Parks plan unfair to West
I recently submitted the comments below to the National Park Service in response to its recently announced proposal for fee increases that disproportionally target Western parks visitors and fail to provide a balanced approach for all parks:
The national parks and other public lands for conservation and recreation have been starved of funds for years, particularly during those periods when conservatives have dominated the House of Representatives. Funds for deferred maintenance, renovation, replacements and improvements are desperately needed, and a fee increase should probably form a part — but not the whole — of the solution.
However, the proposal as currently presented is massively flawed in numerous ways.
First, it aggressively hits the Western park visitors and leaves Eastern park visitors virtually untouched. Only two of the 17 parks in the proposal are east of the Rocky Mountains! In my experience, the Eastern parks have suffered almost as badly as those in the West during the periods of low funds — so whether the measure is equity among park visitors or equity in providing needed funds, this imbalance is unacceptable.
Second, it’s deeply questionable whether these funds will in fact even materialize. Most park visitors are smart enough to realize that purchasing an $80 annual pass makes better sense than purchasing a $70 one-week, park-specific pass or $75 park-specific annual pass. Since annual pass revenue doesn’t stay within the park in the same manner as the funds collected for individual entry fees (i.e., online purchase, etc.), the park is a net loser when this happens.
Third, while commercial operators will also see proposed fee increases, they are given some 18 months grace before they begin to contribute — but we peons must start paying in just six months or less. In these days of computerization, there’s no excuse for such a delay — the commercial fee increases can be implemented on a rolling basis as soon as current permits or licenses are renewed.
Finally, since so many parks are not even charging entry fees, the visitors to these 17 parks are being targeted for fees that will be spent elsewhere. The majority of these funds may stay, but using the $70 million estimate provided means that $14 million in funds from overwhelmingly Western park visitors will be going to other parks’ benefit — and that means the eastern half of the country. Why should Westerners and Western park visitors be burdened with the costs that should be addressed in the East?
Withdraw this deeply flawed proposal, reconsider your approach and bring forward a budget that is more balanced and equitable, and that more comprehensively addresses the needs of all parks and the contributions that can be made by all stakeholders. Tony Higgins, Las Vegas