwealth that guide us to sanity, health, reverence and maybe even spirituality, all of which we need in this crazy world.
They are a model for other countries for preserving a small portion of what the planet was once like. The parks provide a means of measuring what our priorities should be, a standard for whats really valuable. Trump and his family should be forced to go on a small hike in any one of our beautiful parks even for one day.
The founders of this nation frequently embraced commonwealth in our inner city parks and included in the official state names. Parks are as American as Thanksgiving. Any downgrading or attack on our state and national parks is un-American, Mr Trump.
42
As potential budgetary shifts to support our national parks, Mr. Egan suggests that "We could, for instance, not build Trump’s nonsensical border wall . . . Or we could keep the estate tax . . ."
I've lost count of the number of times I've read defenses, from good-hearted progressives and environmentalists, of things of inestimable value under attack from Neanderthal Republicans--oops, sorry for the redundant terminology--which yet never mention the cost of U.S. militarism.
I figure that the combined cost of the Pentagon, the spook agencies, the weapons research in the Energy Department, etc., comes to around $2 million a minute. Every minute, year in, year out, year after year.
That would buy a whole lot of worthwhile things. And would anyone feel noticeably less "secure" if our spending on war capacity was only $1.5 million a minute? Or $1 million?
We're told that our national government can't "afford" national parks, or national Social Security, or national Medicare, or a host of other initiatives that help ordinary people. Of course it can. It just can't afford militarism and everything else, simultaneously. So we prioritize militarism. The military-industrial complex is such a sacred cow, source of campaign money, and object of weaponized patriotism, that even progressives almost never talk about reducing it.
America has been at war, or preparing for the next war, almost continuously since 1941, and it has pretty much destroyed us, both fiscally and ethically.
256
I long for a day when the Pentagon has to hold a bake sale, and education is adequately funded, as the old 1960's poster said. I even say so out loud to a class,now and then, when I am feeling fed up.
1
I guess this seems to happen to most great powers.
Really not to optimistic about our future.
1
I feel so much safer when we went from 10 aircraft carriers to 11 aircraft carriers, when the rest of the world doesn't have 10 aircraft carriers combined. That includes all of our allies.
These aircraft carriers will surely keep us safe from ISIS and the ISIS loan wolves who drive pickup trucks up pedestrian walkways.
1
Each park has an off season when it is still possible to get a national park experience. Take Yellowstone. If you go to the park before July 1 or after Labor Day, there will be lighter traffic and fewer cars.
If you go to one of the less popular parks like Big Bend, North Cascades, Olympic, or many others, you will most likely have a great national park experience if you park your car and get off the road.
Both Democrats but especially Republicans have greatly underfunded the national parks, I assume based on the principle that wealthy donors of both parties have their own private parks, think of Montana ranches, Caribbean islands, or ski towns like Aspen.
The first step in improving the national park experience is to reduce traffic during peak periods. This could be done by lottery (including tour buses) much as is already done for river rafting permits. For example, Yellowstone might need a lottery for July 1 thru Labor but not for the rest of the year, which would encourage off peak season usage.
There are solutions but politicians need to know that Americans value their parks and want them to remain accessible. Write your representatives today.
124
Anthony Gregg: "you will most likely have a great national park experience if you park your car and get off the road. "
That's the fundamental truth many commenters appear to miss. Rather than discriminating against visitors who can't afford to pay higher fees, simply prohibit private automobiles, and offer transit options for us to reach our preferred sites. And for people who are physically able, the option to walk exists as it always has.
4
if you have kids in school you can't go off season.
3
"Mal Adapted: is EXACTLY backwards. Prohibiting cars is highly discriminatory against hikers. This is best exemplified by Denali or Zion.
The idea of pricing public goods is not categorically foolish. Witness toll lanes to reduce congestion. National parks, though, are generally not congested. Maybe it's okay to price more highly the few congested parks to reduce congestion, but otherwise there are better situations for pricing public goods -- most notably being traffic-ridden roads and highways.
3
Good point. People can choose not to go to parks, they can't stop goi g to work. There's one catch, though. The last bastion of the Democrats - cities - might stop voting for mayors and councils that make it more costly to get to work. And I don't think all those Republican governors will raise rates for state roads. Who should pay and how - the age old question. Luxury taxes!
Mr. Oedel,
I agree raising park entry fees isn't catogorically foolish, but traffic congestion is easily solved: restrict or prohibit private automobiles, and provide visitors with various transit options to reach their preferred sites.
1
Dramatically raising park entrance fees is the first step to dismantling the national parks, which is the real goal. The plan: Reduce the constituency for national parks, leaving mainly the affluent; then attack them as privileged playgrounds for the elite.
86
High seasonal entry fees during peak season will inure the public to the parks' eventual privatization and the higher fees charged by outfits such as Disney and Six Flags.
5
And then sell them!
1
Why shouldn't the US levy a tax on the mining, timber, ranching, and other industries that exploit natural resources that are directly allocated to preservation, conservation, and maintenance of our national parks?
137
They do tax natural resource extraction. Always have, except some cases clearly are under taxed. Timber is not one of those resources that is under taxed.
2
Steph,
Why do you say that timber isn't under taxed? Existing severance taxes come nowhere close to internalizing the socialized, including 'environmental', costs of timber production.
4
You miss the larger point.
Yes, the national parks are a stunning, unique-in-the-world patrimony for all Americans.
Yes, they have been neglected, commercialized around the edges, made to suffer the indignities of vendor disputes over long standing names and such.
Mostly, yes, they are stunning snapshots of the best that will ever be America.
But what they really are, and what has made them perennial targets of the Republican party for almost a century, is potent symbols of the power of a united people, an enduring reminder that we are all Americans and that we can not only share hiking and camping and living space despite our varied classes, education levels, races, genders, interests, but that we successfully share responsibility for these majestic little miracles of government.
This is a unity, a personal level relationship among all of us that conservatism cannot abide. They have depended, for almost a century now, on fomenting division, hatred and resentment, and crass regionalism. Anything to make a truly federal government look useless, costly, and worse.
Trump is a uniquely bad man. But he is only the latest in a long line of heedless conservative Presidents, and his direction has been set by their history, and currently is being determined by his accomplices in Congress.
It is a shame to see the response to this travesty end in a collective throwing up of hands and a group "Sad", as if there is nothing to be done, here at the crucial moment.
663
The rich fly off in their private jets or sail off in their yachts to private islands and five star hotels. They don't mingle with the hoi polloi in our National Parks. That is why they don't worry about their upkeep or whether the average Joe and Jane can afford to take their children there.
2
This is probably the best comment I’ve ever read in the NYT.
2
There's plenty that can be done, under two rubrics: 2018 and 2020.
3
This is so well written and beautifully explained. Thank you, Mr. Egan.
49
The writer didn't mention that the fee increases would affect 17 parks, during the 5 busiest months of the year. No increase to visit Yosemite in February.
The National Parks System is one of the few things Congress got right. The parks shouldn't be priced out of anyone's budget.
However, if the most popular parks are going to maintain the level of visitation they've seen in recent years - and given the traffic jams in Zion, Yellowstone, and Yosemite, it's not clear that's possible or advisable - more money is going to need to be allocated to them. Alternatively or additionally, use is going to have to be limited, either through a lottery (as some other commenters have proposed), or by increasing entrance fees. Cutting the budget AND increasing entrance fees seems to be an oxymoron.
I don't think charging an entrance fee is per se a bad thing. $70 a pop seems rather high, but then as a relatively frequent visitor, I've sprung for an annual pass, which at $80 for a whole family is a bargain. I'll take Bryce over Disney any day.
One idea not mentioned in the piece: charge more for non-citizens. Many municipal parks charge more for people visiting from outside the local tax base; why not do the same at national parks, where foreign visitation is high?
I fear that long-term, by yielding resentment and fewer visitors, the proposed increase will result in lack of support for the parks among the majority of voters, and eventually de-funding. Which would be tragic.
16
For most of the parks targeted for fee increases, the main problem isn't too many visitors but too many cars. Rather than excluding people who can't afford to pay to get in, exclude private automobiles from park roads and offer various transit options for visitors to reach their preferred sites. As always, visitors who are physically able have the option to walk, ski, pedal and/or paddle. Our National Parks are best enjoyed at an walking pace. Those seeking solitude need only walk far enough.
10
The $70 is for the weekly pass, which is still a bargain, in my opinion.
1
Zion is my "neighborhood" park; I moved to Utah after a lifetime in the Phila area. Lotteries are already used for people doing river trips, eg the Colorado. And a lottery would make people value more highly their experiences in National Parks, not just a selfie opportunity. For the record, Zion uses a bus system once the parking lots are filled; you have to take a bus from Springdale into Zion, and then another bus to tour the Park (with several stops along the way). As several commentators have also suggested, higher entrance fees for non-citizens would also be helpful. I am appalled by visitors' careless treatment of our parks, and am amazed at the good job park personnel do given underfunding and stressful situations.
1
When I was young I relied on cheap public spaces for all my down time. Now that I am near the end of my working life, I can afford higher fees, but as a National Park visitor I always see teams of folks at the camp grounds. These folks can’t afford to eat in the fancy lodges, but the parks are their parks too!
72
expecting sociopaths to act like normal, empathetic, people, is delusional.
The GOP is the party of Sociopaths and their motto is straight from Ayn Rand: "I got mine; screw all y'all."
297
Exactly right, bluecedars1. So much commentary is based on the false assumption that Republicans like Zinke. and, well, ALL of them, but especially Trump -- are normal people who merely have different opinions on what's best for America.
They don't think that way, but, as sociopaths, have no conception of the Common Good and actively ridicule the very idea and work tirelessly to harm it.
Can anyone name even one thing Republicans have done in the last 30 years to improve our country, help its people?
3
I think today's GOP is probably bad enough to make even Ayn Rand spin in her grave. After all, these Republicans are the biggest adherents of the "aristocracy of the pull", being beholden to billionaire donors and lobbyists and all that. With all her praising of each individual working for his or her own best interest, Rand at least advocated hard work and playing fair and abhorred special treatment for any particular class by the government. But try to find a Republican who does not want special government treatment for his or her pet causes and donors.
1
Due to population growth, our most popular national parks can no longer handle the number of people who want to visit them. The solution is a ticket lottery, which would raise hundreds of millions of dollars. Some winners would sell their tickets to the highest bidder, but they could use the money to pay for a trip to one of the less crowded parks and put what’s left into the bank. The National Park Service could use the lottery money to maintain existing parks and open new parks.
18
Right on. We need to limit attendance to protect the parks. A lottery, rather than a price increase, is the egalitarian solution.
4
@William Case:...Or, we could just purchase a few less military fighter planes.
4
Since the parks belong to us, the public, there is nothing in your proposal that couldn't also be used to justify and explain a lottery for citizenship in the US for those that are born here.
But the funniest part was "open new parks"! New parks under Trump and Zinke, or any imaginable Republican administration? You mean more land grabs? More locking away and wasting precious minerals or trees or use of the land that otherwise can had for little or nothing and sold to enrich me?
2
Although I grew up in a family of modest means, we were able to enjoy visiting and camping in our national parks. It was so enriching I made certain that my own children would have that experience as well. But with this proposed entrance fee of $70, visiting our national parks would be financially prohibitive for many Americans. This fee is an affront to our birthright. These are our lands, held in our collective trust for now and for future generations. To restrict their use by imposing excessive fees is to completely undermine the original and ongoing intent of these sacred lands.
267
Our birthright? Check your privilege!
I'm sure the middle class will be excluded from the parks but would happily vote to give refugees and illegals free access. Social justice!
1
I've already commented in this space my doubt that Trump has ever stand in awe and wonder of the wonders found in national parks. For if Trump was ever in a park the awesome thing about it would be that he was in it. If he ever stand in a park Trump is conditioned to see nothing else but lost value to him in its lack of development or taking of the resources there in.
Not mentioned was the cost of senior life time pass has already been increased from $10 to $80. Sure it is good for a lifetime (though they could probably change that too), but such an increase on people who have already given a lifetime of taxes and work is nothing by cynical.
Zinke says "price hikes for select parks are necessary to ensure their preservation." Does that mean without more income than they will sell them off or mine or devastate them with development? Or does it mean the repair and renewal of the parks' assets? Anyone who has ever lived through a price hike on the MBTA, MTA, or other service with the justification that the extra income will go to the renovations and maintenance of the system to preserve service had heard this lie before.
"All national parks should be free, like the great museums of Washington." Ethically yes. Realistically no. Unless you are willing to accept a reservation system or lottery for entrance since even with the current entrance fees many parks suffer more visitors than allow the kind of park experience that they originally offered.
54
Trump loves this country. He may be heavily flawed, but I don't doubt that he cares about the US. He may not care about you personally, but neither did Hillary...
1
Steph
Since we can't get a straight answer out of Sarah, Our Lady of the Presser, perhaps you could offer us some evidence, even a little, that "Trump loves this country". Except Puerto Rico, of course.
3
Egan has it right about park fees but not about Park useage. This past September after waiting in a traffic line for half a hour I paid the entrance fee at Yellowstone, and then was stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic that was going nowhere. Our intention had been to hike Fairy Falls--a short 9 mile drive from the entrance. After idling in a line of traffic that was going nowhere, we u-turned and left the park.
The parks probably do not need a higher entrance fee, but they do need to set a daily quota on use. Otherwise, no one gets to use them.
87
Some parks may need visitor quotas, but often the problem isn't too many people but too many cars. When parks exclude private vehicles, they don't generate their own air pollution and don't develop traffic jams.
A growing number of National Parks now restrict private automobiles part or all of the time. Various transit options are offered for visitors to reach their preferred sites from parking areas. For visitors who are physically able, the choice to walk exists as it always has. Our National Parks are best enjoyed at a walking pace.
14
There are many national parks, monuments, national forests and BLM wilderness areas just as spectacular as the handful of wildly popular national parks such as Yellowstone and Yosemite that you can visit and they have no crowds. Look them up and visit them. You'll be pleasantly surprised.
3