Denali/Foraker Proposed Fee Increase Update

[Kraken]

Taken from the Alaska Mountain Forum

 

Update On Possible Denali-Foraker Fee Hike -From the AAC email newsletter:

 

In first quarter of this year, rumors began surfacing that Denali National Park Superintendent Paul Anderson was considering raising the current $200 special-use fee to attempt Denali or Mt. Foraker to $500, if not $1,000. When this idea was floated at a concessionaires’ meeting, it quickly spread to websites and climbing magazines. Letters of objection to the park office and Alaska’s congressional delegation soon followed. In response, the AAC took an investigative approach, which ultimately led to several meetings with Denali’s superintendent and Alaska’s regional director of the National Park Service (NPS). In addition to communicating the club’s opposition to any fee increase, AAC President Jim Donini and Treasurer Charlie Sassara explored with the NPS leaders the deeper questions regarding the park’s budget shortfall and what the AAC could do to help in this effort. Going forward, the AAC’s approach is to continue the dialogue with the NPS while keeping Alaska’s congressional delegation and state and local representatives informed. The club is hopeful, but also prepared to fight any fee increase. Some of the points the AAC feels strongly about include:

 

* The AAC maintains that mountain climbing is not only a legitimate visitor use of Denali National Park, but also is specifically one of the purposes for the expansion of the park in 1980 and not a special use, as the park maintains.

 

* The AAC supports a self-reliance ethic, which calls for climbers to pay their fair share.

 

* The AAC has never asked for any special services from Denali National Park and Preserve, nor the expansion or development of the South District Ranger Station. The AAC is opposed to climbers paying the cost of normal park operations, which are covered by federal taxes.

 

* The AAC believes that an increase in the fee will preclude access for low- to medium-income climbers.

 

* The AAC believes that an increase in the fee will result in raising expectations that rescues are guaranteed.

 

* The AAC believes Denali National Park’s senior management is expanding the scope of fee recovery program beyond its original intent.

 

* With the current $200 fee, Denali and Foraker climbers already pay the additional special services identified under the fee program, as associated with mountaineering on those peaks.

 

* The AAC is opposed to an increase in the mountaineering special use fee because it is unfair, inequitable, and overreaching.

 

 

 

Feel free to move this to a seperate forum location if it fits better there.

[DanielHarro]

Thanks Clint for the update...

[Fairweather]

McKinley climb planned for 2008....but if the fee goes this high I'll just head to South America or stick to one of the low-income parks like Wrangell-St Elias or Glacier Bay. I'm not going to pay $500 (much less $1000!) to climb a mountain that was around for millions of years before the creation of the NPS. The current fee seems like a reasonable rate insomuch as it covers the costs of the "program". I would rather see the program just go away if it means paying country club membership rates.

[wfinley]

I would rather see the program just go away if it means paying country club membership rates.

 

You'll pay $650+ to fly into the Wrangells. And that's if you have a ride to Chitna. If not that's another $100. If weather blows in and you happen to get stuck at the lodge your money will burn away by the minute. If anything warrants being called country club rates it's climbing in the Wrangells.

 

As for the popular "rather see the program go away" notion - it's not going to happen. It is better to support a viable working alternative rather than to just say "NPS out".

[Fairweather]

Huh?? It already costs $425 to fly into Kahiltna Base! Subtract this from your $650 figure and you're left with + $225. That is only $25 more than the current park fee! Your $650 figure is an average, I realize, but a fly in to Sanford or Drum will be less. Your attempt to omit the Denali fly-in cost is noted.

 

If you want to charge an outrageous fee to climb in DNP, then assign it to foreigners who don't pay taxes to support the park. It's fair play in Nepal, China, and Pakistan - why not here?

 

http://www.flyk2.com/52.cfm

[wfinley]

I'm not saying I support the increased fee-- I'm just pointing out that your expressed desire to climb elsewhere doesn't really save you much money. As long as you fly in the price is outrageous. Increases in fuel costs continue to push flights costs up all over Alaska (when I last flew into the AKR in 2004 it cost $350 RT to KAH) and because there is only 1 flight operator for glacier landings in the Wrangles you're forced to pay high rates.

 

FWIW - I support the AAC's position on this.

 

PS - As of '05 Sanford was $600 with Claus. $400 with Ellis.

[Kraken]

that's why you ski in from the highway.

[Fairweather]

To save $1000 in Club Denali NPS membership dues I would do just that.

[W]

As an aside I should add that without the large numbers of scenic-flight tourists, flights to the Alaska Range would otherwise cost much more than they do currently. Talking with the different Talkeetna air service owners, the costs of Wrangell/St. Elias air support seem to reflect real costs, it's not that there's just one air service charging high prices because "they can". AK range flying is cheaper because the volume of climbers coupled with high numbers of scenics allow air taxis to keep their planes full in both directions, saving fuel.

 

The fee increase proposal, by the way, is unanimously opposed by the Talkeetna rangers. It is coming from the top ranks with the support of the federal government. It's the phenomenon I call "neglect and collect"- gut the park budgets by keeping the majority of the gate takes in DC for other uses, spend wastefully, and then act like there is no option remaining but to double charge visitors. Climbers are the easy target of course. We have to keep the pressure on.

[bmhc_options]

This is a bloody joke. I find it funny how when you see a fee increase OK, at most 25%. These guys are trying to make a gain of 500%?

 

I never thought I would see the day that capitalists would expoit mountaineers, to make gains.

 

Mt. Logan here we come.

 

By the way - has this fee hike been approved yet?

 

Edited December 4, 2006 by bmhc_options

[Fairweather]

Um, I'm not sure you understand how things work here, but The National Park Service - that is floating this absurd proposal - is about as far removed from 'capitalism' as is possible. A fee increase like this is simply a back-door attempt by environmental elitists to limit human activity in our (read: their) National Parks.

[W]

Um, I'm not sure you understand how things work here, but The National Park Service - that is floating this absurd proposal - is about as far removed from 'capitalism' as is possible. A fee increase like this is simply a back-door attempt by environmental elitists to limit human activity in our (read: their) National Parks.

 

Fairweather,

Some of the very same people who are the driving force for increasing Denali mountaineering fees are working hard to provide additional "access" to the park, at no extra cost to those users-

 

From the 2001 AAC newsletter:

 

"As a result of legislation passed by Congress at the urging of Alaska Sen. Frank Murkowski, Denali

National Park and Preserve is investigating three primary issues: 1) whether it is feasible to charge

mountaineers for rescues on Mt. McKinley, 2) whether it is feasible to require climbers to show

proof of medical insurance before being issued a climbing permit, and 3) whether any adjustments

need to be made to the fee structure for mountaineering permits."

 

Murkowski has been trying very hard to open the south side to full access for snowmachines for many years, as well as pushing for a major new road and railroad to be built into the north side of the park.

 

While the above article reference is several years old and doesn't speak about the current fee increase proposal, Alaska's entrenched conservative delegate has not so far lodged any objection to it.

 

I don't doubt that some of the "environmental elitists" are applauding any effort to keep humans out of wilderness areas, but can you specifically cite any source that such groups have had a direct involvement in the creation of these policies in the NPS? Because in the years I worked for the NPS and with my continued friendships with a number of the Denali and Rainier managers, my impression is that the fees are the result of not only a stifling bureaucracy and inefficient spending, but most of all, a systematic, decades long, bipartisan neglect of the National Park Service as a budget priority. Demonizing park employees as elitists bent on keeping the park to themselves is inaccurate at best. The problem is far more complex.

 

Perhaps this warrants a further discussion of what the future purpose and role of our National Park Service should be? The NPS was founded on the principle of providing access and enjoyment to the land while preserving the land in its original, unspoiled state "for future generations to enjoy". The NPS was not founded simply to provide unbridled access.

 

Regardless of its purpose, the fact is that the Parks are vastly underfunded by Congress. This is my mind doesn't therefore justify open ended increases in special use fees that will keep us all from affording them, but I think the public should demand that the Parks again become a priority. I have a suspicion that the end goal has been to bankrupt the parks to the point where they will be able to justify a large sell off to private interests for the administration of the park lands. In my view that would be not only the worst possible turn of events for the care of the land, but also would only guarantee a further increase in costs to you and I for using it. If you decry the NPS using public access as a cash cow under cover of the government, why would we feel any better if it were private citizens getting rich off public land?

 

Fairweather I know you have a deep distrust of anything related to government (who doesn't?)...but I feel very strongly that the NPS is one government institute that, although in vast need of restructure and reprioritizing, should remain in the domain of government control; provided that full public accountability and oversight into operating budgets and wasteful spending can be achieved (can it?), this is what in the long run will be best for the land and for continued, affordable, future access for the public.

 

I am very strongly against the Denali (and Rainier, etc.) Fee in the first place, and even moreso against the increase of it. I am not justifying them, but such fees are becoming popular because the parks otherwise do not have the budgets to provide for proper visitor management and access services, much less for things like road and building maintenance. While many would be happy to see the NPS mountaineering ranger programs dismantled entirely, as a long time user of both Denali and Rainier, it is hard to deny that the volume of visitor use on these peaks demands it and the presence of the rangers has made a positive impact on both safety and mountain cleanliness. The new age of visitor use includes mountaineering on a heavy scale, and in my view, the federal government should be providing the parks with the money they require (and not a penny more) to accomodate this- not pushing the cost off on the public a second time.

[Stefan]

I would like to see the expenses the NPS has over the past 3 years for incremental services for climbing on Denali. And why the NPS believes they need to monitor climbing on Denali.

[W]

And why the NPS believes they need to monitor climbing on Denali.

 

The official answer will probably have something to do with the high traffic, heavy user impact, and resulting environmental degradation (if you have ever seen the 17K camp no explanation is needed...).

 

On the other hand, it would be quite interesting if we could accurately quantify the change in climber numbers on Denali if the NPS were not on the mountain at all- some have postulated that many wouldn't otherwise attempt it knowing that SAR personnel and a medical camp wasn't relatively close by. Then again, being one of the good old 7 summits, I'm not sure the numbers would drop as much as we would hope.

[Kraken]

The question I often ponder is if Denali will see a decrease in visitors/climbers trending with Rainier in current years.

 

Without looking at the exact numbers, I thought it was something like a spike in the mid 1990s of up to 13000 people attempting the summit to somewhere around 8500 in the last few years.

 

I wonder if we will ever see the number drop on Denali instead of continuing to rise until it has to be capped?

[wfinley]

Numbers on Denali have already been capped at 1500 climbers / season. That number has yet to be reached (in 05 it was 1340) but the cap has been imposed.

[Fairweather]

W, I sincerely appreciate your candor regarding this and other wilderness-related issues. You sound like a pretty even-handed NPS employee. Typically, I have found NPS employees in Alaska the same. Unfortunately, I have encountered many (usually junior level - usually young, female) NPS folks here in the pacific northwest who don't share your sense of balance and act like rabid clubhouse guardians bent on keeping the evil human hordes from contaminating the land with their very presence. I would be surprised if you don't know the type I'm talking about.

 

If my response to this fee trial-balloon sounds excessive, it is intentionally so. Does the Denali NP boundary adjustment of 1980 preclude the NPS from tacking a fee onto air taxi services that land at Kahiltna Base or do McKinley fly-overs? I would have no problem with this. I would have no problem with climbers posting a mostly-refundable rescue bond of $1000, but I realize there are legal implications for the park. I would have no problem charging very large up-front fees to guide service concessionaires. I would have no problem charging foreigners a large fee as they do in Nepal. After all, these visitors have not paid taxes to support the NPS system. I would have no problem with Denali NP dismantling "the program" altogether and adopting a Wrangell-St Elias style approach. But what right does DNP have to charge a legitimate park user, who begins his/her climb outside traditional park boundaries, a thousand bucks?

 

If I walk into a fast-food joint to buy a cheeseburger should I be forced to eat filet mignon - and then be compelled to pay for it? What if I just want to climb a mountain, mind my own business, and pick up after myself?

[Mark_Husbands]

it is my personal opinion that the fees charged at park units like the one in question should be more closely tied to the specific services that a visitor uses. In Denali NP, I think a more logical fee structure should be based on a landing strip/designated camp fee rather than a peak fee. These are the locations where the important resource management activities occur. Climbers that do not visit locations such as Kahiltna basecamp, 14 camp, Ruth Glacier, etc. would not be charged for the services associated with those locations. Climbers would retain the right to decide whether the huge convenience of a regulated airstrip is worth the additional expense. I am not advocating a complete cost recovery program, but a fee program that is based on an analysis of the actual costs of providing services beyond that required for the regular visitor--services that I do think are necessary in a place like Denali. I don't think it would be too challenging for the park to come up with a more equitable program than the current one.

[W]

Fairweather-

Just to be clear, I left the NPS 7 years ago. I worked as a climbing ranger on Rainier from 95-99, and I never have worked NPS in Alaska or anywhere else. Although I might have some insight into the workings of the system that others might not, I don't consider myself a spokesman for the NPS anymore than the next person.

The reason I believe that the Parks should continue to be held and administrated solely by the government is simple- the parks are a national treasure that are part of our heritage and something with which we can all collectively identify. While government institutions have proven to be inherently flawed, our government is also the only real agency that is at least in theory supposed to represent the collective interest. Private interests work for the individual and no matter how well intentioned, I don't believe will put the land and the public as the top priority. The government is composed of a collection of the same self-serving individuals therefore is not immune, but at least we have the ability to scrutinize the government and hold it accountable.

 

Unfortunately, I have encountered many (usually junior level - usually young, female) NPS folks here in the pacific northwest who don't share your sense of balance and act like rabid clubhouse guardians bent on keeping the evil human hordes from contaminating the land with their very presence. I would be surprised if you don't know the type I'm talking about.

 

Yep. No doubt about it.

 

Does the Denali NP boundary adjustment of 1980 preclude the NPS from tacking a fee onto air taxi services that land at Kahiltna Base or do McKinley fly-overs? I would have no problem with this.

 

All air taxis are currently concessioned and pay the NPS a healthy fee for being able to land in the park. Landing is the key word. The airspace is free and therefore the NPS cannot charge air taxis for scenic flights that do not land on glaciers, although many of those do. But this allows air taxis from other places like Anchorage, Willow, Cantwell, etc. to do McKinley scenic flights w/o paying a fee.

The hot button issue of late has become the noise generated by all these planes. Personally I find it conflicting to try to choose sides- when I've been climbing in the Ruth in June or July, the airplane noise is really- really- annoying. Yosemite seems more peaceful some days. About the time I start thinking they should somehow limit this, I remember that I flew in there on one of those planes too. It's a double edged sword. The NPS is monitoring the noise now with sound meters and observers taking field obs. While the NPS may have no real way to limit flights, the factor that can't be ignored is the air traffic safety issues- the number of planes in the air at any one time is often downright frightening. While the Talkeetna pilots all communicate with known checkpoints and agree on common directions to travel through narrow passes, other aircraft from outside Talkeetna do come into the mountains and don't always follow the same protocol or know how to call their checkpoints.

 

I would have no problem with Denali NP dismantling "the program" altogether and adopting a Wrangell-St Elias style approach.

 

I'd have no problem with this either, but given the level of use and traffic on the west buttress, that will never happen. It's a new world. To be honest, Denali would be utterly trashed if the rangers were not up there doing what they do, and in the long run, that alone makes it worthwhile.

 

But what right does DNP have to charge a legitimate park user, who begins his/her climb outside traditional park boundaries, a thousand bucks?

 

There might be no way around a mountaineering fee, but no doubt about it, that price is absolutely absurd, especially when it is essentially trying to fill a shortfall of costs associated with other park operations that don't seem to involve the climbing program. Hundreds of thousands of people visit the north side of the park each year and aren't being asked to bear any of these costs.

 

I tell you what I would rather see- I'd rather see the Denali NP entrance fee go up to $50 for every user, scrap the special use fees, and have all the park's current services remain intact and funded by the entrance fee and any additional government funding required, with oversight on park spending budgets that will ensure that the park isn't paying for pork.

 

What if I just want to climb a mountain, mind my own business, and pick up after myself?

 

If only all users were this conscious, but sadly, what I've seen some users doing on Denali and Rainier, and elsewhere, makes it clear why some level of official stewardship is necessary in high use places.