What effect is Sequestration having on the parks?

Breaking News reported in the Rapid City Journal 5/18

Elk Mountain Camp at Wind Cave NP will open 5/24 , closure of it has been reevaluated by the staff there. A planned upgrade for back up generators for the visitor center has been delayed to fund the camp income deficit. Some reduction of service is still planned for the camp, as yet unannounced.
Rate structure is the same this year, is proposed to increase to reflect inflation and costs of operation next year.
I congratulate the Superintendant, Vidal Davila, and his staff for recognizing the experience the camp gives to Park visitors, breaking with budget dogma in making a decision based on visitor and business principle, rather than a beaurocratic one.
These are the kind of people we need managing our property!

marc515 wrote:

naturist wrote:
One of my favorite NP CGs is closed. It's only 25 miles from home, and with my senior pass it cost me $8 a day to camp there. But not this summer.

Would you mind sharing which one is closed?

Blue Ridge Parkway / Virginia side _ had four campgrounds. They had already announced they were closing Roanoke Mountain, then Sequestration hit. They decided not to open Otter Creek this year. Leaves Peaks of Otter, which can take units up to about 25ft and Rocky Knob. - 3% cut in the budget increase results in 50% cut of campgrounds. Next year they can claim usage is down and close all of them!

IF you think private enterprise will come in here and run these parks for less than the NFS, and do a better job of it, you better find some parks that are currently run privately and look. Watch what happens ... the half-price stays, for now, but their working on dumping it - but the day pass is not honored now at the docks and other areas - want paper in the bathhouse, you better bring some. And make sure you wear boots because you don't want to get what's on the floor on your feet.

I can go on, but you ain't gonna like it - I've seen some run well, but most aren't - and the aren't will be growing in number sooner than the well run, and the price issue is stable for now, but watch it rise just as fast as it can - hollering already, can't make my budget work, need more money !!!! The best way and least expensive way, TRAIN workers, and make them responsible - a lack of accountability is what kills federal running of parks and other jobs. IF you make the responsible party accountable, he/she will either perform and keep the job, or get fired. Problem now??? Can't get fired ... that's the major budget issue with the national services today - no accountability. IF we get that, we get a good job, and under budget. Don't know how long this post will last, but I've been involved in this stuff for too long not to see it fold if we don't get people that perform well.

I have worked in private industry long enough to know that for profit private business entities are just as good at mismanaging money as any other organization. IMO the idea that the private sector would be somehow better at managing public assets is a myth.

The NPS can only spend whatever money has been specifically appropriated for a specific purpose, so if the national park does not have enough money in their appropriation (or, in their "budget") then they have no choice but to remain closed. I agree that there is an "opportunity lost" cost to the parks if they have to delay opening because of a lack of funding, but without a specific "budget" (or appropriation) they would have no choice.

FWIW, I just spent a week at NC's Outer Banks. I stayed in the NPS's campgrounds for $10/night with my geezer pass. I toured the area, including the Wright Bros Memorial and Fort Raleigh (Lost Colony), both federal. I didn't notice _any_ impact, other than the $50/wk beach driving permit. That was in the works long before sequestration, I think.

One morning when I was leaving Frisco CG, there were 4 employees getting their workday organized at the gate. CG's were clean, facilities were open with the exception of Cape Point CG, which doesn't open until Memorial Day. The only thing I noticed was that a few of the boardwalks crossing the dunes had more sand covering their outer ends than I'd expect. But they had a major storm recently, so that's probably 'normal'.

Jim, "Mo' coffee!"

Maybe the NPS should turn over more of its campgrounds to private enterprise to run. There's no valid reason that a campground, on free land, in an area frequented by RVers, shouldn't easily be able to break even. If the government can't figure out how to do it, I'd bet my last cent that private enterprise can, even though they have more obstacles than if the gov. was running it.

I ran some numbers recently when Yellowstone announced it was going to open two weeks late to allow snows to melt from the roads rather than spend the money to plow them. I don't recall those exact figures now, but I took the number of visitors to the park the first two weeks of May last year and compared the cost of opening the roads against the gate fees. Again, I don't recall the exact figures, but there was no way it made sense to postpone opening the park. No way to a business owner. To the government, I'm sure it made perfect sense.:h

Luckily for those who wanted to visit the Park in May, the Chambers of Commerce in Cody and Jackson are run by business people, not government workers. Though the cost wasn't cheap (thinking $200K for Cody and $80K for Jackson), they knew they needed tourist traffic for income. Yellowstone management apparently doesn't have any incentive to keep tourists coming in the gates, as they get paid the same with or without visitors.

To my knowledge, NPS campground fees are not being used to support any other activity or mandate the parks are charged with, quite the contrary was evident in the Wind Cave case.
Wind Caves P&L statement was very specific on costs directly associated with operation of the camp; in no way were the operations of the park subsidized by camp fees. Quite the opposite, the camp was subsidised by non users.
I do not feel it would be correct to copy the p&l statement Wind Caves Super. gave me here, as it was a private communication.
The financial statements of all our Fed. parks are available to anyone with a little search.
I believe NFS, COE & NPS Campgrounds should be a neutral, user pay feature, as they are an extension outside the mandate of the land management requirement they recieve public funds for.
As citizens, if you have concerns with the management of your Lands, request to meet with the principals, ask for qualification, as I have.

tomman58 wrote:
Gee, I think you are on the fringe............... Who cleans up after a group of pigs? Who fixes the plumbing, hot water (where available) does the roads trails and goes to find the lost? Who fights the fires? Who mans the headquarters, the info centers. who studies the wildlife? Who takes care of them in hard times? Who cuts trees and such after the storms................................... it goes on and on and they are under staffed!

I can't tell if this is just hyperbole or you really think that camping fees should cover the cost of building and staffing museums, paying administrators at park headquarters, paying for search and rescue, funding wildlife research and feeding wild animals in hard times. For the record, I think camping fees should cover the cost of the campgrounds and that's it.

As far as being understaffed, I've worked for the Utah Department of Natural Resources, the Utah State Parks and Recreation, the IRS and the Department of Defense. My father was a government employee with the Department of Defense for 30 Years. I have yet to encounter a government agency that did not describe itself as understaffed and underfunded.

H345: "Why can most COE facilities pay their contractors , or even accept bids to operate their areas ,for the same prices , and not have the budget problems ?"

COE is a little different -- as it has power or water production to sell. BUT, that doesn't change the general thought here.

NP and NF have a mandate to protect our wilderness and wildlife, and water shed lands. At one point, we generated enough revenue into the federal tax base to pay for that mandate, including researchers and minimal maintenance. At that time, hiking, biking, and back-country camping was the norm. NO visitors centers, no restrooms, no maintained sites.

THEN: RV's and camping came along. So, the fee system arrived. And we build visitors centers and upgraded campgrounds, and raised the fees accordingly, hired more staff.

RECENTLY: The federal parks budget took a look at itself and said, hmmmm, we're getting this income from the parks, but the cost to run the parks is higher than the income from the parks.

But these same 'newbies' FORGOT that our mandate for creating these protection areas has nothing to do with visitors and camping. But these same newbies forgot to subtract the original mandate costs from the operation fees, and suddenly expected the 'visitor fees' and 'camping fees' to cover every fee in the park and forests. Like the school lottery allotments - once accepted, the lottery income became 'part of the budget' instead of a supplement to the budget, and now expect the visitor and camping fees to cover every part of our wilderness protection, not just the visitor and camping part.

In order to understand the impact of camping on our NP and NF budget, we need to subtract the protection mandate, and then look at the remaining revenue to see if the remainder covers the cost of visitors and camping.

If Ranger John spends half his time supervising campsites, and half his time researching the elk, than only half his salary should count as visitor and camping expense. But that's not what's happening - the newbies forgot the mandate, and count all his salary as visitor and camping expense. That's one example of the cost/product evaluation. The newbies FORGET we have a budget that protects our wilderness and has nothing to do with visitors and camping.

The other part of this: Stop the discounts - if a person is well enough to enter and enjoy our parks, he/she is well enough to pay the entry fee and protect our parks from closure. We personally get senior and disabled discount - and would gladly give that up when the alternative is a discount to WHAT? A closed gate --

But if you do take those discounts away, the funding better go to the parks, and not a raise or vacation pay to some paper-pusher sitting at a desk in DC.

.

To an extent I agree with Eurocamper .

I would like to see the breakdown / analysis of the Wind Cave NP operating costs .

I think the Camping Fees are supporting a lot more than the CG area operations .

When a Camping site is vacant for the night , what is that vacancy cost ? To me it is similar to a vacant seat on an airplane , train , or bus .

I have always been skeptical about operations and policy , when the concessionaires can charge the same price and make a profit , but the NPS can not !

Why can most COE facilities pay their contractors , or even accept bids to operate their areas ,
for the same prices , and not have the budget problems ?

.