'The intention was to let affected communities absorb the news and see if they would go along with the increases. Park superintendents can recommend that the agency director, Mary Bomar, rescind the increases if enough people protest.'Well, like I've pointed out before, it's not a question of need, but rather one of greed. Once you let an agency make decisions on fees, without the traditional legislative oversight, there is no end to what it will cost. Toss out a proposal and see if anyone is paying attention. If they aren't, pick their pockets.
'The fee increases are in line with a consultant's recommendation that the parks should charge fees according to four categories based on size, amount of services offered and other factors.'Again, where is the need? This is like basing political decisions on 'focus groups'. This is the same as that nonsense the NPS earlier spouted about being 'internally consistent' among parks. Rather than being able to justify a fee, they merely point to their consultants' recommendations. Yeah, that's the way to run an agency.
'But there is still the option that some of the park superintendents in the local communities will come back and say they can't support this. So we're letting the parks put themselves in their appropriate tier.'So, if enough people protest, it doesn't happen. That sure highlights how necessary these fees are. The scarier part is 'letting parks put themselves in their appropriate tier'. This is a taxation scheme couched in fee terminology. Taxes are subject to voter review, fees are not. The bottom line is it doesn't matter how much a community might protest, a fee increase is going to happen. This was abundantly demonstrated not long ago at Guadalupe Mtns where the protests of the Carlsbad community resulted only in the NPS 'hearing you' and still raising the fee.
'Some park advocacy groups, such as the National Parks Conservation Association and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, have expressed skepticism about the planned rate increases because they could price some people out of being able to experience the parks.'Finally, some of these people are coming to their senses. Maybe it's because somebody explained that if you lose your constituency you will lose your reason for being. Despite some folks opinions, national parks are just as politically expendable as any other program that begins to cost too much for too little return.
'That may sound like a lot, but going to the parks will still be "absolutely a bargain," said Barna, when compared with the price of movie tickets for a family or places such as Disneyland.'There's only one tiny difference. The parks are public property. Couching a fee in terms of theme parks and entertainment is like comparing apples to oranges. The entertainment industry is 'charged' to make a profit. That is not the purpose of parks.
