Before I Rest
Posted by skyblu on May 7, 2007
analysis COMPLETE, report PRINTED, boxes SHIPPED.
Well, gals, the report is done and gone – HUZZAH! The staff is moving on to other projects, and I’m going to take a break.
Before I take a week or two off, (Mom’s coming here for Mother’s Day. We’ll go to Yellowstone – I’ll drive, she’ll pay,) there are a couple of things I need to say – as if I wouldn’t!
The stir and hubbub about raising fees to our National Parks is gaining attention in the media (Link, Link, Link.) This has been building since the “Fee Demonstration Program” was initiated about 11, or so years ago. Believe me, fees are going to continue to rise. There is no public outcry loud enough to stop them: it just makes a good story so it gets written.
One thing that is galling about the outcry is that it is a generalized and unfocused whine. It does not address the real costs of visiting parks – all of which are escalating at a pace that far outstrips inflation.
Yellowstone in the winter is an extreme example. Yet it does show that it’s not just park fees that are necessarily responsible for attendance figures. In fact, the Yellowstone case tests the conventional altruistic wisdom.
There has been no outcry about the way the National Park Service has forced the visiting public to spend exorbitant amounts of money to “enjoy the winter in Yellowstone.”
They have mandated that any person wishing to visit Old Faithful must pay no less than $100/day. And they have mandated that any person that wants to see the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone must pay an additional $100/day.
The very people that decry the petty increases of $5, or $10, or $20 for entrance fees at parks across the nation are blatantly silent about the gross and inappropriate monetary burden placed on the Yellowstone winter visitor.
The very people that whine about a few extra hydrocarbons in the air over Yellowstone, are afraid to mention that it now is a park not much cleaner and very much more expensive.
Interestingly, winter visitation figures for Yellowstone are showing a gradual upward trend, (watch the pollution figures climb as well.) This is not because the park is cleaner but rather, I suspect, because it is more exclusive. It is now attracting more affluent visitors. Visitors who can afford to spend their money on riding in a diesel bus in the warmth of splendor. Shielded, they are, from the very elements that they profess to adore.
This is the first step in a trend that Scott Silver calls a plan to DISNEYFY the parks.
Now that the “RIDES” cost more money, and now that the common people have been removed from underfoot, and now that exclusivity reigns, of course Yellowstone will attract more of the “right” people.
This injustice is certainly more offensive and obscene than a $15 fee increase. Where are the news sources decrying this injustice? Where are the bloggers pointing out this prostitution of our park system? Where are the activists that so sanctimoniously proclaim that the parks should be available to the common man? Where is Tom ["Really-Loves-Yellowstone"] Brokaw? You & I know exactly where they are – riding on a diesel powered bus, or an obsolete, unsafe, gas guzzling Bombardier. They don’t dare admit that they are just as happy that the guise of pollution has rid their beloved Yellowstone of the “little people.”
They certainly are not going to suggest that the very ranting that they have used to force commercialization is limiting access. They don’t dare suggest that a family of four can afford $800 for two days in Yellowstone, (plus $250/night for hotel.) Oops forgot about travel expenses, meals, souvenirs, gratuities, photos, etc. Is a two day visit to Yellowstone worth $2,800 to the average American Family of four – you bet it is, they just can’t afford it.
This condition is coming to all parks, even one near you. The Presidio is already long down this road, as is Denali. And as each park realizes that they can mandate tours in lieu of individual experiences – they will.
As each park unit discovers ways to allow concessionaires to take over NPS duties, they will. As each park unit manufactures unneeded services that can bring money to the trough, they will drink.
Just how many luxury hotels (with $500/night suites,) are needed in a national park? Just how many trinket stores constitute a “service” to the public? Just how many horse back rides, stagecoach rides, bicycle rentals, (with regulations and dedicated bicycle trails,) visitor centers, museums, (centralized or dispersed, or for the birds,) resource centers, paved pathways, parking lots, luxury diners & fast food emporia, etcetera ad infinitum, are justifiable as services? The NPS is busy selling the parks – or giving them to private interests as fast as they can. They call it ‘visitor services. They also call it a wilderness.
Americans, as a general rule, want their entertainment done to them: TV, MOVIES, TOUR BUSES, GUIDED EXPERIENCES, LUXURY SUITES, GLAMOROUS DINING, etc. This is what we’ve been sold, and this is what we expect. The USA is a capitalist place and capitalism rules the mindset of us all. After all; it can’t be good if it’s cheap, it must be good if rich people covet it. This is the American mindset, and it demands that the parks cost more – not less.
Even the the NPS believes that they should have expensive luxury and exclusivity. If you don’t believe it just call (307) 344-7381, and ask about the private, not open to the public, island facilities that the executive rangers use for their own enjoyment. Ask about the “White House” china service and the fancy catered meals. Ask where it is in the budget, while you’re at it. (Oh, planning retreat? – I get it!)
The NPS model flies in the face of our overriding cultural values. It suggests that the best things about our country can be had for bargain basement prices. It suggests that the government does amusement parks better than Disney. It’s time to change the model, or it’s time to change the culture. Go ahead pick your task.
Actually the Disney model is a better deal.
=========================
Question of the day:
Why are back country permits free?
Answer to the question:
There is no good answer!
In Yellowstone there are entrance permit fees, campground fees, photo permit fees, fishing permit fees, boating permit fees; but no hiking or back country camping permit fees. In the winter there are no snowshoe fees; and even though the park grooms ski trails there are no ski trail permit fees.
Did you know that if you bring your own horses, and weed-free fodder; you can take up five parking spaces with your rig, saddle up and ride in Yellowstone without a permit or a fee. Of course you didn’t know that; you can’t afford a horse, or a Hummer, or a six-horse trailer. Sad for you!
The NPS is missing a bet here. These kinds of activities could easily be taxed with ‘special user fees’ - this would defer costs of trail maintenance, back country signs, trail grooming, back country patrol and rescue, as well as toilet duty. In fact, very high fees would attract more elite visitors and generate more revenue.
We wonder where the righteous outcries will come from.
Darin said
I generally agree with you enthusiastically. In fact, you’ve changed my mind about snowmachines in YNP (one of those winter weekends that drained my savings also convinced me – why can’t I take my own snowmobile in and wintercamp?).
However, I think you’re missing something ont fees for backcountry permits. The permits are free, and along with that comes the required campsites (that I don’t necessarily agree with, although they have a purpose). Those campsites require maintenance, and the trails require maintenance. But let’s face it, the maintenance is minimal (which I think is a good thing). But don’t think that backcountry hikers get off free.
There’s a reservation fee ($20?) to secure those campsites ahead of time to ensure you can do a hike on some sort of schedule (I have limited vacation time from my work, so I need to schedule these things). That reservation fee certainly helps pay for some of the maintenance (at least I hope so, but who knows!). I do agree that skiiers who use trails should help pay for the grooming, but then that just keeps increasing the fees for a winter weekend in YNP. A fee for the permit would be just what the NPS is looking for – a way to drive people away from the park and reduce their workload. I can go anywhere in the Sawtooths or west side of the Tetons for absolutely free.
As for me, the backcountry is what the national parks are for. I’ll stop by and see Old Faithful and the other grossly developed (gross as in disgusting) aeras on my way to/from the trailheads, leaving the crowds to the crazies who can put up with that sort of scene.
That’s it in a nutshell. I, like you, could go on forever about the costs of adventure in YNP.
Thanks for your great (and mostly spot-on) commentary on the state of YNP.
skyblu said
Darin,
– Fees are probably not the answer. The whole concept of a National Park needs to be examined. Both the Yosemite and Yellowstone charters are inordinately vague. They came at a time when wilderness was not unique, and curiosities were. A beautiful valley on the one hand and some bit of hell spewing through the earth on the other.
– As wilderness disappeared, and the realization came, (slowly,) that other things were being preserved – the NPS became confused about just what a park was.
– Yellowstone is, in fact two very different parks, (at least:) the geothermal circus in the forecountry, and the near wilderness of the backcountry. The ancillary aspects that got preserved, (biota, processes, assemblages,etc.,) are just, within the last 20 years or so being appreciated.
– The insidious tyranny of vocabulary gets in the way of rational thought. The very word “park” mitigates against preservation. We need both ‘parks’ and ‘preserves.’ More importantly, we need different rules and regulations and fees for the two.
– The NPS, (Yellowstone in particular,) continue to believe that the development is somehow related to preservation. What it preserves, sadly, is the traditions of the concept of “park.”
– I think it’s possible to conceive of a park and a preserve. I also think that the NPS can not manage both successfully.
– Those areas in our country most closely approximating wilderness are, interestingly, managed mostly by the USFS. Take away the “original curiosities” and Yellowstone becomes just another pretty place. The historical and geographic accident of size has allowed the diversity to be preserved and that is a marvelous bit of serendipity.
– Yellowstone National Park could be reduced in size by 2/3 and still attract the visitation that it does. The rest would be Yellowstone National Preserve – Managed by the other NPS, (National Preservation Service.)
– Fees could be adjusted accordingly. Appreciation would be enhanced for both the park & the preserve, and management of both would be more focused.
– Thanks for your compliments, but the answers to the park’s dilemma is not to be found within a single service.
– Go to a backcountry office and try to get a permit to ‘Fairy Land.’ The folks that are managing the park haven’t been there ——— how can they manage it?
……skyblu
Erica said
Erica
All I can say is WOW! Extremely nice layouts, awesome graphics and great articles. No matter how many times I come here, I am still impressed by the very professional appearance. Congratulations on a job well done.