New Moto Guzzi Door Mats Available Now
If you're 62 or older, you can get a lifetime senior pass for $80, and that seems to let you do more than just get yourself in the parks.
I heard that was going up this month too when I got mine in August. Maybe it's already changed. If you want to save some $ you better find out now!
Their site says it went from $10 to $80 last August 28th.
In 2012 I toured many national parks with a riding bud. We were able to share one pass for both bikes.
The proposal is to roughly double entrance fees for the peak 5 months of the season at the 17 parks that generate the vast majority of entrance fees. Oddly, 15 of these 17 parks are in the west, with the majority in just four states. Easterners are almost untouched by this unless they make a long trip west. The most visited park in the entire system is not even mentioned.The annual all-parks pass (for youngsters) and lifetime pass (for fogeys) are incredible buys, and everyone should consider them. The seniors pass also provides for discounted camping and some other fees at many but not all parks.There is a process for commenting on this at the NPS website, which I encourage anyone concerned to use. I'm all in favor of returning the parks to a more appropriate level of funding (they've been starved for years), but this is a profoundly flawed approach that fails to take into account a number of factors.What follows is the comment I left at the public response website for this proposal. I've done some minor editing to be sure it is not overtly political in order to respect forum rules.* * * * *The national parks and other public lands for conservation and recreation have been starved of funds for years. Funds for deferred maintenance, renovation, replacements and improvements are desperately needed, and a fee increase should probably form a part - but not the whole - of the solution. However, the proposal as currently presented is massively flawed in numerous ways. First, it aggressively hits the western park visitors and leaves eastern park visitors virtually untouched. Only 2 of the 17 parks in the proposal are east of the Rocky Mountains! In my experience, the eastern parks have suffered almost as badly as those in the west during the periods of low funds - so whether the measure is equity among park visitors or equity in providing needed funds, this imbalance is unacceptable. Second, it's deeply questionable whether these funds will in fact even materialize. Most park visitors are smart enough to realize that purchasing an $80 annual pass makes better sense than purchasing a $70 one-week, park-specific pass or $75 park-specific annual pass. Since annual pass revenue doesn't stay within the park in the same manner as the funds collected for individual entry fees (i.e., online purchase etc), the park is a net loser when this happens. Third, while commercial operators will also see proposed fee increases, they are given some 18 months grace before they begin to contribute - but we peons must start paying in just six months or less. In these days of computerization, there's no excuse for such a delay - the commercial fee increases can be implemented on a rolling basis as soon as current permits or licenses are renewed. Finally, since so many parks are not even charging entry fees, the visitors to these 17 parks are being targeted for fees that will be spent elsewhere. The majority of these funds may stay, but using the $70M estimate provided means that $14M in funds from overwhelmingly western park visitors will be going to other parks' benefit - and that means the eastern half of the country. Why should westerners and western park visitors be burdened with the costs that should be addressed in the east? Withdraw this deeply flawed proposal, reconsider your approach, and bring forward a budget that is more balanced and equitable, and that more comprehensively addresses the needs of all parks and the contributions that can be made by all stakeholders.
