Charging international tourists more to visit Yellowstone, Glacier, others parks could boost funding, study suggests

BILLINGS – Charging international tourists more to visit U.S. national parks has the potential to raise millions of dollars in fees that could help offset costs for park infrastructure, staffing and maintenance.

That’s the gist of a new study written by Tate Watkins, a research fellow at the Bozeman-based Property and Environment Research Center. The center touts as its goal finding market solutions for conservation issues.

Based on his research, Watkins said about 14 million people from other countries visit a national park each year. If they paid a $25 surcharge the parks system could raise around $330 million annually, he calculated.

“At Yellowstone National Park, a modest surcharge on overseas visitation would likely double revenues from gate fees, while a higher one could triple current receipts,” Watkins wrote.

Yellowstone and Glacier charge $35 per private vehicle to enter the park. An annual pass is $70 and an interagency pass, good at all national parks, costs $80. Eighty-percent of entrance fees remain in the parks. Those fees generated an estimated $12.1 million for Yellowstone.

Past ideas

Proposals to raise national park entrance fees have been floated in the past, but have always withered. In 2017, Montana Congressmen and then Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke proposed raising entrance fees for all visitors to $70 a vehicle at 17 of the nation’s most popular parks. The idea faced fierce headwinds since park passes had been boosted a year earlier.

The same year, the University of Montana’s Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research authored a report looking at park entrance fee increases and the possible effect on gateway communities. The study estimated the Yellowstone area could see a loss of $3.4 million in revenue as some tourists would choose not to visit.

In 2019, then Wyoming Sen. Mike Enzi sponsored legislation to place a surcharge on foreign tourists’ visas. In 2021, the National Park System Advisory Board also considered the idea, but again it has never advanced beyond the idea phase.

Elsewhere

As Watkins noted, charging international tourists more to enter national parks is not unprecedented. His research showed foreign visitors to Galapagos Island pay $100 while Ecuadorians pay only $6. In Chile, international visitors to Torres del Paine National Park are charged $55 for extended visits compared to $14 for citizens.

The PERC researcher also noted out-of-state residents pay more for hunting and fishing licenses in many states. Using Montana as an example, he noted a nonresident may pay more than $1,200 for big game hunting licenses and permits compared to $50 for a resident.

“Moreover, many states offer tiered pricing based on residency to visit state parks and campgrounds, often charging about $10 more per night,” Watkins wrote.

Melissa Weddell, director of the Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research, said raising fees for international travelers is, “a complex decision that involves weighing financial sustainability, visitor access, and public sentiment.”

Budget talk

There is undoubtedly a need for additional park funding. The backlog of deferred maintenance at national parks was last estimated at $22 billion. In 2022, Yellowstone alone had a backlog estimated at $1 billion.

Although funding from the Great American Outdoors Act has provided money for recent infrastructure improvements, park budgets remain strained. According to reporting by Greenwire, Yellowstone had a budget of $36 million in 2020. Ten years earlier, its budget was $35 million. In that same period, visitation has risen by as much as 400,000 to 500,000 visitors, depending on the year.

In roughly the same time period, National Park Service full-time employees have decreased by about 3,400 or 15%, according to the agency.

“For too long, the National Park Service has been operating on a limited budget, dealing with decreases in staffing, increases in maintenance needs and record-high numbers of park visitors,” said Emily Douce, National Parks Conservation Association’s deputy vice president of Government Affairs, in an email.

Entrance and recreation fees are an important source of funding for parks, she noted, but should be used as a supplement, not a replacement, for congressional assistance.

“NPCA supports efforts to tackle funding challenges in our parks with fees, but implementation is key, as is not increasing barriers for people to visit,” she said. “A fee for international visitors is a good idea. However, if implemented, that fee revenue must be used as Congress intended to supplement and not replace annual appropriations.”

Suggestions

Watkins’ report outlines several possible ways to boost entrance fees that include authorizing park superintendents to implement the surcharge.

“A degree of regional coordination could optimize fee structures by ensuring prices are harmonized across comparable parks,” Watkins wrote. As an example, he said Utah’s five largest parks might find it advantageous to coordinate pricing.

Implementing a fee for international visitors should be studied by park superintendents, Watkins suggested, in a search for solutions to overcome any challenges. He also proposed parks experiment with different approaches to see what works and the logistical challenges involved.

“If Congress decides to collect an international surcharge through visa fees or another indirect mechanism, then the revenue should be distributed to parks based on foreign visitation,” Watkins wrote.

According to a 2016 study conducted in Yellowstone, 83% of Yellowstone’s visitors were from the U.S. and 17% from abroad. Of those international visitors, 49% were from Europe, 34% from China and 10% from Canada.