Fees for National Parks for international tourists

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of the things I love about being i the parks is hearing all the different languages and seeing tourists enjoy our country.

One of the things I hate about being in the parks is people talking instead of hearing nature.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous. And this will be devastating to the tourism industry.

The National Parks are desperately overcrowded as is. A few less tourists in them is a good thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous. And this will be devastating to the tourism industry.

Tourist areas are devastating for most people that live there. In affordability, crime, housing, environmental costs, and QOL. People that say how great tourism is are usually just (domestic) tourists themselves. And as for the economic benefits? That's felt mostly by people upstate or downstate from the tourist areas.

So in terms of economic benefit, sure there might be a net plus, but let's not pretend it's not large corporations, a few smaller businesses, and mostly people in other parts of the state that benefit most from the taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s ridiculous. $250?? I wouldn’t pay that.

This is for a ticket to ALL parks, not just one park and it's per car, not per person.

How long is the ticket valid? How many US National parks can a person realisitcally visit in a typical vacation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s ridiculous. $250?? I wouldn’t pay that.

This is for a ticket to ALL parks, not just one park and it's per car, not per person.

How long is the ticket valid? How many US National parks can a person realisitcally visit in a typical vacation?

Not sure what the $250 is referring to but an annual national parks pass is $80, I think.

And on the west coast, you can easily visit several national parks in a week, unless you plan on camping or serious hiking. We speed ran through 3 in 5 days during peak season by entering really early, and were able to see all the highlights. They actually happened to be in the direction of a roadtrip to the actual vacation!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dumbest idea ever. Just because other countries do it does not mean we have to. Other countries do a lot of other things like not work to death and have free healthcare and education. We don't do that do we?

This further destroys our tourism and that impacts our economy wholly. So we are just hurting not helping ourselves with this idea. It's overcrowding that's the prob and citizens are just as much a prob contributing to that as foreigners. It's about limiting and organizing numbers of everyone going to the parks!

The difference is that most residents of the U.S. are traveling individually (families) or in small groups to National Parks. They are not typically arriving in multiple 60-pax tour buses all at the same time, which is what foreign tour groups do.

I've been at National Parks when that happens. It is a nightmare. In one instance in Utah, the entire hiking/walking path was choked with 100+ people all at once. They had no problem with hogging every look-out point, setting up selfie scenes including multiple changes in outfits, taking up every bit of foot space and blocking the view for everyone.

Of course, American residents can do the same things but it is in smaller numbers and more of an annoyance than an all-out overtaking of the area, all at once.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous. And this will be devastating to the tourism industry.

The National Parks are desperately overcrowded as is. A few less tourists in them is a good thing.

The “overcrowded” narrative is exaggerated. It’s not all parks, all the time; it’s a handful of marquee sites, and mostly at peak season. Much of the pandemic‑era surge was temporary, driven by people turning to outdoor recreation when other options were closed. That spike has already eased.

And let’s be clear: the overwhelming majority of visitors are Americans. Foreign tourists are a fraction of the total. Slapping a surcharge on them won’t solve crowding, it’s political theater, not policy.

Meanwhile, tourism is the lifeblood of many gateway communities. Locals may gripe about traffic, but those dollars keep restaurants, hotels, and outfitters alive. Cutting off international visitors risks devastating local economies while doing nothing to fix the real issues driving the perception of "overcrowding": underfunded infrastructure and staffing shortages.

[Anonymous]

Reading the comments on this thread is so enlightening. Here we are, discussing a proposal that will make our national parks more enjoyable for Americans, and predictably, the leftists here hate it. Typical!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous. And this will be devastating to the tourism industry.

The National Parks are desperately overcrowded as is. A few less tourists in them is a good thing.

The “overcrowded” narrative is exaggerated. It’s not all parks, all the time; it’s a handful of marquee sites, and mostly at peak season. Much of the pandemic‑era surge was temporary, driven by people turning to outdoor recreation when other options were closed. That spike has already eased.

And let’s be clear: the overwhelming majority of visitors are Americans. Foreign tourists are a fraction of the total. Slapping a surcharge on them won’t solve crowding, it’s political theater, not policy.

Meanwhile, tourism is the lifeblood of many gateway communities. Locals may gripe about traffic, but those dollars keep restaurants, hotels, and outfitters alive. Cutting off international visitors risks devastating local economies while doing nothing to fix the real issues driving the perception of "overcrowding": underfunded infrastructure and staffing shortages.

So let me get this straight using what's apparently 80 IQ logic. According to you: There's not this overcrowdedness at National Parks. Still, the overwhelming majority of tourists are Americans. Fees will only go up for foreigners. Foreigners only make up a fraction so they don't affect crowding. Nevertheless they somehow dramatically affect the boom/bust cycle for local economies near National Parks? And to top it all off, we should cut down trees and lay more asphalt at a National Park so people can travel 100s or 1000s of miles to visit something that looks more and more like a city park?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dumbest idea ever. Just because other countries do it does not mean we have to. Other countries do a lot of other things like not work to death and have free healthcare and education. We don't do that do we?

This further destroys our tourism and that impacts our economy wholly. So we are just hurting not helping ourselves with this idea. It's overcrowding that's the prob and citizens are just as much a prob contributing to that as foreigners. It's about limiting and organizing numbers of everyone going to the parks!

The difference is that most residents of the U.S. are traveling individually (families) or in small groups to National Parks. They are not typically arriving in multiple 60-pax tour buses all at the same time, which is what foreign tour groups do.

I've been at National Parks when that happens. It is a nightmare. In one instance in Utah, the entire hiking/walking path was choked with 100+ people all at once. They had no problem with hogging every look-out point, setting up selfie scenes including multiple changes in outfits, taking up every bit of foot space and blocking the view for everyone.

Of course, American residents can do the same things but it is in smaller numbers and more of an annoyance than an all-out overtaking of the area, all at once.

Well this does not solve what you are talking about. It’s not the stated goal of the Trump administration. Maybe you should work to ban large groups from going to the parks?

Personally I think the parks are overcrowded by Americans and in very bad shape due to lack of funding. The cost to visit should be increased to least $500 per person. If you can’t afford that too bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dumbest idea ever. Just because other countries do it does not mean we have to. Other countries do a lot of other things like not work to death and have free healthcare and education. We don't do that do we?

This further destroys our tourism and that impacts our economy wholly. So we are just hurting not helping ourselves with this idea. It's overcrowding that's the prob and citizens are just as much a prob contributing to that as foreigners. It's about limiting and organizing numbers of everyone going to the parks!

The difference is that most residents of the U.S. are traveling individually (families) or in small groups to National Parks. They are not typically arriving in multiple 60-pax tour buses all at the same time, which is what foreign tour groups do.

I've been at National Parks when that happens. It is a nightmare. In one instance in Utah, the entire hiking/walking path was choked with 100+ people all at once. They had no problem with hogging every look-out point, setting up selfie scenes including multiple changes in outfits, taking up every bit of foot space and blocking the view for everyone.

Of course, American residents can do the same things but it is in smaller numbers and more of an annoyance than an all-out overtaking of the area, all at once.

Well this does not solve what you are talking about. It’s not the stated goal of the Trump administration. Maybe you should work to ban large groups from going to the parks?

Personally I think the parks are overcrowded by Americans and in very bad shape due to lack of funding. The cost to visit should be increased to least $500 per person. If you can’t afford that too bad.

I'm not sure who's rolling in their grave more: TR or Woodie Guthrie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reading the comments on this thread is so enlightening. Here we are, discussing a proposal that will make our national parks more enjoyable for Americans, and predictably, the leftists here hate it. Typical!

Weren’t you the party that threw a fit when Michelle Obama said “hey, maybe we should have healthier school lunches”? By your logic, that means the right hates healthy food and anything common sense.

Orrr, maybe the world is nuanced and it’s helpful to discuss the ramifications of proposed solutions before blindly enacting them. Nothing is 100% good or bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous. And this will be devastating to the tourism industry.

The National Parks are desperately overcrowded as is. A few less tourists in them is a good thing.

The “overcrowded” narrative is exaggerated. It’s not all parks, all the time; it’s a handful of marquee sites, and mostly at peak season. Much of the pandemic‑era surge was temporary, driven by people turning to outdoor recreation when other options were closed. That spike has already eased.

And let’s be clear: the overwhelming majority of visitors are Americans. Foreign tourists are a fraction of the total. Slapping a surcharge on them won’t solve crowding, it’s political theater, not policy.

Meanwhile, tourism is the lifeblood of many gateway communities. Locals may gripe about traffic, but those dollars keep restaurants, hotels, and outfitters alive. Cutting off international visitors risks devastating local economies while doing nothing to fix the real issues driving the perception of "overcrowding": underfunded infrastructure and staffing shortages.

: A 2018 report from the U.S. Travel Association indicated that overseas visitors were expected to make up around 36.7% of visitors in 2017 to national parks and monuments.

https://www.ustravel.org/sites/default/files/media_root/document/NPS_Overseas_Highlights_V1%20%281%29.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reading the comments on this thread is so enlightening. Here we are, discussing a proposal that will make our national parks more enjoyable for Americans, and predictably, the leftists here hate it. Typical!

lol there is nothing in Trump’s proposed fee increase for foreigners about making the parks more enjoyable for Americans. Are you stupid or something? The fee increases is nothing when compared to how expensive it is to fly to America from overseas. Hell staying at the Ahwahneeis $450 a night.

325 million people visit US National Park system annual. Of that 14 million were foreigners- about 4%. Explain how that makes the national parks more enjoyable?

The only thing predictable is your hate of the imaginary leftists. Get a life loser.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous. And this will be devastating to the tourism industry.

The National Parks are desperately overcrowded as is. A few less tourists in them is a good thing.

The “overcrowded” narrative is exaggerated. It’s not all parks, all the time; it’s a handful of marquee sites, and mostly at peak season. Much of the pandemic‑era surge was temporary, driven by people turning to outdoor recreation when other options were closed. That spike has already eased.

And let’s be clear: the overwhelming majority of visitors are Americans. Foreign tourists are a fraction of the total. Slapping a surcharge on them won’t solve crowding, it’s political theater, not policy.

Meanwhile, tourism is the lifeblood of many gateway communities. Locals may gripe about traffic, but those dollars keep restaurants, hotels, and outfitters alive. Cutting off international visitors risks devastating local economies while doing nothing to fix the real issues driving the perception of "overcrowding": underfunded infrastructure and staffing shortages.

: A 2018 report from the U.S. Travel Association indicated that overseas visitors were expected to make up around 36.7% of visitors in 2017 to national parks and monuments.

https://www.ustravel.org/sites/default/files/media_root/document/NPS_Overseas_Highlights_V1%20%281%29.pdf

In 2016, 37.6 million overseas visitors1 traveled to the United States.
Of these 37.6 million overseas arrivals, up from 33.4 percent in 2012.
35.4 percent (13.3 The total number of overseas arrivals to the U.S. is expected to reach 37.5 million in 2017.
■ ■ The share of these overseas arrivals visiting national parks and monuments is expected to increase
from 35.4 percent in 2016 to 36.7 percent in 2017.
■ ■ As a result, national parks and monuments will receive about 14.3 million overseas visitors in 2018, up
7.6 percent from 13.3 million in 2016.
In 2016, the UK, China, Germany, France and Australia were the top 5 sources of overseas visitors to
national parks and monuments, accounting for nearly 42 percent of total overseas visitation to national
parks and monuments.
Sha

https://www.ustravel.org/sites/default/files/media_root/document/NPS_Overseas_Highlights_V1%20%281%29.pdf