October 12, 2024:
The following comments have been submitted in response to the proposed backcountry camping fee increase:
Grand Canyon Hikers and Backpackers Association is a 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to advocating for the interests of the hiking and backpacking community in the Grand Canyon region. Our goals include ensuring access for hikers to the Grand Canyon, and facilitating communication with government agencies, including the National Park Service and the respective Native American tribes. We represent a community of over twenty-five thousand through in-person events and online communities specific to Grand Canyon National Park. The proposed fee increase has prompted much discussion. These comments include input from members of this community, and many will have commented individually as well.
We strongly object to the proposed increase. We object to the amount, and we object to the manner in which it has been presented. We would go so far as to say this proposal amounts to an abuse of the public trust.
Those are strong words, and they deserve explanation. This proposed increase is the third in sequence of 50%, 25%, and now 60% in the backcountry (below-the-rim) fee per person per night. Though described in the astonishingly brief “Questions and Answers” document as a 60% increase, it in fact concludes a TRIPLING of the fee in just four years’ time. So the amount is without question unreasonable.
There is also scant explanation for why the increase is warranted, merely an oblique reference to the park addressing “longstanding needs” which suggests demands on the budget. If these needs have been longstanding, has this series of increases been planned to address those needs? We know the answer is “no” because the most recent increase was justified on the basis of other needs entirely. What is the nature of these “longstanding” needs, and what is their relationship to nightly backcountry usage? We are not told. Instead, we are told the funds will “allow” the park to fund unspecified activities and projects. We aren’t even told whether these are new activities, or just existing activities now receiving funding from a new source!
In short, the proposal fails to explain the amount of the increase and fails to explain what it will be used for. This failure to clearly explain and support a large fee increase contributes to public cynicism and distrust of their government.
If we accept that the park faces budget pressures, we must still consider why such large increases are being levied on a single, relatively small user group. The park’s online statistics indicate that backcountry users represent less than 1% of the park’s visitors. If this fee increase were to be levied, available information suggests that backcountry fees would represent roughly 4% of the park’s annual budget. Other large parks have nightly backcountry user fees ranging from zero to $8 per user night. In proposing a fee three times larger, the park raises the question of whether Grand Canyon is uniquely applying its cost burden to backcountry hikers.
There still remain many users who pay no permit fee. Rim-to-rim and rim-to-river day hikers (and runners) were identified during the Backcountry Management Plan process as placing significant and increasing stress on park resources, yet over a decade later they have not been asked to contribute to the expense of maintaining the backcountry areas they impact. This group arguably uses substantially the same park resources as overnight backpackers in the Corridor, where the majority of activity occurs. While it isn’t the position of GCHBA that fees should be increased on any hiker group, the fact that one group pays zero and the other pays an ever-increasing fee suggests that the burden is not being distributed fairly. We can only speculate whether this imbalance extends to other park user groups.
The proposal would increase costs on hikers to a level that becomes significant for many families, particularly for multi-day outings. Corridor permits are already rationed via a lottery system; with the proposed fees this raises the question of whether it will have the effect of further rationing through the filter of economic means. Consider that a family of four would pay more to set up their tent at Havasupai Gardens than to stay at a hotel in Williams. The Grand Canyon backcountry experience should not be available only to the wealthy. This proposition is surely shared by the National Park Service and its employees, who we know are dedicated to helping all Americans enjoy their national parks.
In summary, we strongly object to the proposed increase. We urge NPS to withdraw this proposal, and if bringing forward future proposals, to more clearly communicate their need and purposes, so that the public can more fully engage in the process.
Christopher Forsyth
For the Board of Directors
Grand Canyon Hikers and Backpackers Association