U.S. national parks saw a record 331.9 million visits in 2024, 6.36 million more than in 2023, setting a new all-time high and continuing a decades-long trend of growing attendance.
Early American leaders, surrounded by what seemed like limitless wilderness, never imagined the need for national parks or federal conservation efforts. Unlike Europe, where untouched landscapes had largely vanished, America’s lands were compared to Eden and appeared inexhaustible.
Frederick Law Olmsted, the landscape architect behind Central Park, foresaw the challenges mass visitation would bring. He warned in a 1865 Yosemite report:
“Before many years, if proper facilities are offered, these hundreds will become thousands, and in a century the whole numbers will be counted by millions. An injury to the scenery so slight that it may go unnoticed by visitors today will be magnified by those millions.”
The National Park Service’s (NPS) mission, set forth in the 1916 Organic Act, is “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to… leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” This gives the park a dual, often contradictory, responsibility: to preserve parks in their natural state while also making them accessible for public enjoyment.
In its early years, national parks actually needed more visitors to survive. Stephen Mather, the first NPS director, understood that without increased public support, Congress would not create more parks or even fund existing ones. Entering the 1920s, when more people had means to leave the cramped cities of the East, Mather’s efforts would bring unprecedented levels of Americans to their parks. He promoted the economic benefits of tourism in magazines and railroad publications and allied parks with the machine that was already transforming American life: the automobile.
“But almost from the start, some park supporters worried that they had made a pact with the devil,” a Ken Burns documentary notes. Lord James Bryce in 1912 wrote:
“If Adam had known what harm the serpent was going to work, he would have tried to prevent him from finding lodgment in Eden. And if you stop to realize what the result of the automobile will be on that wonderful, incomparable valley, you will keep it out.”
Today, in addition to automobiles, charter buses enter that incomparable Yosemite valley, seating over 50 passengers.
Travel technologies and increased global incomes have driven a surge of international tourism. Yet, unlike other countries, U.S. parks charge all visitors the same flat fee. Foreign tourists must pay $200 to visit the Galapagos Islands, while Ecuadorians pay $30. Internationals pay $150 for chimp trekking in Rwanda, while Rwandans pay only $25. Foreigners pay $50 at Torres del Paine, while Chileans pay just $14 for a multi-day pass.
Previously, Chinese tourists could only get one-year visas to the U.S. In 2014, however, President Obama announced in Beijing that 10-year multiple-entry visas would be granted. This made it much easier for Chinese citizens to visit the U.S.
To accommodate non-citizens, park staff are increasingly translating websites, videos, trail guides, and brochures. In 2016, Yellowstone hired three Mandarin-speaking rangers, and by 2018, the park boasted, “During the past two years, we’ve hired 29 interpreters who speak Spanish, Mandarin, German, French, Polish, Hebrew, and Italian!” Yellowstone and Arches have even installed squat toilets. While these efforts aim to accommodate international tourists, we should prioritize English, America’s official language, and ensure that citizens’ access and wilderness conservation remain central.
A 2024 study by the Property and Environment Research Center found that adding a $25 fee for each international visitor could generate about $330 million annually for the National Park Service-nearly doubling current fee revenue. This boost would fund improvements and staff without increasing costs for American taxpayers, who already contribute about $20 per person each year through federal income, gas, and excise taxes.
Despite common assumptions, entry fees currently provide only $350 million annually, or roughly 10% of the park system’s budget. The vast majority of funding still comes from Congressional appropriations and taxpayer dollars.
Given that Americans already pay fines and taxes, why should they pay extra to access public treasures? If parks still need more funds, additional fees could be levied on international visitors instead.
A 2017 University of Montana study found that the average international visitor to Yellowstone spends about $4,500 on their trip, so a $45 surcharge would amount to just 1% of their total expenses. The same study showed that doubling the vehicle entry fee for foreign visitors—from $30 to $70—would reduce international visitation by only 0.07%. To meaningfully deter international tourism, then, the entry fee would have to be raised astronomically. To achieve just a 10% reduction in international visitors, the fee would need to jump from $30 to nearly $5,800—143 times more, a 19,233% increase!
These figures make it clear that current entry fees are far too low to discourage most foreign tourists. If the goal is to actually reduce international visitation to protect the parks, the surcharge would have to be set much higher than anyone is currently proposing.
I love our national parks more than most because my grandfather worked at five. As Chief Historian at Harpers Ferry National Park, he anticipated that overcrowding would eventually force parking out of town and require a shuttle system—a solution that was ultimately adopted and has worked well.
Today, similar challenges are widespread. During the summer of 2023, my family and I visited Mt. Rainier, Olympic, Crater Lake, and Wind Cave national parks, where we often found ourselves navigating through crowds packed at every overlook snapping photos, enduring traffic delays, and finding restaurants in nearby towns flooded with foreign visitors.
While international tourism brings economic benefits, Americans—who already help fund the parks—still pay $25 or more to enter and compete with global crowds for the experience. What should be a tranquil escape often becomes a struggle against noise, congestion, and the frustration of paying twice.
While there are yearly passes and discounts for veterans, Americans normally pay more per person than international visitors, since most U.S. residents arrive by car and fees are assessed per vehicle ($25–$35), while international tourists often come in large groups on commercial buses, paying as little as $3.50-$7.00 each after dividing the bus fee.
By treating all visitors identically rather than giving priority to citizens, some parks have even started requiring timed entry reservations—causing less access and greater inconvenience to everyday Americans.
Implementing differential fees would not meaningfully slow entry—checking drivers licenses at the gate is straightforward, and bus passengers could pay more in advance.
Our national parks are a unique part of America’s heritage, created primarily for the American people. While the NPS idea is one of America’s greatest exports and has inspired over 140 countries to establish more than 4,000 parks worldwide, the NPS concept itself has a distinctly American legacy.
Treating citizens and non-citizens alike, out of fear of discrimination or out of greed to get their tourist dollars, unjustly ignores the reality that citizenship should bestow certain privileges. Americans already pay-in to support these public treasures. Differential pricing for international visitors would help prioritize access for Americans and support the long-term sustainability of these irreplaceable sites.
Theodore Roosevelt remarked about the Grand Canyon, “The ages have been at work on it, and man can only mar it.” With the numbers of visitation we see today, future generations will not be as fortunate to view these sites of natural wonder unmarred. A fair fee for foreign visitors isn’t exclusion—it’s preservation. If we want these lands to endure, Americans must come first in line.
