Today, park managers, recreation touts and privatization ideologues assure us that the public is not only delighted to pay dramatically higher park entrance fees,  the public thinks the parks are under-priced.

These park mangers, recreation touts and privatization ideologues tell us that at least a portion of the public would like to pay more than the $25 now charged at "premium" National Parks -- and so they have arranged to keep the price increases coming and coming

The appended article from MONEY Magazine was published in 1987. It tells a very different story. It says that indignant tourists, socked with unexpected entrance fees, are growling. It says Senator Bradley was so incensed by the proposed $1 fee to visit the Statute of Liberty that he introduced exempting legislation. It has the Sierra Club asking, "Why should people have to pay to look at their own land?"

Can attitudes be so different in 2007 than they were in 1987? Have things changed so much? Is twenty five dollars now worth less than a dollar was worth in 1987? Or is it possible that park managers, recreation touts and privatization ideologues simply do not value the segment of the market made up of Americans who consider a $25 entrance fee as an obstacle to park visitation?

Scott 

--- begin quoted ----

August 1, 1987
This land is your land?
By Contributors: William C. Banks, Richard Eisenberg, Jordan E. Goodman, David Lanchner, John Stickney, Candace E. Trunzo


(MONEY Magazine) – Those growls echoing from Yellowstone, Glacier and other national parks this summer are not from disgruntled grizzlies but from indignant tourists socked with unexpected entrance fees. Visitors to a third of the nation's 337 parks are facing new or higher admission charges this summer, ranging up to $5 a vehicle and $2 a pedestrian per week. Last fall, Congress approved a temporary Park Service plan to double or triple fees at 62 of the most popular preserves and to begin charging admission at another 72. The Senate is now mulling a bill that would not only make the fees permanent but also increase them to $10 at such prime attractions as Grand Canyon and Grand Teton national parks as well as to override a 58-year-old ban against admission charges at Mount Rushmore. The fees have met with a glacial reaction. ''Why should people have to pay to look at their own land?'' wonders Tim Mahoney, wilderness expert of the Sierra Club. Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey was so incensed by the proposed $1 tab to visit the Statute of Liberty, he introduced exempting legislation. Bristled Bradley: ''Lady Liberty says, 'Give me your tired, your poor.' She doesn't ask for a dollar.'' The bill passed and was signed by President Reagan in June. Nature lovers can take comfort in the fact that Congress also mandated that the increased revenues -- which doubled to an estimated $40 million this year -- can be spent only to enhance the parks and improve visitor services.
 

Comments (2) >>

Paul said:

I know people who avoid the National Parks like the plague because of the high fees and the resultant altered mix of the people there. So the people who have so much money that they don't care about $35 or $85 or $200 keep going, and the people with less aren't being heard from because they don't like that crowd to begin with.

December 15, 2007

Kevin said:

The continued commercialization of our national parks is a travesty. It's a very simple truth that most refuse to acknowledge: overdevelopment is bad for natural environments. I have only gone to those National Parks that can offer significant wilderness opportunities and sadly fewer and fewer such parks exist. Though I can afford the fees, I do find them unconstitutional. Furthermore, there really are many Americans who cannot afford to visit our parks and that number will only rise as the middle class continues to evaporate. The Corporatization of our public institutions is reaching unhealthy levels.

December 17, 2007

Write comment

Show/Hide comment form

Name

Email

Title

Comment

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment