Boondocking really exists?

4runnerguy wrote:

Less Stuff wrote:
Haven't seen any data but I would expect Privatized campgrounds to be more efficient than government run from Washington DC campgrounds.

Actually the problem is that the NFS is required to return a large percentage (85%) of the money it takes in (gross, not net) back to the general fund, not to the forest service. They were having to do the supervision, maintenance and cleaning on 15% of the funds they were taking in. So they started using private contractors who agree to take care of those things and sending a small amount to the FS (typically 5-15%), who then sends the required 85% of that amount to the general fund. But the FS doesn't have to take care of general maintenance that way. More efficient? No way to know, but CG rates have gone up far faster than inflation at the CG's I know about. In CO, concessionaire-run CG’s often cost 50% more than NFS run CG’s. I know of concessionaire-run NFS CG's with pit toilets where the rates are equivalent to nearby private CG's with FHU. Don't know about efficiencies there. With rates so high and people deciding to boondock instead, the concessionaires are pressuring the NFS to close down nearby boondocking locations to help keep the CG's full and money flowing into the coffers of the concessionaires.
And the government often pays for campground upgrades and then the concessionaire raises the campground fees. The concessionaire didn’t pay for the upgrades, but get to make a lot more money from us, the ones who paid for these improvements through tax dollars, not campground fees. I wish I could have gotten the government to pay for my company’s capital improvements so we could have charged more for our product!
Want to fix this? Convince Washington that 100% of the funds collected from camping fees go back into the campgrounds or the NFS office that they are collected from. This is one reason why one sees so many places that have a Fee Demonstration Project label on them -- the appropriate agency gets to keep 100% of the revenue generated at those sites instead of a big percentage going back to the general fund. But I’m not holding my breath.

While some of what you stated was once true, it is no longer true. Fee Demo has been replaced by the Recreation Enhancement Act. That means that the fees collected by NFS run campgrounds stay on the very same NF to manage those campgrounds. 15% does go to a regional account that can contribute to other NFs within that region.
Even with those $, some NFs find it economically better to have a concessionaire run the CGs and have the NF take a small percentage of the concessionaire's profit.

Some NFs got into the concessionaire game before Fee Demo or Rec. Enhancement Act came along and are now hamstrung because of the inability to cancel concessionaire permits (strange and political rules established on this). But I agree that having uniformed Rangers and NF operation of CGs is often preferable to the concessioner-operated ones, which tend to be more expensive and sometimes not well maintained.

No need to write your Congressional Rep. about money collected staying on site...that already happens. If you write, convince them to allow leeway to turn concession-run campgrounds back to NF operated ones, and provide the NF staff to run them.

There are some national concession companies that are very strong politically and have many, many contracts across the nation. Not Surprising that they have a strong lobby group.