Push to privatize National Park Service campgrounds

[Community Alumni]

I don't mind having concessionaires run some of the National Parks, as it is being done now. However, I don't want to see our National Parks turned into garish Disneyland-like attractions.

I realize the Park Service is drastically underfunded and in need of billions for backlogged maintenance and repairs, but I rather see fees raised gradually to cover expenses instead of having private companies destroy the character of the national parks.

From the article:

Seniors are one group that might be hit hard by the policies, if adopted.

The memo argues that the 50 percent discount for seniors should apply only to base campsite fees and encourages NPS to introduce “new senior fee blackout periods during peak season periods.”

Committee pushes National Park Service to privatize campgrounds

[RAS43]

Thom02099 wrote:
I don't know what the original motivation was when the rules/laws were made to allow for a discount for senior citizens to enter National Parks (and by extension, use of USFS campgrounds). But I can speculate -- Respect.

Respect to our seniors who, in many cases are "the greatest generation". In many cases survivors of one and (earlier) two World Wars and the "conflicts" in Korea and Vietnam. The generation who's women worked tirelessly in factories during those wars. The generation who rebuilt and retooled this country after wars.

Just as we show respect for our veterans of all foreign wars/conflicts with discounts on services, this (senior pass) small discount to our seniors is also a way to show respect for their service, even if they were not in the military serving our country. Service can take many forms. Living through trying times is one of them. Honour our elders, even if we are now one of them. Never forget. Thank you to ALL for your service to our country.

THANK-YOU!!!! (A senior and veteran.)

[Thom02099]

I don't know what the original motivation was when the rules/laws were made to allow for a discount for senior citizens to enter National Parks (and by extension, use of USFS campgrounds). But I can speculate -- Respect.

Respect to our seniors who, in many cases are "the greatest generation". In many cases survivors of one and (earlier) two World Wars and the "conflicts" in Korea and Vietnam. The generation who's women worked tirelessly in factories during those wars. The generation who rebuilt and retooled this country after wars.

Just as we show respect for our veterans of all foreign wars/conflicts with discounts on services, this (senior pass) small discount to our seniors is also a way to show respect for their service, even if they were not in the military serving our country. Service can take many forms. Living through trying times is one of them. Honour our elders, even if we are now one of them. Never forget. Thank you to ALL for your service to our country.

[wing_zealot]

dedmiston wrote:
I temporarily closed the thread. One of the primary trolls is gone from the forum and I'm reopening it again.

THANK YOU!

[dedmiston]

westernrvparkowner wrote:

dedmiston wrote:
I had to delete some posts for words like "geezers".

Let's please keep this thread civil so I don't need to close it.

Didn't know that word needed to be added to Richard Pryor's list.

Now you do.

[agesilaus]

gemsworld wrote:
This article goes more into details.

Advisory council recommends expanding private business in national parks

Warren Meyers the fellow who I linked with the extensive comments about privatization points out that many USFS CG have been privatized for years. Personally I know that all three springs in Ocala NF are privatized. They generate a bit of minor irritation when they charge a small parking fee to Access card holders and Seniors I'm sure. But it's only a buck or two so no big deal. The springs show no sign of Disneyfication.

[westernrvparkow]

dedmiston wrote:
I had to delete some posts for words like "geezers".

Let's please keep this thread civil so I don't need to close it.

Didn't know that word needed to be added to Richard Pryor's list.

[dedmiston]

The thread is open again. Please play nice.

[dedmiston]

I temporarily closed the thread. One of the primary trolls is gone from the forum and I'm reopening it again.

[Community Alumni]

This article goes more into details.

Advisory council recommends expanding private business in national parks

[goducks10]

In the end it's all about services. If a private company can take over and give as good or better results without raising prices beyond reason then there shouldn't be any issues.

We had a new company come to Oregon and take over management of several FS campgrounds. They did improvements and changed a few of the ways they do visitor relations all without raising prices.
Ironically the new company is CLM ( California Land Management)

The end result will fall directly on who's chosen to run the parks.

[dedmiston]

I had to delete some posts for words like "geezers".

Let's please keep this thread civil so I don't need to close it.

[NoVa_RT]

DFord wrote:
A few years back the Supreme Court "Citizens United" gave BIG MONEY the right to use that money to control our government and nothing has been the same since (money=speech - the more you have the louder your voice).

The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision isn’t really relevant to the issue of private management of National Parks, but that is not an accurate description of the Court’s decision. The Court merely held that the government could not suppress a book, film, or other communication because of its political content. Here’s a link to the decision for those who wish to read it, or google “Citizens United” for the plentiful commentary on it. It’s a somewhat controversial decision, but consistent with centuries of 1st Amendment law.

[monkey44]

One thing no one mentions - regards senior discount. We all understand the argument about paying all our lives in taxes which support NPS. Let's leave that for a moment ...

Most seniors live on fixed income, some still pay taxes, and most have a lot more time for camping in parks. If seniors have discounts, seniors will stay more often and longer in parks, spending the recreation part of their budget. So, basically, if you spend more nights, you spend more money and use less services per day over a longer period. Seniors buy food in the park, fuel in the park ... and some other services when available -boat launch fee, for example. In the long run, I bet seniors per pay much more into the NPS system annually than, say a family with three kids on vacation for a week or two. And, that family will use more services - that's not a complaint, just a factor to consider.

Seniors have earned a discount, and ultimately probably pay more support into the parks overall, then without a discount. I do know Genie and I spend more time in NPS than any other camping areas, and a part of that decision comes from the possibility of a discount for each camp night.

Sure, we can stay outside park, with hookups, and pool, and games for a similar amount as 'regular fees', but we don't. We stay in the parks because they are the parks, and the GC most often are a bit more space, a bit more private, and certainly much more beautiful than say the average private park, even tho most NPS have no hookups.

Each type of CG - private or public - has its place in all our camp-lives, but the parks are the parks, and the protection of these wilderness and watershed areas is more important than any other NPS purpose.

[Naio]

agesilaus wrote:
There is a multi park vendor who does this sort of thing. He takes over State and Federal park campgrounds. He runs them, maintains them, improves them and still pays the state or Federal agency a fee for doing so. And he does not raise the fees and still makes a profit. He runs the Coyote Blog That link to his Park Privatization pages, where he explains how he does it. He hires many workcampers.

It seems the logical solution would be to allow the park service to have workcampers. Are there laws against that, maybe labor rights laws?

On a level playing field, government provided services are always cheaper than privately provided services. Both have the same base costs, but the private service has an additional cost, which is the profit to the owner.

But often the playing field is not level, as in this example where the private owner has a large amount of work done by people who are basically volunteers.

[Horsedoc]

If you guys have ever been there, check out a ride thru the GSMNP from Cherokee to Gatlinburg. There is no fees. In fact there is no fee anywhere here.
I would not object to a fee to use the park, say $10 per vehicle. It certainly would help their budget out and be a lot shorter than going up 76 and I-40 to get to Gatlinburg/Pigeon Forge.