Proposed Grand Canyon Backcountry Fee Increase

[DixieFlyer]

https://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHom ... tId=126241

[azbackpackr]

A lot of the discussion I'm seeing about this is backpackers are saying that a long trip for two people will cost as much as their mortgage! They say they don't want the park to increase fees in the corridor and have the backcountry fees be less, because that will encourage unskilled people to go places they shouldn't.

The best suggestion I've seen is to have the price rise only for the first two nights of the trip, and the rest of the days stay the same as now. That will take care of most of the Corridor Stompers, and still make it affordable for people to do long trips.

[chumley]

@DixieFlyer
Overnight fees went up 50% last year and now they propose raising them 60% more!?

To quote a commercial I’ve seen a lot recently… it’s working!

[azbackpackr]

@chumley
Huh? What's working? Anyway, on a more serious note, see my post.

Edit: Oh, you meant a TV commercial. I thought you were talking about a commercial company. Haven't seen the ad.

[hikeaz]

USDOI (and the USDoA) have mortgaged our parks/lands to the shyster 'facilitators' like Booz Allen . We pay a lot more and get even less....

Case-in-Point...
Applying to the lottery for a chance to visit 'the Wave', which can accommodate 64 people each day, costs $9, whether the application is successful or not.
Of the $9, $5 ultimately goes to Booz Allen and just $4 goes to the Bureau of Land Management, which manages the site, a BLM spokesman said.
Recreation.gov users submitted about 130,000 applications for permits to hike the Wave last year, generating about $648,200 for Booz Allen and $518,600 for the BLM, a BLM spokesman says. The near totality of these funds were squeezed from 'swing-and-miss' lottery players. The BLM also collected about $35,500 in additional permit fees from successful applicants, he says.*
Remember..... Booz-Allen manages backcountry permits, campgrounds and all sorts of tertiary 'assets' - including Christmas Tree cutting; to the tune of 121,000 sites. About 10 million reservations were made on Recreation.gov in the 2022 fiscal year, up from 3.76 million in the 2019 fiscal year.
Especially with their "pay to play the lottery" scheme adding massively to their coffers, they have a hoard of extra funds to launder back to the folks who rubber-stamp their egregious fee hikes.
So... who pays for all of this graft? YOU do; and HOW.

[chumley]

@hikeaz wreck.gov is a godsend to online applications and permits which the entities involved could never, ever accomplish, and definitely not nearly as efficiently as wreck.gov (imperfect as it may be).

Some things are just better left to private sector.

With that said ... the contract that the government currently has with Booz Allen to run wreck.gov is a disaster and should be renegotiated in a way that is far more reasonable to the recreation consumer.

If the current contract is renewed without revisions, it would be a failure on the part of the leadership of the agencies which utilize it. Congress (or USDOI, whoever is in charge of the contract) should include maximums in the contract. The lottery application costs, especially, are criminal and should have an annual cap. Unfortunately, I have little hope or expectation that the terms of the contract will be improved in a meaningful way.

[hikeaz]

@chumley
Unlikely the gubment WANTS a better contract for the hiker/taxpayer (as a nominal 5th-grader could see this is another boondoggle) - the more fluff money they collude with Booz to shake from the hiker/taxpayer/Christmas Tree cutter, the more comes back to them at election time. Especially egregious is the 'pay-to-spin-the-wheel' system.

[chumley]

So I did a little bit of research to see how GRCA compares to other NPS backcountry camping fees. They vary widely, but the current GRCA fees are generally double what any other park is charging. ALREADY. Right now. Before the proposed increase.

Fees not linked to length of trip
Yosemite: $10 application + $5 per person
Bryce Canyon: $10 application + $5 per person
Sequoia: $15 application + $5 per person
Kings Canyon: $15 application + $5 per person
North Cascades: $6 application + $10 per person

Joshua Tree: $6 per person (max 13 nights)
Arches: $7 per person total (max 3 nights)
Rainier: $26 per person (max 14 nights)
Rocky Mountain: $36 total (not per person nor per night)

Fees linked to length of trip
Olympic: $6 application + $8 per person PER NIGHT -- (Oly offers a $45 annual pass for unlimited backcountry nights)
Yellowstone: $10 application + $5 per person PER NIGHT -- ($10 non-refundable lottery fee eliminates application fee if lottery is won)
Glacier: $10 application + $7 per person PER NIGHT
Grand Canyon: $10 application + $15 per person PER NIGHT -- ($10 non-refundable lottery fee eliminates application fee if lottery is won)
Grand Canyon proposed: $10 application + $24 per person PER NIGHT --($10 non-refundable lottery fee eliminates application fee if lottery is won)
Grand Teton: $20 application + $7 per person PER NIGHT
Zion: $20 application + $7 per person PER NIGHT
Canyonlands: $36 application + $7 per person PER NIGHT

Great Smoky Mtn: $8 per person PER NIGHT (maximum $40)
Saguaro: $8 per person PER NIGHT

Channel Islands: $15 per person PER NIGHT
Death Valley: $10 per person PER NIGHT

No backcountry permit fees
Capitol Reef: free
Crater Lake: free

The $15 per night fee currently being charged is matched only by Channel Islands NP, which is an outlier because it only permits camping for a few months of the year in 4 total campsites.

I fail to see a justification why GRCA can't manage their backcountry use with a similar fee structure as other parks that charge $7-$8/night.

Perhaps a maximum charge like Great Smoky uses is a compromise that GRCA backpackers can agree to. You wanna go to $24/night. Ok. Maximum $48?

[hikeaz]

@chumley
If you review the fees they shake out merely on the 'swing-and-miss' fees derived from The Wave you will note that very few 'hit' and that the fees generated by the 'misses' vastly exceed the 'successful' lotto players (to the tune of over a $Million Dollars$ a year). Grand Canyon PRIVATE River Permits use the same scheme; collecting fees for thin air.
Pay More - Get Less....MUCH less.

[chumley]

@hikeaz
I think we all agree that the lottery fees are a complete scam.

Perhaps we could find an independently wealthy politician with self-professed world-class negotiating skills to pretend to look out for the little guy and campaign on lowering costs for the non-REI supporting backpacker community and take Booz Allen to task in the next contract!

[big_load]

@hikeaz
I think we all agree that the lottery fees are a complete scam.

Perhaps we could find an independently wealthy politician with self-professed world-class negotiating skills to pretend to look out for the little guy and campaign on lowering costs for the non-REI supporting backpacker community and take Booz Allen to task in the next contract!

Says the guy whose calves are as big as cantaloupes.

[hikeaz]

@big_load
Yeah... like if Popeye was a HIKER!

[ShatteredArm]

I fail to see a justification why GRCA can't manage their backcountry use with a similar fee structure as other parks that charge $7-$8/night.

What they're not willing to say is that the costs they're trying to manage are primarily for the benefit of day hikers (rescues, rangers, etc.), but they're unwilling to charge a fee for that, so they're putting the onus on overnight users.

I have a few thoughts on this:

1) As I just mentioned, they're only raising backcountry camping fees because they're unwilling to charge day hikers. They could just add a $1 below-the-rim hiking add-on to park entrance fees and generate far more revenue than they will by charging overnight hikers an arm and a leg.

2) They should charge more for nights in the corridor vs designated threshold camps vs at-large. It won't drive rim-to-rim people out of the corridor.

3) If they go through with this increase, it will probably be more cost-effective to just ignore the permit system and risk paying the fine if you get caught. I've never seen a ranger in any of the areas I actually backpack in the canyon; I've seen off-permit campers pretty much every time I've been down in the Tapeats amphitheater for example. They've probably already squeezed as much out of backpackers as they can.

[big_load]

I'd be interested in seeing a graph yearly backcountry visitation and costs of backcountry campsite maintenance, especially the toilets. It has probably gone up quite a bit in the last ten years.

I agree that backcountry costs probably pale in comparison to serving the dayhikers and mule riders.

[chumley]

@ShatteredArm
Day hiking in national parks is a pretty common activity, and one that most visitors probably feel should be included as part of the entrance fee (IMHO). But it is certainly worth recognizing that Grand Canyon provides some uniquely dangerous conditions versus many other parks. Yosemite requires permits to limit the number of hikers on Half Dome though the cables provide a safety situation that a similar number of hikers on BA or SK does not (Half Dome permits cost $10/hiker, which probably covers the cost of the permit system and enforcing it).

Charging all hikers $1 to go below the rim seems like a logistical nightmare. Perhaps a larger fee for those who wish to go beyond the tipoff or Indian Gardens. No limits on how many, but if you want to do rim to river and back, or R2R/R3, it'll require a $10 permit fee. That way the day hikers that just want to go to Oooh Ahhh point or 3 mile rest house can do their thing without added rules. Presumably those are not the biggest drain on NPS resources. But the dayhikers chasing the goal of going to the river (or more) will need a permit.

I suspect that NPS has a goal of how much money they would like to raise through the increased fee proposal. It does make sense to me that if the fees will be going to support non-overnight services that there should be a way to ask the non-overnight users to contribute.

I still also like the idea of a maximum fee for any trip. The group on a 6 night itinerary is simply not $154 worth of fees toward bathroom maintenance and backcountry patrols. I support something under a $50 max for any person on any trip regardless of length. There is no reason to penalize the most experienced backpackers who typically take longer trips, and are probably less likely to use the more expensive park resources that NPS is looking to recoup costs for.

[Dave1]

The $1 day hiker fee isn't a new idea

[chumley]

@Dave1 Havasupai Gardens? In 1903?

fwiw, I can't find an inflation calculator that calculates earlier than 1913, but $1 then is worth over $30 now. So maybe $10 isn't so bad?

[RedRoxx44]

Hmmm--what is this permit thing you speak of??

[ShatteredArm]

@chumley
I think controlling R2R or Rim to River access would be more difficult. You'd need more rangers down at the bottom checking permits, whereas if they charge a smaller fee for more hikers, they could just station one ranger at Ooh Aah Point and one at the mile and a half rest house. And it would be easier for them to just charge the fee at the entrance gate when they pay the entrance fee than to have them go to a separate system (which will probably give Booz Allen a cut). I don't think logistics are the problem, so much as political will.

[pseudalpine]

Just charge non US residents a $100 entrance fee per rental car. It's a national park, not an international park. That would help cover the costs associated with building some new backcountry waste facilities. I can think of two crowded camps that need real bathrooms like the one at Monument.