Advisory committee recommends National Park campgrounds being privatized.

[SgtTibbs]

In a thinly veiled attempt to allow corporate intrusion into our National Parks, an advisory committee to the Trump administration has recommended increased corporate presence in the parks.


Full Article from The Hill

Memo from the committee

 

[Searc]

This isn't a new thing. He's been trying it for a long time. It must be stopped by whatever means necessary.

 

[Floridaman999]

This isn't a new thing. He's been trying it for a long time. It must be stopped by whatever means necessary.

It would be an absolute nightmare I'm sure.

 

[Deb & Bill]

I thought they had been run by a private company for years and years.

 

[NYCgrrl]

I thought they had been run by a private company for years and years.

There are concessionaires within the NPs like hotels, mule packers, and docks but they do not run the parks. Various agencies and bureaus of the Federal government do that.

I prefer the government retains control keeping the land and it's natural resources in place for the use of the citizens who own it.

 

[luvsJack]

There are concessionaires within the NPs like hotels, mule packers, and docks but they do not run the parks. Various agencies and bureaus of the Federal government do that.

I prefer the government retains control keeping the land and it's natural resources in place for the use of the citizens who own it.

From what I am reading of the links posted, the government would still control the land and its resources. They are talking about the campgrounds, not the entire parks.

 

[Brianstl]

There are concessionaires within the NPs like hotels, mule packers, and docks but they do not run the parks. Various agencies and bureaus of the Federal government do that.

I prefer the government retains control keeping the land and it's natural resources in place for the use of the citizens who own it.

And the parks wouldn't be run by a private company if this goes through. The recommendation would have private companies run the campsites sites just like they currently run hotels in the parks.

I don't see the actual problem here. Put a cap on how fast fees can grow in the contracts and let the Park Service manage the parks instead of taking reservations and cleaning up after campers.

 

[NYCgrrl]

From what I am reading of the links posted, the government would still control the land and its resources. They are talking about the campgrounds, not the entire parks.

And the parks wouldn't be run by a private company if this goes through. The recommendation would have private companies run the campsites sites just like they currently run hotels in the parks.

I don't see the actual problem here. Put a cap on how fast fees can grow in the contracts and let the Park Service manage the parks instead of taking reservations and cleaning up after campers.

To be clearer, I'm uncomfortable with private companies running the campsites also. I don't think that much of the operating budget is needed to run the campgrounds and what amt is needed provides necessary jobs, When I look at the history of privitisation throughout most levels of government I see more additional problems than solutions

 

[Brianstl]

To be clearer, I'm uncomfortable with private companies running the campsites also. I don't think that much of the operating budget is needed to run the campgrounds and what amt is needed provides necessary jobs, When I look at the history of privitisation throughout most levels of government I see more additional problems than solutions

Haven’t the park lodges always been privately operated? Those lodges aren’t a problem, they are a national treasure.

 

[bcla]

Haven’t the park lodges always been privately operated? Those lodges aren’t a problem, they are a national treasure.

It's kind of complicated. Some lodges (like a few at the Grand Canyon) even predate that National Park Service. The Grand Canyon is an object lesson in privatization. Several of the trails and lodges were privately operated under permit from the then National Forest. The trail operators charged tolls. The Santa Fe Railway built the El Tovar Hotel. These were eventually acquired by what became NPS. Now they’re owned by the federal government, but they also regulate what they can charge.

 

[bcla]

To be clearer, I'm uncomfortable with private companies running the campsites also. I don't think that much of the operating budget is needed to run the campgrounds and what amt is needed provides necessary jobs, When I look at the history of privitisation throughout most levels of government I see more additional problems than solutions

It’s a complex issue. The fact is that NPS campgrounds are operated by a combination of federal employees and private concessions. I’ve camped several where my reservation was made through a private company website, and where I had to check in a concessionaire desk. The rates were purely set by the federal government, and subject to standard discounts for seniors and disabled visitors.

Even when a campground was nominally operated by NPS with a badged park ranger checking me in and uniformed federal maintenance crews, there was a private campground host there to notify of any issues. I’ve also camped at Forest Service campgrounds where checkin was through a private management company that might have also operated a campground store. That being said, I don’t consider those to be privatized per se. My reservation was made through recreation.gov like I’d reserve many NPS campsites.

I think the biggest campground in California is Camp Richardson near Lake Tahoe. It’s technically owned by the Forest Service, but operated by the same family that built it before it was purchased by the USDA. I’ve thought of staying there, but they do everything the old fashioned way - by phone. They have cabins and a campground that are described on their website, but there’s no real time inventory available. I don’t know if the Forest Service would ever consider directly running the place, but I wish they would at least open up online rese4vations.

 

[NYCgrrl]

It’s a complex issue. The fact is that NPS campgrounds are operated by a combination of federal employees and private concessions. I’ve camped several where my reservation was made through a private company website, and where I had to check in a concessionaire desk. The rates were purely set by the federal government, and subject to standard discounts for seniors and disabled visitors.

Even when a campground was nominally operated by NPS with a badged park ranger checking me in and uniformed federal maintenance crews, there was a private campground host there to notify of any issues. I’ve also camped at Forest Service campgrounds where checkin was through a private management company that might have also operated a campground store. That being said, I don’t consider those to be privatized per se. My reservation was made through recreation.gov like I’d reserve many NPS campsites.

I think the biggest campground in California is Camp Richardson near Lake Tahoe. It’s technically owned by the Forest Service, but operated by the same family that built it before it was purchased by the USDA. I’ve thought of staying there, but they do everything the old fashioned way - by phone. They have cabins and a campground that are described on their website, but there’s no real time inventory available. I don’t know if the Forest Service would ever consider directly running the place, but I wish they would at least open up online rese4vations.

You live on the west coast where the vast majority of NPS sites are. My camping to date has predominately been done on the east coast with National Seashores being my only Fed camping experiences (Cape Lookout and Fire Island). Most NE states have exclusive state camping reservations through RA which does a great job issuing the reservations equitably. The closest to the Federal system near me is NYS which has 3 or 4 different different entites to manage land and make reservations through as well as Reserve America. This is in part due to the state's Constitution that codifies that much of the Adirondacks remain forever wild. NYS thus has it's own equivalent of BLM, NPS, and the Forest Service. Fire Island National Seashore is completely managed by the government to the best of my knowledge which might have to do with the accessibility (by boat) and size of the primitive campgrounds. Not sure about Cape Lookout now as it's been well over a decade since I've been there.

And yes I agree it's a complex issue but since it's not broken I see no reason to "fix" it.

 

[bcla]

You live on the west coast where the vast majority of NPS sites are. My camping to date has predominately been done on the east coast with National Seashores being my only Fed camping experiences (Cape Lookout and Fire Island). Most NE states have exclusive state camping reservations through RA which does a great job issuing the reservations equitably. The closest to the Federal system near me is NYS which has 3 or 4 different different entites to manage land and make reservations through as well as Reserve America. This is in part due to the state's Constitution that codifies that much of the Adirondacks remain forever wild. NYS thus has it's own equivalent of BLM, NPS, and the Forest Service. Fire Island National Seashore is completely managed by the government to the best of my knowledge which might have to do with the accessibility (by boat) and size of the primitive campgrounds. Not sure about Cape Lookout now as it's been well over a decade since I've been there.

And yes I agree it's a complex issue but since it's not broken I see no reason to "fix" it.

Yeah - I don't see what about "privatizing" federal campgrounds is going to help. I'm just saying that there's already some level of privatization already going on. However, the way it seems to me is that the most of these concessionaires running these campgrounds aren't in it to make money. It's just an obligation that's required of them in order to take part in the profitable operations such as stores, restaurants, and lodges. Xanterra is the largest NPS concessionaire by far, and they run several campgrounds including all the reservable campsites in Yellowstone NP.

https://www.yellowstonenationalparklodges.com/stay/camping/
If you look at the recreation.gov site for Grant Village Campground, they note that they can't take reservations.

https://www.recreation.gov/camping/poi/259303
They have a link that redirects to the NPS description of the campground.

https://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/grantcg.htm
However, this is where reservations are made:

https://www.yellowstonenationalparklodges.com/lodgings/camping/grant-village-campground/
There are actually a few federal campsite available in the San Francisco Bay Area, but they're rather limited. There's maybe one at the Presidio of San Francisco and a few hike in sites at the Marin Headlands. And Point Reyes National Seashore has a few hike-in only campgrounds. Years ago the only way to reserve them was to call in or show up in person at the main visitor center. Now the reservations are available on recreation.gov.

https://www.nps.gov/pore/planyourvisit/campgrounds.htm

 

[JaxDad]

I have been involved with lots of DOD privatization efforts, primarily utilities and installation operations and maintenance. Each one requires a comprehensive financial study. It is almost always cheaper AND better to go with contract services. (I actually can’t remember an exception, but I put “almost” in case I forgot one.) I can’t think of a US military installation that does not have a “Base Operation and Support” contractor. In fact, DOD manpower positions must have some legal or security related justification to fill them with military or civil service employees. Otherwise, it is an unnecessary taxpayer expense. Federal government employees are expensive and generally lack accountability (sad but true—some of the best and ALL of the worst people I’ve worked with have been Federal employees). Contractors come at firm fixed prices with enforceable scopes of work. I don’t know how much of this applies to NPS government employees, but I would guess it is similar.

 

[amcc]

I don’t necessarily mind private concessionaires in campgrounds but full private management of them is problematic to me. The goal would change to making the most money and, in a campground, that often leads to degraded camping experiences. In Florida, state parks often have big private sites, many private campgrounds are like parking lots where you can barely open an awning.

 

[kimblebee]

I can’t wait to see Old Faithful, brought to you by Coke and Mentos.

 

[Colleen27]

And the parks wouldn't be run by a private company if this goes through. The recommendation would have private companies run the campsites sites just like they currently run hotels in the parks.

I don't see the actual problem here. Put a cap on how fast fees can grow in the contracts and let the Park Service manage the parks instead of taking reservations and cleaning up after campers.

The problem is buried rather deep in the article, in the quote from one of the members who thinks the national parks campgrounds need more wi-fi, shopping options and food trucks. It would fundamentally change a system that is beloved and operates at capacity more often than not specifically because it ISN'T a high-end, full-featured "camping resort". As someone who loves camping in and around the national parks, I do NOT want to see rates skyrocket to cover those "extras", since the lack of them is a big part of why we choose to stay in NPs or on BLM land rather than at a KOA.

 

[bcla]

I have been involved with lots of DOD privatization efforts, primarily utilities and installation operations and maintenance. Each one requires a comprehensive financial study. It is almost always cheaper AND better to go with contract services. (I actually can’t remember an exception, but I put “almost” in case I forgot one.) I can’t think of a US military installation that does not have a “Base Operation and Support” contractor. In fact, DOD manpower positions must have some legal or security related justification to fill them with military or civil service employees. Otherwise, it is an unnecessary taxpayer expense. Federal government employees are expensive and generally lack accountability (sad but true—some of the best and ALL of the worst people I’ve worked with have been Federal employees). Contractors come at firm fixed prices with enforceable scopes of work. I don’t know how much of this applies to NPS government employees, but I would guess it is similar.

The fact is that a good many campgrounds within the National Park Service are operated under contract by a concessionaire. I noted that they're often required to do so as part of a larger contract. I believe there are a lot of operations that may lose money, but are required if the concessionaire wants the overall contract. A lot of these contracts also require the concessionaire to pay for large capital improvements as well as several generally unprofitable services.

The change would be to probably allow some sort of profit motive on the part of the operator. I tend to agree with a previous post that I don't go there to get the "camping resort" feel. The vast majority of NPS campsites have no hookups and for the most part are geared toward tent camping. The proposal seems to be more towards making KOA style campgrounds, where the operator has a lot more freedom to decide what amenities to provide if they think it will make them money, as well as discontinuing standard discounts that won't make them money. I'm OK with the way they're run now and it doesn't need any fix. If anyone wants a high-amenity camping experience, there are still places that offer that.

It's also not as if federal employees are really expensive. The National Park Service has notoriously low pay, and a great deal of the seasonal employees (including rangers) are part timers including teachers and college students. Many parks are supplemented with workers provided by nonprofits.

 

[Colleen27]

It's also not as if federal employees are really expensive. The National Park Service has notoriously low pay, and a great deal of the seasonal employees (including rangers) are part timers including teachers and college students. Many parks are supplemented with workers provided by nonprofits.

Yep. My daughter fell in love with Glacier when we were there and is applying to intern in the park next summer. The pay is a tiny stipend (I think $200/week) and on-site housing. Some of the other parks she looked at for summer opportunities don't even pay that much, and they must get more applicants because they have requirements that Glacier doesn't (upperclassman status, specific majors, etc.).

Glacier also has a huge "friends of" organization that provides financial support for some of the park amenities that the NPS budget doesn't quite cover.