Monday, September 13, 2010

Take A Hike!

The Alaskan Review

The National Park Service has recently proposed raising the rate to climb Mount McKinley by 250%, going from $200 to $500 for the 2011 climbing season. Also included in the proposal was a 60% raise in the cost of a permit to climb Mount Rainer. The fee, which is officially called the climbing cost recovery fee, is used to train climbing park rangers.

Both parks have separate funds for search and rescue that are federally funded and do not receive money from the climbing fees.

In a letter to park service Director Jon Jarvis, three climbing activist groups protested the increase at Mt. Rainer and the proposal to raise the climbing fee for Mount McKinley in Alaska's Denali National Park to $500.

In  the letter from the Access Fund, American Alpine Club and American Alpine Guides Association states the increases are "unnecessary and unfair."

The letter also states: "We fear that these added costs will make the unique mountaineering opportunities available at Denali and Rainier too expensive for many Americans..." the letter also argues that the Park Service is raising rates without an appropriate amount of public comment.


So how much is too much?

Are there other options?
Required climbers insurance to cover rescue costs?


  1. they are making the situation worse.
    my god 500$ wtf !

  2. Well, there seems to be no point in requiring insurance to cover rescue costs considering that rescues is federally funded... Then again, seeing as it is a real possibility of mountain climbing, it does seem unfair to make the taxpayer foot the bill for your little climbing adventure gone haywire... I think that is the reason why insurance should be required. However, it seems as if the park system may be getting a bit greedy here. 500 dollars is extremely expensive, especially since there should already be state funding to cover the Park Ranger training, correct?

  3. 250% increase is insane... they will see a huge drop in demand. I wonder if the drop in demand will overshadow the rate increase.

  4. WOW!
    That just sucks.., tey are raising the price 150% more!
    Thats a no-no for me.

  5. love u're posts ...

    daily support!

  6. Why not just keep the price down, make make the consumer pay to fees if rescue is needed? Let insurance deal with medical costs, but let the extraction costs come out of the person at fault.
    It would be unfair to have everyone dish out $500 to climb.

  7. Some people think they can climb and they are likely the ones who need to be rescued. An insurance is not a bad idea, it would mean a little security.
    Just like in The Netherlands, where you are not allowed to drive a car if it isn't insured.

  8. good post... I'm anticipating the next one

  9. it looks like you have a good thing going here... keep up the great work on your blog!

  10. I am error

    check it

  11. Kewl story, bro!

  12. Thanks for the kind comments on my blog :)

  13. thx for u're support ..

    hear is my daily love XD

  14. hard to say... measuring these types of things can be really difficult