Poll: 78% of Bow Valley Residents Support Higher Fees for International Visitors

A strong majority of Bow Valley locals say Canada should charge international visitors more to enter its national parks, according to a new Bow Valley Insider reader poll that drew more than 1,000 responses.

The survey followed our recent story on a major shift in U.S. park policy, where non residents will soon pay an extra 100 dollars per person to visit America’s most popular national parks, while Canada moves in the opposite direction with the Canada Strong Pass, which makes national parks free during two peak travel windows: December 12 to January 15, and June 19 to September 7.

When we asked, “Should Canada match the U.S. and charge nonresidents more to visit our national parks?”, 1,021 readers voted. About 78 percent said yes. Roughly 22 percent said no.

The result is not a scientific poll, but it offers a detailed snapshot of how people who live next to Banff and Canmore are thinking about fees, tourism and who national parks are really for. Hundreds of readers left written comments, which ranged from calls for “elbows up” reciprocity with the United States to warnings that copying Washington would be “very unCanadian.”

Below are some of the key themes that emerged.

Canadians first, visitors help pay the bill

The most common argument from “yes” voters was simple. Canadian taxpayers already help fund national parks, they said, so it is reasonable for foreign visitors to pay more at the gate.

“Canadian tax payers pay for these parks so they should reap the benefit of that,” one reader wrote. “Foreign visitors would expect to pay more having not contributed throughout their lives to the maintenance and preservation of these areas.”

Many did not think entry should be free even for Canadians, but they still wanted a clear gap in pricing.

“Sliding fees necessary,” another said. “Lower for Canadians, higher for all non Canadian. Our taxes pay for our parks so we should pay less.”

Others tied the question directly to underfunded infrastructure and staff.

“The national parks still need funds to pay for upkeep of facilities, interpretive staff, staff for parking control and to clean up after visitors who cannot seem to find the garbage bins,” one reader wrote. Another added, “Someone has to pay for the privileges of seeing the parks. Many visitors are leaving their trash all over the place.”

Overcrowding and a sense of being pushed out

Alongside the revenue argument was a strong undercurrent of frustration about crowding and the feeling that locals have been squeezed out of the places in their own backyard.

“Our parks are too crowded,” one person wrote. “It is important to prioritize access for residents and citizens.”

Multiple readers said they now avoid Banff and Lake Louise entirely in peak season.

“I refuse to go there in the summer because it is so busy,” one comment read. “Why are we allowing the entire world into our parks for free and I cannot even visit because there is a line up to get into the park.”

Another said, “We as Albertans can no longer enjoy our beautiful parks as so overrun with tourists. Feel like an intruder in our own province.”

For these readers, higher fees for international visitors are not only a funding tool. They are a potential way to keep numbers “reasonable” and relieve pressure on towns and wildlife.

“Not as extreme as the U.S.”

Even among those who want higher fees for non residents, very few endorsed copying the American model dollar for dollar.

“US prices are TOO extreme. Will NEVER go,” one reader wrote. Another said bluntly, “100 dollars per person is crazy.”

The more common position was that Canada should restore or slightly raise existing fees for foreign visitors, while keeping Canadians free or discounted during the Canada Strong Pass windows.

“It does not have to be exorbitant but would be better than everyone getting in free,” one person wrote. Others floated numbers like 10 dollars extra per person or a 40 to 50 percent premium for non residents, especially in the busiest parks.

Several readers also suggested seasonal pricing that would only increase costs for non residents in summer or over the holidays, when congestion is worst.

“We only need to do this during the summer season,” one comment read. “Locals deserve access to our playgrounds, others can help pay the fee.”

Reciprocity, resentment and “only Americans”

A noticeable subset of comments focused specifically on the United States, and on the new 100 dollar surcharge Canadian families will face at Yellowstone, Yosemite and other marquee U.S. parks beginning in 2026.

Some backed direct reciprocity.

“US citizens should pay 100 dollars per person, other countries should pay 50,” one reader wrote. Another said, “We should match the charge on American tourists and charge less for other international tourists.”

Others went further and argued that retaliation should focus on Americans alone.

“Only for Americans,” one comment read. “Take that Trump.” Another said, “Increase only for US visitors. Others exempt.”

Several readers tied their support for higher fees directly to broader frustrations about tariffs and politics: “It is one more way to hit back at the U.S. for their stupid tariffs,” one person wrote. “Charge them like they charge us. We need to maintain our parks also.”

A vocal minority warns against copying U.S. policy

Roughly one in five respondents said Canada should not follow the U.S. approach. Their reasons varied, but a few themes repeated.

Some worried that higher fees would cut into tourism, which is still the main economic driver in the Bow Valley.

“Absolutely not, it is a short sighted approach,” one reader wrote. “Do not bite the hand that feeds. Dissuading visitors will collapse the ONLY economic driver in the Bow Valley.”

Others argued that offering free or low cost access is part of what makes Canada different.

“We should never mirror the US’s bad decisions,” one person wrote. “Canada should keep supporting all of those who call Canada home.”

Another warned against what they called a “trumpy mentality,” saying, “There is too much segregation in social dynamics today. We need to find more ways to come together, rather than playing into this elitist, what is mine is mine mentality.”

Several readers argued that the real value of visitors was not the park pass itself, but everything else they spend on in the community.

“There are other benefits to having non residents visiting our national parks besides collecting park fees,” one person wrote. “I would imagine they spend hundreds on restaurants, hotel, guided tour fees, ski hill fees. The American park fees would deter a lot of tourists from any interest in visiting them. I know I will be going some place else for my next vacation.”

Shared worries about crowding and cost, different solutions

Even among people who disagreed on fees, there was surprising overlap on what is going wrong.

Both sides described Banff, Jasper and Lake Louise as “overrun” and “bursting.” Both talked about long lines, parking headaches, and wildlife pushed further from busy areas. Many said hotel prices have climbed so high that Canadians struggle to stay in the parks even if admission is free.

Where readers diverged was in what to do next.

One camp views higher fees for foreign visitors as part of the solution. They want revenue directed back into washrooms, trail crews, parking management and education, and they hope that charging more will reduce sheer numbers.

The other camp sees the Canada Strong Pass as a long term economic play, a way to attract visitors away from the United States and keep tourism dollars circulating in Canadian towns. They acknowledge the strain on local infrastructure, but believe those are “good problems” for governments to solve.

“If our goal is to keep visitors out, then yes we should increase our fees,” one reader wrote in a longer comment. “But one of the best parts about Canada, and particularly the valley, is being inclusive. The more we open our doors, the more opportunities we have to meet new friends and people.”

What this tells us, and what it does not

The Bow Valley Insider poll tapped into real frustration about crowding, cost of living and federal policy. It shows that a clear majority of engaged local readers believe non residents should pay more than Canadians to visit national parks, even if they are divided on how high those fees should go and how much of that increase should fall on Americans specifically.

It also highlights a quieter but persistent minority that worries Canada could end up looking more like the country next door, and less like the place they want it to be.

What the poll cannot do is predict how Canadians across the country feel, or how they will react once the Canada Strong Pass takes effect again this winter and next summer. For now, it offers one data point from a community that lives with the consequences of national park policy every day, at a moment when the fee gap between Canada and the United States has never been wider.