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

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!

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!