Overwhelmingly in the past few years, we have seen more people come to the outdoors for the purpose of leisure since the Second World War. People have flooded the parks and resources that the United States government has provided for the purpose of enjoyment by the people. However, overwhelmingly, this has created problems that could have dire consequences for these resources that are in danger of being loved to the point of destruction. This problem has its roots in the issue of overcrowding. I find this topic particularly relevant to me because I am deeply affected by crowding. There are several areas – places that are spectacular and that I’ve grown to love – that are no longer pleasant for me to go to because they are so 
overcrowded with people trying to experience the same thing. It has truly destroyed the enjoyment that can be experienced in parks. However, it is not just the national parks that are experienced this issue. Many places of leisure are experiencing severe overcrowding. This is particularly interesting since one study states that “[t]he National Park Service has been required by law since 1978 to address carrying capacity in units within the system” (Hof & Lime, 29). So why is this a such a huge issue if there is a law and precedence to do so?
One study defines carrying capacity “as the level or type of use beyond which impacts to the visitor experience exceed acceptable levels” (Donnelly, Vaske & Kuss, 123). Another study found some very interesting data concerning overcrowding. It has found that “natural attractions” experience the highest levels of overcrowding, which is consistent with the issues that the parks are experiencing (Vaske & Shelby, 121). Places and resources that were once fairly unknown and within a carry capacity are no longer so. Zion National Park experienced over 4.5 million visitors in 2017 alone, far beyond what most people would call an acceptable number. It has gotten so bad that I will not go to Zion unless I take someone who has never experienced it before. The bus system in Zion was put in place to combat this growing capacity issue, but it has not been enough to stem the tide of people rushing to see spectacular natural resources. Another study stated that “only 7 out of the 108 national park units have an established carrying capacity” and that “[u]nits of the US National Park System must be managed to conserve their natural and cultural resources for the benefit of future generations, and allow public enjoyment by the current generation. This dual mandate and the legal requirement to identify and implement visitor carrying capacities for park units are a major challenge for park managers. Meeting this challenge requires defensible, quantitative procedures for assessing and complying with biophysical and social carrying capacities. While significant advancements have been made in evaluating carrying capacities, most current methods lack quantitative and analytical rigor and do not capitalize on the principles of multiple attribute decision-making and mathematical programming, and advancements in information management technologies and spatial decision support” (Prato, 329). This problem is illustrated further by study completed at Arches National Park.
The study took a measure of carrying capacity using accepted practices, and applied it to Delicate Arch. What they found was astounding. During the day that they watched and analyzed crowding, they found that the peak visitors at one time at Delicate Arch was “108 people at one time”, which measured on a carrying capacity scale of 1-4 to be just under -4 (Manning, 311). While all of these studies and statistics identify that there is a problem, the real question is why – despite a mandate from the government that carrying capacity must be managed – are national parks continuing to be overcrowded and the resources being overused?
I believe that the answer to that comes down to money. It is well-known that the national parks system is underfunded, and is billions of dollars behind in necessary maintenance projects. And the problem is that park fees are no longer paying for the necessary backlog of projects needed. One study estimated that, “entrance fees to Acadia National Park would pay for only 2% of its backlog of projects” (Hanink & White, 477). This alarming considering the fact that the parks are designed to make a profit for the government in exchange for the enjoyment of public resources. The trail of money tells a different story. Because of this huge backlog in necessary money to maintain the resources, money needs to be generated. Thus, crowds are allowed to flood the parks to bring in more money. But this compounds the problem further by degrading the resources even more, creating an even larger backlog of maintenance. This just cycles over and over again until the level of enjoyment for the visitors is so bad that resource is finally ignored for something else. The resource is finally loved to death because of the need for money to maintain the resource in the first place.
Unfortunately, the government has not made any significant changes to combat the issues at hand. There are solutions to crowding that have been presented – including a reservation system and raising prices of popular parks. Neither of these have appeared to been well received. A problem with that is that overwhelmingly, people who visit national parks and experience major crowding are turned off by it. However, when presented with solutions that could potentially benefit the crowding issue, it’s immediately rejected because it could potentially limit their access to the resource. This selfish mentality could be the ultimate reason for the destruction of many beloved resources – the mentality that it if it affects me, it’s not a good solution. I, for one, would be happy to pay double the price or be forced to reserve my place to go to a place like Zion if it meant that I would be contributing more fully to the upkeep of the park, as well as having a more pleasurable experience by having fewer crowds to deal with overall. Again, unfortunately, many people do not feel that way because of the entitlement mentality that comes with public resources.
In the end, it all comes down to the money. The parks are a method for the government to make money. However, the money generated by the parks seems not to be going to the parks themselves. Let’s take, for example, how much money Zion National Park received last year. The price for a car admission is currently $25. Let’s assume that there is an average of four people per car entering the park. That is approximately 1,125,000 cars going through Zion every year. Mathematically, that’s just over $28 million of revenue last year. Understanding that that number may not be accurate, it still illustrates how much money that Zion could potentially make each year. Raising the price the additional $5 that Secretary Zinke has proposed would generate around $34 million. However, what if that price were instead doubled to $50 dollars per car? That would generate $56.5 million of revenue, assuming that visitation remains around the same. That would make a tremendous contribution to the upkeep of the park so that visitation can be controlled, and the resource properly managed. 
And then, let’s assume that 1 million cars is about the average for each of the 108 national park units – both parks and monuments. The resulting revenue would be over $6 billion overall. Again, understanding that these numbers are hypothetical and that most parks do not actually get that kind of visitation, it still illustrates the need to increase prices of parks significant, if nothing else but to help alleviate the resource backlog that has occurred.
As crowding continues to become a problem, it doesn’t look like anything is being done to combat this issue. Laws are being blatantly ignored for the purpose of generating money off a public resource. We are in grave danger of loving these resources to death if nothing is done very soon. And I personally do not see that happening.
Growing up in South Africa and moving to Utah, USA as a teenager, Scott is a graduate of Utah Valley University’s Outdoor Recreation program. Scott is currently a Master’s Student at the University of Florida. His research interests include ecotourism, sustainability, and tourist affect cycles. He has worked in multiple therapy, outdoor, and retail settings, and is a published author.