Pressures on National Parks from record visitation

[UtahPete]

With a month to spare, Zion National Park has set a new record for visitation this year, heightening concerns about overcrowding just as park managers consider a controversial fee hike and requiring visitors to go through an online reservation system. The park had counted 4,365,946 visitors through the end of November, representing nearly a 5 percent increase over last year's record numbers. Since 2010, the park has seen visitation increase nearly 70 percent.

Zion wasn't alone among Utah parks in drawing record numbers of crowds. Nearby Bryce Canyon National Park was at 2.5 million visitors through November, already eclipsing last year's record of 2.4 million. Capitol Reef had already set its new record as of the end of October, at 1.1 million visitors. Both have seen the number of visitors more than double over the past decade. Arches and Canyonlands national parks have only reported their visitation through October, but both were on pace to eclipse last year's record visitation as well, with Arches at 1.4 million visitors and Canyonlands at 695,148.

The numbers match what National Park Service officials have reported as they consider making changes to keep the parks from getting trampled. The government has proposed significant fee increases at some of the nation's busiest parks, including at four of the five in Utah, citing a need to catch up with a maintenance backlog that has reached $12 billion nationally.
At Zion and Bryce Canyon the fee increase would cover a five-month period from spring to fall, with the entrance fee for a single vehicle going from its current rate of $30 to $70, with similar increases for fees to people walking in or coming as a group. Prices for national park passes and senior passes would go unchanged.

 

[Bob Denman]

So what would YOU suggest? :dontknow:

 

[UtahPete]

So what would YOU suggest? :dontknow:

I'm not suggesting anything Bob. Just making folks aware of it. Don't know if this is happening countrywide or not. I know it will affect our travel plans if reservations are required, because we don't plan that far ahead.

 

[Bob Denman]

I'm not sure that increasing fees is going to do anything to reduce the number of visitors...
Perhaps they'll just have to go to a daily maximum total of visitors at each park, and then turn folks away.:dontknow:

 

[wyliec]

So what would YOU suggest? :dontknow:

Here's something that a park in Texas does, and it seems to work. You have to call in advance, and place your name on a list and pay. They have a limit as to the number of visitors per day. IMHO, jacking up the price may limit the people that will visit, but maybe not enough. Unless of course the whole intent is money driven, then, jack the price up higher than the you know whats on a giraffe.

Bob, it looks like I was typing when you posted.

 

[UtahPete]

I'm not sure that increasing fees is going to do anything to reduce the number of visitors...Perhaps they'll just have to go to a daily maximum total of visitors at each park, and then turn folks away.:dontknow:

We already have daily maximums and advance reservations required at some of the more fragile and remote attractions, like The Wave and Pariah Canyon. I think our parks are at max capacity already in Utah and some sort of restrictions are unavoidable. The good news is that many of our lesser known attractions aren't over-run yet.

 

[Fatcycledaddy]

When we toured those parks last summer, and Glacier, Yellowstone, Grand Tetons, and Rocky Mountain this year, we noticed that we seam to run across more foreigners than citizens. Could part of this influx of visitors be that the dollar was weaker and a trip to those places were more cost effective or affordable than in the past?

I hate to see the cost rise drastically because it might limit some people with limited funds. The National Parks are one place that a great vacation destination is affordable and available to most people.

 

[2dogs]

:banghead: If you're not uber rich, you can't go.:banghead:

 

[easysuper]

My BIG question is where does the money go? to that particular Park or the General Fund?

 

[UtahPete]

When we toured those parks last summer, and Glacier, Yellowstone, Grand Tetons, and Rocky Mountain this year, we noticed that we seam to run across more foreigners than citizens. I hate to see the cost rise drastically because it might limit some people with limited funds. The National Parks are one place that a great vacation destination is affordable and available to most people.

Prices for national park passes and senior passes would go unchanged. But I hear what you're saying.

 

[UtahPete]

Here's something that a park in Texas does, and it seems to work. You have to call in advance, and place your name on a list and pay. They have a limit as to the number of visitors per day. IMHO, jacking up the price may limit the people that will visit, but maybe not enough. Unless of course the whole intent is money driven, then, jack the price up higher than the you know whats on a giraffe. Bob, it looks like I was typing when you posted.

More visitors means capacity needs to be increased, which takes money, which the Parks don't have unless they increase fees. Congress cut subsidies some years ago I believe, putting public facilities like this on a pay-as-you-go basis (no, I'm not trying to start a political argument).

 

[UtahPete]

My BIG question is where does the money go? to that particular Park or the General Fund?

I'm not sure how budgeting and funding has been in the past but it probably doesn't matter because Zinke is overhauling Dept of Interior, including parks and monuments (no, I don't want to start a political argument).

 

[Motorcycledave]

Raising the fees

$$$ Raising the fees will do nothing but put more money in the park fund
it will not drop the amount of people wanting to go there, look at Disney
they are now over $100 a day and check the attendance, it's up.
If they have big maintenance to do in the parks simply CLOSE the park to
visitors for the season and get it done without people and traffic around to
hold up the process.

 

[UtahPete]

$$$ Raising the fees will do nothing but put more money in the park fund; it will not drop the amount of people wanting to go there, look at Disney they are now over $100 a day and check the attendance, it's up. If they have big maintenance to do in the parks simply CLOSE the park to visitors for the season and get it done without people and traffic around to hold up the process.

We're not talking about maintenance Dave (although maintenance has been deferred due to lack of funding). We're talking about major infrastructure changes to accommodate more people.

 

[2dogs]

Some capacities can not be exceeded no matter what. If they were then the park would no longer be a park. Reservations or first come first served. We've been in more than one park where reasonable capacities were exceeded by huge numbers, and it was miserable. Couldn't wait to get the he!! out of there.

 

[ARtraveler]

A dilemma for sure. I consider myself one of the lucky ones. I bought a senior pass when I passed that age barrier. I have access to all the National Parks now, just by showing the pass.

A success story--I think. Anyone been to Mount Rushmore? I have been going since the 1980's. I was there when it still had the old visitors center. Remember the movie North by Northwest? A few scenes were shot there. With improvements, the place had been completely revamped. New parking areas, an avenue of flags, an outdoor auditorium for nightly shows of the monument, hiking trails that let you get real close to the monument. IMO: a vast improvement in accommodating the public.

MN: the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness: That one is "limited access" since the mid 60's. They did that to preserve the Wilderness. Designated entry points, limit to the daily number of people at each point, reservation and permits required, as well as mandatory "training" at main entry point Ranger Stations. All to keep the "footprint" of man at a low level. Motors were removed from the area also. Last I was there (2000), it was paddle only. One of the places that you could paddle into the Wilderness three or four lakes and have the place to yourself for days--depending on the area and the lakes. I do not know the current status as I have not returned since 2000. I spend 20 years exploring the area. When I lived in the area, my summers were full of BWCAW trips.

I consider this example as good management of a National resource.

Have been to all the Utah attractions and will be watching what happens. :bbq::bbq:

 

[Chupaca]

Interesting....

Glad we got in the last two Red Rock Ralley's in under the wire...:roflblack: there won't be one next year and then they are moving it elsewhere....:banghead:

 

[UtahPete]

A success story--I think. Anyone been to Mount Rushmore? I have been going since the 1980's. I was there when it still had the old visitors center. Remember the movie North by Northwest? A few scenes were shot there. With improvements, the place had been completely revamped. New parking areas, an avenue of flags, an outdoor auditorium for nightly shows of the monument, hiking trails that let you get real close to the monument. IMO: a vast improvement in accommodating the public.

I think so. That facility is world-class now.

 

[ARtraveler]

I think so. That facility is world-class now.

:agree: That was exactly my comment the first time I saw the re-vamped Monument area.

 

[asp125]

The national parks need our help. Visit the more popular ones and you see trails in disrepair and closures due to the need for nature to regrow. Meanwhile attendance keeps going up. We toured most of the western national parks in 2014 and the peak times are like rush hour at Disney. Do like the ski areas do, cheaper rates during off peak seasons and higher during peak season. Seems to work fine for places like Vail and Aspen. Keeps the crowds down to a reasonable crush over holidays. Surge pricing works for Uber.

Just spend any money on trail and park maintenance. I disagree on building more facilities. Bigger parking lots and visitor centers just mean more people. Keep some of them small on purpose, if it reaches capacity too bad, come back another time. One near me fills up before mid morning and overflow visitors are bused in. I come back in winter and it's quiet and serene.

On the matter of the Utah parks, the desert soil is so fragile and takes so long to recover, that I support limited access. Last thing we need is a busload of tourists trampling over crypto soil for selfies. Canyonlands, Escalante, Bryce etc are special and rare, and need wild places that can only be hiked into.

Support your national parks before this administration slices and dices it away to oil and mining conglomerates!