|
If National Parks were museums, there would be no debate whether entrance fees discouraged visitation.
Everyone the world over knows that entrance fees discourage museum visitation. Those nations which place a high value upon their children, education, heritage and culture have already discovered the value of providing FREE access to public museums and galleries. Nations that have abandoned museum entrance fees have already seen visitation soar 100% or more.
But America's National Parks are not museums and in this country, many of our legislators and virtually all public lands managers strenuously deny even the possibility that declining park visitation could be correlated to soaring entrance fees.
Are parks and museums so very different the whereas fees take an enormous toll upon visitation to museums, they have no similar impact upon park visitation?
Or is it possible that the people of the United States are so very different than the people of England and France that what is true elsewhere in the world is just not true in our country?
Or is it possible that those who are responsible for the rapidly increasing entrance fees in our National Parks (and we do know who those people are -- do we not?), simply do not place as high a value upon children, education, heritage and culture as do the people and legislators of other nations???
 Pasted below are excerpts from two recent articles on museum entrance fees and here are two links to other of my recent blogs on the issue of museum entrance fees and how these fees and visitation are directly correlated (click and click).
As for the farcical pizza connection, does the fundamental economic market concept of 'price elasticity' illustrated in this pizza graph apply to everything except parks?
Scott
--- quoted excerpts ---
FROM FRANCE
June 27, 2007 - In an interview published before his May election -- in
the April 13 edition of the arts biweekly "Le Journal des Arts" --
[President] Sarkozy said he wished to make state-run museums free. That
way, they can "become frequently visited places" and "play a role as a
gateway to other cultures." "Free entry would allow this, as is the
case in the U.K.," he said.
FROM ENGLAND
June 18 2007 - Senior figures from politics, education and the arts
leapt to defend free admission to Britain's most famous museums and
galleries after a senior Tory suggested that charges could be
reintroduced.... Steve Sinnott, General Secretary of the National Union
of Teachers, reacted angrily to the idea of rolling back free admission
and said that the effect on children in particular could be disastrous.
"Free access means that every child can benefit from the treasure chest
contained within museums regardless of the depth of the parental
pocket," he said.
"History, art, geography, so many subjects are enlivened by being able
to go to a museum and see and touch the exhibitions. To reintroduce
charges will restrict these opportunities and will make the learning of
these subjects a less rich experience."
Tessa Jowell, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport,
denounced Mr Swire. She said: "This would be a seriously regrettable
step if the Tories were to go down this road. It would be unpopular and
would penalise people from all walks of life.
"Our national museums and galleries perform an enormously useful role
for families across the United Kingdom and it's right that admission to
them should not be limited simply to those who can pay. In cultural
policy terms it's one of the most significant achievements we have made
and one of which I am most proud."
Don Foster, the Liberal Democrat culture spokesman, added: "Yet again
the Tories have shown their true Thatcherite colours. Free entry has
opened our national galleries and museums to everyone, and its removal
would be a huge backward step."
A report last year by the LSE found that before free admissions the
total number of museum visits per year was approximately 27 million. By
2005 that had increased to 42 million, more than the number of people
who visited Premiership matches that year and 50 per cent more than
West End and Broadway theatre shows combined.
Those museums that abandoned entry charges saw their annual attendance
figures did particularly well, recording, on average, an 83 per cent
increase in visits since 2001.
Dr Ian Griffith, the museum's director, explained what a difference
free admissions had made. "The return of free admission revolutionised
modern museums - it really does break down the barriers of access," he
said. I firmly believe we should try and keep admission free for as
long as possible.
"Before free admission, we used to charge between £4 for children and
£6 for an adult and, while we tried to keep the entry fee low, it did
put people off. The number of visitors virtually doubled in the first
year after free admissions were introduced and we've tried to sustain
that year on year. Our average annual attendance each year before entry
was made free was around 210,000. Last year, 410,000 came through our
doors and this year we hope to break the half-million barrier. In
places like Manchester, which has some of the poorest neighbourhoods in
the country, we've really seen a noticeable increase in the diversity
of our visitors as well.
"The majority of our visitors live a two-hour drive away, but as
Manchester develops and if free admission continues we'll see more and
more people from further afield. Last year, we had 67,000 children from
organised school trips.
"People often wonder where our next generation of scientists and
artists will come from and I truly believe museums play an essential
role in inspiring children to pursue such careers.
"I'm sure I'd never have become a scientist had my parents not taken me
to museums as a child. I was born in the 1960s into the sort of
working-class family that really appreciated free entry into museums. I
remember my dad took me to the Science Museum in London simply because
it was a cheap day out in an expensive city, but thanks to that visit I
became very excited about science and went on to get a PhD."
|
- Land management 
