• ILikeTraaaains@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Which countries charges $20-100 for visiting an equivalent of a national park or museum? Not questioning you, but curious.

    There are places that charges a tourist tax that is for everyone not living there and paid through the hotel or tourist apartment.

      • BeBopALouie@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Good idea, I bet they use it to better and maintain their parks unlike rump who will just line his pockets.

    • florp@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      I’ve seen this a number of places when traveling (Morocco, Thailand, Vietnam, Kenya come to mind). The price for foreigners was still quite reasonable (nowhere near $100) and it’s never really bothered me. Not sure if it is an equity of access measure (local income is lower) or that they already support it via taxes etcetera. Either I think is appropriate.

      This also already happens in the US some places. There are resident and non-resident prices for some museums in NYC, or town/county run parks(think beaches). In Hawaii many attractions have kamaʻāina prices listed (aka resident).

      The above examples usually operated on the honor system. Sometimes I saw “with ID” on a sign but never saw them checked.

      I think it would be reasonable to charge slightly elevated rates to non-residents for national parks, but it should not be punitive, and it should 100% go towards supporting the parks. It’s really dumb to be pushing that now though as if people don’t already have a thousand reasons not to visit the US and spend their money here…

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      I had this happen in India, although I don’t know if it was the particular site or if it was a general policy. I saw it as paying less than I would have paid for a comparable museum at home, while citizens are encouraged to connect with their heritage. I was fine with it.

      But the US is an expensive place, so you’re only making it unobtainable. National parks should not be a profit center, and I barely agree with charging anyone. I especially disagree with requiring ID, making this logically unenforceable.

      And of course I’d expect this to turn into racism really quickly.

    • Gloomy@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Nepal and India both had places where foreigners would pay much more than locals. Fine with me, i earn much more too.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I’m not sure how many other countries have the equivalent of US National Parks. They’re pretty exceptional, which is why it’s a fucking travesty that they were/are trying to sell off the land.