top of page
Search

TAKE ACTION: Tell VT State Parks to make access affordable for all!

Vermont State Parks is proposing to grant itself virtually unlimited authority to raise State Park entry, camping, and equipment rental fees, with no upper limit on prices. Weigh in by Thursday, June 11th, to keep public lands affordable and accessible to all.


A campfire at Camp Plymouth State Park, Vermont
Time for s'mores. Camping at Camp Plymouth State Park, Vermont.

Vermont State Parks, a program of the Vermont Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation, is proposing a radical restructuring of charges and fees that leans on the Vermonters who can least afford to pay more. At a moment when Vermonters are reeling from the price of groceries, gas, health care, child care, and housing, the Scott Administration is doubling down on charging higher fees for use of state lands, instead of pursuing any number of alternative funding sources. This isn't fair to Vermonters, and it sets a dangerous precedent for other New England states.



IMPORTANT DETAILS:


BACKGROUND:

As the saying goes, actions speak louder than words. The Scott Administration has made "affordability" into an oft-used talking point, but what does that really mean? How is the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR), and specifically the Commissioner of Forests, Parks, and Recreation, looking out for the bottom line of Vermonters when it proposes to balance the books for Vermont State Parks on the backs of regular, working people?


Camping at Grand Isle State Park, Vermont
Room with a view. Camping at Vermont's Grand Isle State Park.

Vermont State Parks relies on user fees, including day passes and camping reservations, for at least 70% of its annual revenue. This isn't a sustainable model, as Vermont State Parks recognized in a "modernization study" that it published in 2023. That study points to many opportunities for diversifying state park revenue streams, including creating a Vermont State Parks license plate, an opt-in fee associated with vehicle registration renewals, charging out-of-state visitors a higher rate, and a longer state parks operating season to cover the extremely busy fall tourism season when most state parks are currently closed. (Perhaps tellingly, the 2023 report is largely silent on the option of charging more for corporate ski resort leases on state lands, despite the commercial success of businesses such as Stowe, Jay Peak, Okemo, and Killington). But instead of putting its back into any one of these alternative revenue generators, Vermont ANR has chosen to increase its reliance on user fees even more.


Other states show the way to a more diversified portfolio. In Montana, my home for a decade, state residents are familiar with a popular opt-out fee for Montana State Parks. For the reasonable price of $9.27 per year, paid at the time of vehicle registration, Montana residents can gain "free" daytime access to their state parks. This simple fee generates 54% of the annual revenue for Montana State Parks, and lowers the bar for general entry. In Vermont, a family of four that wants to buy an annual state park pass will be set back $90 per registered vehicle. There are better ways to balance the Vermont State Parks budget.


Ready to submit your comment? Please send an email by 11:59:59 on June 11th to parks@vermont.gov (subject line: "Comments re: rulemaking proposal 26P009").


IT'S NOT JUST HIGHER PRICES -- THE PROCESS MATTERS, TOO:


Until a Vermont Public news article broke the story on May 18th, the state's proposal might have gone unnoticed. VT State Parks claimed it would follow a "strategy to maximize public involvement in the development of the proposed rule," and then failed to implement its plan. Other than posting a press release to its website, the state did not post to social media (more than 100,000 total followers) or send an e-newsletter to its list (more 45,000 subscribers) as it had promised. In total, two people attended the sole public hearing on May 11th. Was this because Vermonters don't care about affordable access to state parks? Of course not. Nobody knew about the state's proposed changes.


Canoeing at Kettle Pond State Park, Vermont
Canoeing at Kettle Pond State Park, Vermont.

Thanks to the Vermont Public story, Standing Trees immediately contacted Vermont State Parks on May 18th, the last day of the original comment period, and requested a comment period extension. Aside from failing to notify the public as it had promised, Vermont State Parks also neglected to post critical information about the proposed fee changes, including the required rulemaking filing form (which is supposed to contain the state's economic analysis, but the joke is on the public, apparently: Vermont ANR claims that there is no economic impact from its proposal to switch to "demand-based pricing," since actual state park fees and charges will be set in the future -- does that rationale sound reasonable to you?). As we noted in a recent op-ed, this is disingenuous at best, because Vermont State Parks knows it will not have to conduct an economic impacts analysis later on when it chooses new rates, based on its clever proposal. All it will be required to do is provide notification 90 days in advance of setting new fees.


Although Standing Trees' request for a comment period extension was granted, the public remained in the dark about the additional time to weigh in until a week later when Vermont State Parks finally posted notifications on its social media accounts (May 27th) and sent an e-newsletter (May 28th) -- see below.


Social media and emails by Vermont State Parks
Vermont State Parks promised in its rulemaking filings to reach out to its social media followers and email subscribers about proposed fee changes, but neglected to do so until after it was contacted by Standing Trees. How can the public trust an agency that is afraid to inform and engage the public? Emails and social media posts about the new proposed fee structure did not appear until 1.5 months after the start of the original comment period.

TAKE ACTION:

Please submit a comment by 11:59:59pm on Thursday, June 11th, 2026. Please feel free to use the sample comment below, and add or subtract any content you would like. The more personal you make the comment, the better. Why do state parks matter to you? Why do you think Vermont State Parks should evaluate alternative revenue sources instead of relying on fee increases? Thanks for taking action!


TO:

Send an email to parks@vermont.gov


SUBJECT: 

Comments re: rulemaking proposal 26P009


BODY OF EMAIL:

Dear Vermont State Parks,


Your proposal to shift to "demand-based pricing" is a gut punch for regular Vermonters, like me, who pay taxes and expect affordable access to state parks and campgrounds. In 2026, as prices for gas, groceries, health care, and child care soar to new heights, state parks must remain an affordable and accessible place for day trips and vacations.


Vermont State Parks' proposed regulations set no upper limit on fees, fail to review alternative revenue sources, and neglect to include the required economic impacts analysis so that we can see how many Vermonters might be excluded from accessing their state lands under the new system.


Instead of charging the general public exorbitant rates, Vermont should study alternative ways to generate revenue, such as charging higher rates to out of state visitors, collecting opt-out fees associated with vehicle registration renewals, or raising lease fees for private ski resorts that use state lands.


Please drop this proposal, conduct a robust economic and alternatives analysis, and come back to Vermonters with a new plan.


Thanks,


Sincerely,

YOUR NAME HERE



Thanks for taking a stand for public lands!

bottom of page