The National Park Service is the steward of 84 million acres of America's most famous natural spaces, including Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, and the Everglades. In 2008, the Park Service proposed higher fees at some parks. Writer John Krist argued in favor of the price increases:

A day at Disneyland costs a family of four at least $232, not counting Mickey Mouse ears. At Six Flags Magic Mountain, the admission price would be at least $180. A seven-day pass to enter Yellowstone National Park costs $25 per car, which means that the same family spending a week among bison, elk, geysers, and grizzlies would pay the equivalent of 89 cents per person, per day.

This is why it is perplexing to see such an outcry over news that the Park Service wants to raise entrance fees at 135 sites over the next two years... Their principal arguments are economic: Tourism-dependent communities fret that higher fees will reduce visitation and cut profits. In contrast, others argue that the increases will keep out those of limited financial means. In theory, at least, raising the price of something should indeed decrease demand for it.

On the other hand, it is absurd to expect a finite amount of parkland to accommodate a continually increasing number of people. Anyone driving into Yosemite Valley on a holiday weekend is unlikely to regard a drop in park visitation as entirely a bad thing. Slightly higher user fees are unlikely to affect park use, but they could have a significant effect on the quality of the park experience. Most of that money will stay at individual parks, where it can be spent on upkeep and repairsthe sort of unglamorous expenditures that typically get shortchanged in the politically driven federal budget process. Smaller crowds and plumbing that workswhat is not to like?

1. Should the Park Service be concerned about the economic impact of reduced demand for visits on surrounding communities? Explain your answer.