Hacker News Reader

Comment by djsumdog | Hacker News Reader

It's really crazy how crowded national parks are. In a lot of ways, I feel like charging a fee to enter adds to the problem. Sure they need the money to help maintain all of that area, but they also use that money to advertise so more people buy passes. They use that money to advertise their volunteer programs to get volunteers to work on trails.

It's be interesting to look at visitor data for parks that went from free to paid (if they even collected such data years ago) and see if charging for parks and the business around them has actually made them more crowded.

Personally, I don't think there should be a fee for entering a National Park. It should be paid for by our taxes. Just skim off a tiny bit from those billions used for defence and parks could be fully funded for years.

View on HN

It helps that American's national parks system is one of the best in the world. When it comes to diversity and accessibility it's hard to beat American national parks.

I'm not sure how getting rid of the fee would decrease crowds. The fee system is one of the best incentives to keep the parks in their natural state, rather than, say, building luxury condos and golf courses on top of them. If that's the alternative I'm happy paying the park entrance fee.

>> The fee system is one of the best incentives to keep the parks in their natural state

Unless those fees are invested into things that draw in more people. "Improvements" like new roads, better amenities and advertising means more people. US parks are great, but many of them have moved away from wilderness. They are too easy to access. They have too many roads. They would do better without the money.

> They would do better without the money.

No they wouldn't. What about park rangers? What about forest fires? What about keeping wildlife and humans safe from one another?

Such things should be funded by government, standing budgets not linked to visitor numbers. User fees encourage parks to be run as businesses. They incentive constant growth in favor of human use above wilderness.

Go to a few Canadian parks. See what wilderness actually looks like. There is no ranger or fence between you and the bears. Rangers are there to protect nature from humans, not make wild areas more accessible for tourists.

The difference being that Canada has 10 times fewer people than the USA. They also charge money to access the national parks, by the way.

Both the US and Canadian park services are funded by a combination of federal funds and user fees.

A Parks Canada Discovery pass costs $67 CDN and is equivalent to the $80 USD America the Beautiful pass in the states.

Many parts of Banff, Jasper, and Garibaldi National Parks are quite manicured, with plenty of fences and visitor trails.

There are 30 million people in California. There are 30 million people in Canada. If all of Canada's people lived in Alberta then visiting the core of Banff would be like visiting the core of Yosemite. Very, very crowded.

The purpose of encouraging people to visit national parks via advertising is to get people to connect with nature and want to preserve it. There's tons of unpopulated parkland in the US but the very touristy areas are busy because that's the design. Concentrate visitors here, let them see some mountains safely, don't disturb too many animals by letting people just roam around in ATVs.

As a Canadian who has visited the backcountry of many US and Canadian national parks, you're completely off base. The US NPS has a far stronger wilderness ethic than Parks Canada. Yes, there are manicured front country areas, but there are also vast areas of designated wilderness - a legal designation that requires land to be left 'as though untrammeled by man'[1]. Banff and Jasper both have major private, commercial operations inside them that severely impact wildlife and continue to expand them (see the plan to expand the Sunshine ski area in Banff). Parks Canada funding for protecting the backcountry is almost nil.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness_Act

>It's really crazy how crowded national parks are.

On the one hand national parks are usually national parks for a reason. They're often at least somewhat unique compared to other areas. It's also often possible to avoid the worst of the crowds.

That said, in a lot of the country there are often wilderness areas/national forests nearby national parks that have a lot of the same natural beauty with a fraction of the people. They may not have the singular attraction(s) that define the national park but they still have a lot going for them.

National Parks aren't very crowded if you go more than a mile or two past the visitor center.

Yeah, except for the most popular trails, you see hardly anyone. The dropoff from the visitor centers to half a mile on the most popular trails is shocking too.

Last summer, on the 4th of July, in Yosemite National Park, I saw one other person. The guy I was hiking with.

(I was about 20 miles from a road in the biggest snow year since the 80s, but still.)

This is exceedingly correct. I work in remore areas and usually see no actual visitors.

As to daytrips, and as mentioned above, try out non-NP wilderness areas. Since this is HN, consider emmigrant wilderness rather than yosemite—as example.

Second the Emigrant Wilderness — you can basically always get a permit when Yosemite is full and it has many of the same ecosystems. And fewer, nicer bears.

Yes!

My wife commented that, although the Yosemite visitor center is beautiful, it feels almost like a tourist trap considering how beautiful and devoid of people the rest of the park is.

This is pretty backwards. If you want fewer people to visit, charge more. Charge extra to non locals if you’re so inclined. Don’t allow advertising, sure. But making parks free doesn’t make the problem better.

Parks and public lands should be open to all no matter their economic status.

Charging more to cap visitors shouldn't even be on the table.

What's your solution to parks like Zion that because of geographic constraints, only has 420 parking spaces but more than 2 million visitors per year? That is already 13 people per parking space per day (obviously much worse on weekends and less on weekdays). Your options are 1) charge people more 2) institute a permit system with a lottery or multi-year waiting list (this is what they do on the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon. How many people do you know that have rafted it?) 3) just let everyone's experience be ruined by more people than the park can handle. 4) Pave paradise and put up a parking lot.

Those are the options you have to pick. Given those are the options, number 1 seems pretty darn appealing.

> number 1 seems pretty darn appealing

Ouch. The rich have enough playgrounds already.

2. Lottery or capped reservations.

Zion is just nuts at the moment. It's awesome to see everyone out and about enjoying nature but the amount of people are just overwhelming to the senses. (The park itself seems to be holding up fairly well)

5. Carefully exploit the resources for a few more trails and opportunities.

6. Foreign tourists could be charged a greater amount.

7. Put on a bus on the busiest weekend, from a place with adequate parking, like a nearby town.

I visited Gatineau Park (just north of Ottawa) this way. I think the bus was free. It also meant we didn't need to plan a round-trip hike.

Zion Canyon is already off limits to personal vehicles much of the year. Busses have been running for the last 18 years.

In the peak season there can be a multi hour wait and the nearby town is also constrained by the canyon and there is no more places to put in parking lots.

I don't really think there is an option besides limiting daily visitors.

We do lotteries for hunting permits in many cases. I don't see anything wrong with that. What's the point of public lands, if access to them is contingent on wealth?

>Charge extra to non locals if you’re so inclined

These are National Parks, not state parks. Locals don't pay for them, we all do.

How about international visitors? Since they don’t pay taxes to help maintain the park should they have to pay a higher entrance fee?

It is nicer to ask for an (additional) donation.

For example, the British Museum is free, but the donation box when leaving points out that its paid for by taxes. I've seen international tourists making significant donations (e.g. £30+ for a family) recognising what visiting a similar museum would cost in their own country. But I like that a student from a low-income country can still visit the museum, and I'm happy for taxes to cover the cost.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com