Many of those words are included on this USDA list of banned words from late March. The list also includes many more.
https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/tracker/usda-leaked-memo-bans-110-terms-from-agreements/
florp
joined 4 weeks ago
Many of those words are included on this USDA list of banned words from late March. The list also includes many more.
https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/tracker/usda-leaked-memo-bans-110-terms-from-agreements/
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...