[jamiem]

Yes. It's intended to limit the number of visitors to protect sensitive areas.

It made sense to me, as I was under the impression that the money went directly to the park. But the fact that it goes to a middleman changes things.

[jk563]

I can understand that reasoning, and it does make sense to me too, but only if all the money goes to the park. Ideally then even only for successful applications.

[justsomehnguy]

Ideally you should have an option to support the park even if you don't go/don't want/can't go for a hike and in any case you should receive a clear breakdown of the costs in what goes where.

[kwhitefoot]

Even then it is a regressive tax.