My gut feeling is that revenue generation is not the real aim of the current administration. I think the long con is to further privatize NPS units.

https://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?documentID=83652

1) Daily/weekly: $70 per week

2) Annual Park-specific: $75 per year

3) Annual Interagency: $80 per year

Numbers 1 and 2 mandate that the bulk of the fee stays with the Park that sold the Pass. Number 3 does not — most of those funds wind up in another basket administered by NPS out of DC. If I’m wrong about this, please let someone correct me but I’ve been told this by people at SNP who should know.

This huge increase (#1), which will certainly decrease SNP visitation drastically by day-trippers from nearby urban areas like DC, Baltimore, Philly, Richmond, Pittsburgh has been “sold” to local communities as the methodology for improving tourism in the region by improving the local NP unit. But it will predictably have the opposite effect because most visitors to SNP make a day (or two) out of a visit. $70 to enter the Park is a deterrent, to say the least.

Other western Parks instituting similar fee increases are more likely a vacation destination encompassing more days — possibly a week or greater. $70 for a week (vs. a day or two in a Park like SNP) is not that much of a deterrent.

Looking at the price schedule above, it is predictable that visitors NOT scared off by #1 will opt for #2 or #3. As you point out, the Interagency Pass is quite a deal. Given that you get all the Parks for only $5 more than you get just SNP, why would anyone buy an annual SNP Pass? They will opt for #3, but SNP will not benefit that much if at all. This has not been presented honestly, in my opinion, and SNP will be a big loser if things remain as they are.

Local businesses depending on tourism and Chambers of Commerce in the nine counties bordering SNP are rightfully concerned that they will be big losers too. They predict many jobs will be lost, and business bankruptcies will occur, because so many fewer people will visit the area starting in 2018. I can see it from their point of view.

The answers, in my opinion:

1) First, the NPS should be honest about all the intended AND unintended consequences this change will cause.

2) The NPS should better consider the impact on local communities in determining which Parks should see these increases, and how much those increases should be. The visitor mix at Parks like Denali, Yosemite, Glacier, and Yellowstone are quite different than that experienced at Acadia, Mt. Ranier, and SNP. Especially SNP, because of its proximity to large urban areas making it most dependent on day trippers.

3) Federal priorities are all wrong, and can only be changed by electing a pro-NPS Congress and President.

4) There are some Parks where entrance fees would be impossible to manage, logistically, because there are so many driveable entry points. But there are others where the vast majority enter from just one or two locations. GSMNP is an example, and the Smokies are not included in this revenue-enhancing proposition. If the Smokies and perhaps four other well-visited Parks would adopt an entrance fee, the amount of these increases could be reduced across-the-board so they would not be much of a deterrent to Park visitation. NPS financial challenges would be met. Somewhat of a win-win until and unless we have a more pro-NPS government.

5) The Comments Period for this has passed, but pressure can still be directed at those within NPS who are charged with adopting and implementing these increases. They are in a tough position, facing ever mounting financial challenges and maintenance backlogs, with a President and the majority in Congress hostile to their existence. They do need to consider other ways to spread the “pain” by initiating other revenue enhancements so the increases at just 17 Parks won’t be so drastic, and further reduce the burden on Parks like SNP. It would not hurt to phase these increases in, either.

Ah! An ultralight tool, too!

Since you have to show proof of age when buying it, it’s really not an item for gifting, though.

Parks passes are also versatile, multi-functional parts of a backpacking kit. I use mine to open my bear-canister like Nancy shows in her post here:

https://nancyhikes.com/2016/10/29/how-to-open-a-bearvault-bear-canister/