Fees for National Parks for international tourists

[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

[Anonymous]

: 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

You are misinterpreting that percentage. The 36.7% represents the percentage of overseas visitors that happen to visit an NPS site during their visit. Not the percent of NPS visitors that were from overseas. That percentage is about 4% based on a total visitation in 2018 was 314 million.

As someone already said, this was mainly just typical stagecraft. But the $250 pass isn't that crazy a price if the main purpose of the trip is to visit a park. You can bring in a family of 4 with such a pass. The reason that pricing isn't as out of whack as the $100 per person charge at the 11 targeted Parks is because the pass is a multi agency one. So DOI didn't have exclusive say on what to price it at. Whereas, the per person surcharge of $100, which is way out of whack from the standard price, could be solely determined by Burgum, the DOI head. By way of example, a car load of 4 Parisians going to Yellowstone would pay just $35. Under the new rates, this quartet would have to pay $435. It probably makes sense to go with the pass in most cases, unless you are single or couple and want to visit just one Park.

EU sites by and large charge everyone the same. There is a segment of EU citizens that get a discount/free admission, and that is young adults under 26 or 25. Not exactly a sweeping discount.

[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!

Exactly

Similar to arguments about immigration

It is like they are bearing the weight of tremendous guilt

Any discussion about immigration limits is met with indignation and screams of RACIST !

And only a generation ago it was not like this

[Anonymous]

In today's Louvre news. Non-EU foreigners now have to pay more because of last month's theft at the museum. So in probably less than a couple of weeks, the museum has proposed and approved this price increase. Apparently no controversy over there. And 13% of museum visitors are Americans.

AP: Paris’ Louvre museum to increase ticket price for visitors from outside the European Union

Paris’ Louvre museum has approved a ticket hike from 22 to 32 euros ($25 to 37) for non-European visitors from January to help finance an overhaul of the building whose degradation has been exposed by the Oct. 19 crown jewels heist.

From Jan. 14, nationals from outside the European Union will have to pay 10 euros more. The measure was approved Thursday by the Louvre governing board. Nationals from Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, countries that signed up to the European Economic Area agreement, will be exempted from the hike.

In 2024, the Louvre welcomed 8.7 millions visitors, 77% of them foreigners. Top nationalities include people from the U.S. (13%), China (6%) and Britain (5%) who are affected by the price hikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We’re look at the parks very strongly.
The trees. The trees I tell you.
Everyone loves the trees.
It’s an old-fashioned word.
But it’s a word.

I have trees in my back yard. If you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We’re look at the parks very strongly.
The trees. The trees I tell you.
Everyone loves the trees.
It’s an old-fashioned word.
But it’s a word.