What effect is Sequestration having on the parks?

Eurocamper wrote:
I wonder how expensive National Park campgrounds really are to maintain. Most of the NP campgrounds were built by the CCC back in the '30s. It's public property, there are no taxes, business licenses or other similar expenses. The public ones depend on volunteers as camp hosts. They collect the money and clean the sites. Fire rings and picnic tables last for decades. Garbage pickup and restroom cleaning takes maybe an hour or two and is performed by employees who make less than $15 dollars an hour.

For example, Norris campground in Yellowstone has 100 campsites and charges $20 a day (about the same price Xanterra charges for their comparable concession-operated campgrounds, with all of Xanterra's additional expenses and its need to see a profit). That means Norris is grossing close to $2000 a day, and as I pointed out has a minimal operating cost. I would say that campground operation is clearly self-supporting and probably subsidizing other operations in the park.

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 wonder how expensive National Park campgrounds really are to maintain. Most of the NP campgrounds were built by the CCC back in the '30s. It's public property, there are no taxes, business licenses or other similar expenses. The public ones depend on volunteers as camp hosts. They collect the money and clean the sites. Fire rings and picnic tables last for decades. Garbage pickup and restroom cleaning takes maybe an hour or two and is performed by employees who make less than $15 dollars an hour.

For example, Norris campground in Yellowstone has 100 campsites and charges $20 a day (about the same price Xanterra charges for their comparable concession-operated campgrounds, with all of Xanterra's additional expenses and its need to see a profit). That means Norris is grossing close to $2000 a day, and as I pointed out has a minimal operating cost. I would say that campground operation is clearly self-supporting and probably subsidizing other operations in the park.

JJ Haulers wrote:
...but when I camp in the park i pay a fee, so I don't see how my stay is being subsidized by anybody.

I'm not sure about National Parks, but a quick read of my state park budget tells me that user fees are small compared to overall park budget, hence are unlikely to cover the cost of maintaining the campgrounds. I suspect though, that will depend on the park, as a park that is cheap to maintain but near a metro area will likely have a much higher occupancy than a park that is in the middle of nowhere and expensive to maintain.

We all subsidize all kinds of things for all kinds of people, and rarely do each of us individually benefit from each thing that we subsidize.

sammytoo wrote:
Since this is an RV forum we probably all have campers of some sort and we share a common interest, but really, should all those millions of people who don't use park service campgrounds be subsidizing our vacation.
Should the people who never get to visit a national park have to pay for an interpretive ranger to tell us what kind of fish are in the river?
How about boat ramps? Shouldn't the folks who use boats pay for them?
Senior passes...Do the taxpayers owe me anything just because I managed to live this long?

Someone mentioned they would rather pay less at the government campground than stay at the KOA down the road. How about that KOA? Shouldn't they be able to operate without competing with taxpayer funded parks charging less than operational cost. What if the government ran hardware stores and gas stations ?

I don't fly yet my taxes support safe flight, I don't have children but my tax money goes towards schools.

sammytoo wrote:
Since this is an RV forum we probably all have campers of some sort and we share a common interest, but really, should all those millions of people who don't use park service campgrounds be subsidizing our vacation.
Should the people who never get to visit a national park have to pay for an interpretive ranger to tell us what kind of fish are in the river?
How about boat ramps? Shouldn't the folks who use boats pay for them?
Senior passes...Do the taxpayers owe me anything just because I managed to live this long?

Someone mentioned they would rather pay less at the government campground than stay at the KOA down the road. How about that KOA? Shouldn't they be able to operate without competing with taxpayer funded parks charging less than operational cost. What if the government ran hardware stores and gas stations ?

I don't see how my camping at a national park is being subsidized. When I use the camp facilities at a national park, I pay a fee. People who don't camp at the park do not pay the fee. We all pay the same amount in taxes for the benefit of the parks in general, but when I camp in the park i pay a fee, so I don't see how my stay is being subsidized by anybody. Likewise, the parks do not exist in order to turn a profit by selling camp sites. The parks are there to preserve and protect the natural resources that belong to all of us. This is what our tax dollars pay for. The camping fees are intended to cover the use of the resource when we camp. This is not a subsidy.

Also, I disagree that the parks are in competition with private campgrounds. Private campgrounds and national parks have different objectives or "missions" so they are not in competition with one another, in the same way that a priest or pastor is not in competition with a social worker.

The problem with these kinds of issues, the people that actually make decisions on any thing like this in any kind of organization like this - the people that actually know something about it are not the people that decide anything.

Does that make sense - well, that how it sounds when someone offers information on how to fix the park system. The people that have the right information never make decisions. People make decisions after reading a report that is generally incomplete and half inaccurate.

One worker stands at the bottom that does the work and knows how everything operates. One manager sits at the top that has no clue about anything except "meet the budget" - but has no control over the process that creates revenue stream in and cash flow out.

Between those two sits a buncha paperwork-creators, and therein lies the solution, or is that therein lies the problem. :)

tsetsaf wrote:

SDcampowneroperator wrote:
Elk Mountain Campground at Wind Cave NP will be closed this year. When I met with the Super., Mr. Davila, and his staff for discovery, they presented financials that the camp operated at 65% of income to cost.
As the campground is not an essential part of ,or of necessity to the Park, closure was their only option within the fiscal rules.
Their rate policy did not match expenses for this camp.

Below cost usage fees to operate the camp is the reason for the closure there.
If it was a cost neutral feature, it would be open.

Why don't they raise the camping fee then?

In their financial structure, adjusting rates or reallocating funds requires application to NPS Headquarters. An 18 mo. process. Unless------ Can't go there without violating forum rules on political comment.-----
2012 rate for this no hook up camp with flush toilets, central water fill and dump station , daily interpretive programs and firewood on honor ( often abused) was $12/ night, when flush washrooms were open , for $6/ night only the pit toilets are available.
Pass holders always camp for 1/2 price, regardless of date.
The staff at Wind Cave stated 6652 people used the camp in 2012 for a gross income of $26,000 vs expense of $46,000 to operate.
My reason for visiting with the staff there was to educate them on the impact the word 'closure' may have, how it could affect visitation to the cave, whether a system is in place to refer due to the closure to other camps, USFS, State parks or private. No. they do not.

Since this is an RV forum we probably all have campers of some sort and we share a common interest, but really, should all those millions of people who don't use park service campgrounds be subsidizing our vacation.
Should the people who never get to visit a national park have to pay for an interpretive ranger to tell us what kind of fish are in the river?
How about boat ramps? Shouldn't the folks who use boats pay for them?
Senior passes...Do the taxpayers owe me anything just because I managed to live this long?

Someone mentioned they would rather pay less at the government campground than stay at the KOA down the road. How about that KOA? Shouldn't they be able to operate without competing with taxpayer funded parks charging less than operational cost. What if the government ran hardware stores and gas stations ?

SDcampowneroperator wrote:
Elk Mountain Campground at Wind Cave NP will be closed this year. When I met with the Super., Mr. Davila, and his staff for discovery, they presented financials that the camp operated at 65% of income to cost.
As the campground is not an essential part of ,or of necessity to the Park, closure was their only option within the fiscal rules.
Their rate policy did not match expenses for this camp.

Below cost usage fees to operate the camp is the reason for the closure there.
If it was a cost neutral feature, it would be open.

Why don't they raise the camping fee then?

Elk Mountain Campground at Wind Cave NP will be closed this year. When I met with the Super., Mr. Davila, and his staff for discovery, they presented financials that the camp operated at 65% of income to cost.
As the campground is not an essential part of ,or of necessity to the Park, closure was their only option within the fiscal rules.
Their rate policy did not match expenses for this camp.

Below cost usage fees to operate the camp is the reason for the closure there.
If it was a cost neutral feature, it would be open.