Proposal to Commercialize National Parks

[MVO]

There are lots of online responses to the "Outdoor Recreation Advisory Committee" (which is made up of Business Leaders) recommending the privatizing of public lands to the Interior Department. Everyone here is probably an interested party to this so please read several stories. Albeit you are going to be very upset by this. Search this for better writers than myself.

A New Plan Wants to Make Camping in National Parks Worse

A controversial Interior Department advisory committee has made a series of recommendations aimed at privatizing campgrounds on public lands

www.outsideonline.com

and here for the report https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1892/upload/ORAC_recommendations_letter_to_DOI-Oct102019.pdf


It is time to make some noise!

The National Parks may only be the beginning.

 

[RadioRick]

Boy do I have mixed emotions on this. The NPS already uses concessionaires to run many operations to avoid expensive federal employees. Facilities in parks like Yellowstone, both sides of the Grand Canyon and Brice/Zion are dated, poorly maintained, and so crowded that they are no longer the retreat they once were. The NPS gets so limited general fund money that they have to use the gate receipts just to keep the parks open with little hope of modernization. They could charge double for camping spaces and still have a year long waiting list. I wonder if somewhere in this is a good idea poorly executed like so many other things spawned by the current administration.

 

[MVO]

I understand the mixed emotions. But I would rather have no improvement than turn our parks into commercial developments. The committee member list is what I worry.

I seems OBers are a pretty non political group if one is to judge be the length of this thread. A great trait while spending time outside but if this proposal does not get attention from users we will see companies rebuilding our parks.

 

[grubworm]

poorly executed like so many other things spawned by the current administration.

current administation? this isn't anything new...if you researched just a little bit, you can see where state and feds have been selling off public property to generate revenue and to lessen the amount of land to keep up with for many years now. i used to ride dirt bikes in west texas in the 70s and 80s and even back then public lands were being sold to developers because the state needed money.
it has nothing to do with who is in office, during the obama term, a giant piece of public land in nevada was sold to a chinese company looking to make a solar farm. government is HUGE and needs more and more money to grow and operate and commercializing national parks is part of that

 

[Boostpowered]

Its amazing supposed to be public land yet no one asks the public if its ok to sell our land. I can think of a ton of things that can be cut, like all of the politicians they get paid like they are professional atheletes or rap stars yet our country is low on funds humm i wonder why. Mark my words there is going to come a time if you want to offroad you will have to go to a designated offroad park or do it illegally. Ill be doing it illegally since offroad parks are a joke.

 

[old_man]

Its amazing supposed to be public land yet no one asks the public if its ok to sell our land. I can think of a ton of things that can be cut, like all of the politicians they get paid like they are professional atheletes or rap stars yet our country is low on funds humm i wonder why. Mark my words there is going to come a time if you want to offroad you will have to go to a designated offroad park or do it illegally. Ill be doing it illegally since offroad parks are a joke.

I guess you haven't been to New York yet. You can't even pull over to the side of the road to stop because everything is private.

 

[Boostpowered]

I guess you haven't been to New York yet. You can't even pull over to the side of the road to stop because everything is private.

No i generally dont visit east or west coast states because i cant bring my guns in most of them. I have visited nyc via airplane and hated every second of it. Texas aint much better but we can still pull over just not more than 10 ft off the road or you can get a trespass charge if the land owner is a dick.

 

[RadioRick]

current administation? this isn't anything new...if you researched just a little bit, you can see where state and feds have been selling off public property to generate revenue and to lessen the amount of land to keep up with for many years now. i used to ride dirt bikes in west texas in the 70s and 80s and even back then public lands were being sold to developers because the state needed money.
it has nothing to do with who is in office, during the obama term, a giant piece of public land in nevada was sold to a chinese company looking to make a solar farm. government is HUGE and needs more and more money to grow and operate and commercializing national parks is part of that

Ok, poke the anthill you get ants...

I'm one of those oddball Libertarians who doesn't like about 90% of what our Federal Government does, and believes that about 75% of what they do is in violation of the constitution. Among the things I hate is federal land ownership outside of the few true conservation areas and the national parks. As an Oregonian I seethe at the broad-brushed land use policies made up by a group of people on the other side of the country who haven't even set foot on the ground they are regulating, depending instead on the testimony of "Experts" who are merely civil service employees paid to parrot whomsoever's brand of science (Remember Al Gore?) is popular at the time all for the sake of paying off the unconstitutional federal student loans they depended on for their otherwise unmarketable degree field.

THAT run on sentence/rant over, I have grown frustrated at President Orange not because of some of the ideas he has - China needed to be taken on at some point before they sucked us dry, our immigration policy was designed by Richpublicans and Democrits alike to let as much cheap labor leak into the country as their constituants can use in near slave labor conditions, and the federal government can't bloody well manage anything including land, and shouldn't be - the individual states should. Problem is, Heir Trump is not a statesman. can't deliver a complete thought without utilizing a tweet. and could not develop consensus on anything including land use. To offer party contrast, think back to either Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton. If either of them were to suggest that bringing in vendors to the national parks would provide better facilities, better user experience, and help meet conservation goals they would have done so with the presentation of much research, would have presented the idea in an educated manner with the support of senior electedes and staff, and with outreach at the local NPS level.

Never seen that approach from the MAGA crowd...

 

[grubworm]

I have grown frustrated at President Orange

ha! i guess he does have a tint to him. maybe its spray tan or he ate something with a LOT of beta carotene in it

 

[DrivingTacoLoco]

Ok, poke the anthill you get ants...

I'm one of those oddball Libertarians who doesn't like about 90% of what our Federal Government does, and believes that about 75% of what they do is in violation of the constitution. Among the things I hate is federal land ownership outside of the few true conservation areas and the national parks. As an Oregonian I seethe at the broad-brushed land use policies made up by a group of people on the other side of the country who haven't even set foot on the ground they are regulating, depending instead on the testimony of "Experts" who are merely civil service employees paid to parrot whomsoever's brand of science (Remember Al Gore?) is popular at the time all for the sake of paying off the unconstitutional federal student loans they depended on for their otherwise unmarketable degree field.

THAT run on sentence/rant over, I have grown frustrated at President Orange not because of some of the ideas he has - China needed to be taken on at some point before they sucked us dry, our immigration policy was designed by Richpublicans and Democrits alike to let as much cheap labor leak into the country as their constituants can use in near slave labor conditions, and the federal government can't bloody well manage anything including land, and shouldn't be - the individual states should. Problem is, Heir Trump is not a statesman. can't deliver a complete thought without utilizing a tweet. and could not develop consensus on anything including land use. To offer party contrast, think back to either Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton. If either of them were to suggest that bringing in vendors to the national parks would provide better facilities, better user experience, and help meet conservation goals they would have done so with the presentation of much research, would have presented the idea in an educated manner with the support of senior electedes and staff, and with outreach at the local NPS level.

Never seen that approach from the MAGA crowd...

I agree but in our partison political environment I doubt anyone could do so and not get lambasted by the other side. The administration in power will do what they want and get sued anyway so were all screwed until states get more power as it was supposed to be.

 

[Jeep backroads]

Boy do I have mixed emotions on this. The NPS already uses concessionaires to run many operations to avoid expensive federal employees. Facilities in parks like Yellowstone, both sides of the Grand Canyon and Brice/Zion are dated, poorly maintained, and so crowded that they are no longer the retreat they once were. The NPS gets so limited general fund money that they have to use the gate receipts just to keep the parks open with little hope of modernization. They could charge double for camping spaces and still have a year long waiting list. I wonder if somewhere in this is a good idea poorly executed like so many other things spawned by the current administration.

I think it is a bad idea.

 

[Salty4Life]

Ok, poke the anthill you get ants...

I'm one of those oddball Libertarians who doesn't like about 90% of what our Federal Government does, and believes that about 75% of what they do is in violation of the constitution. Among the things I hate is federal land ownership outside of the few true conservation areas and the national parks. As an Oregonian I seethe at the broad-brushed land use policies made up by a group of people on the other side of the country who haven't even set foot on the ground they are regulating, depending instead on the testimony of "Experts" who are merely civil service employees paid to parrot whomsoever's brand of science (Remember Al Gore?) is popular at the time all for the sake of paying off the unconstitutional federal student loans they depended on for their otherwise unmarketable degree field.

THAT run on sentence/rant over, I have grown frustrated at President Orange not because of some of the ideas he has - China needed to be taken on at some point before they sucked us dry, our immigration policy was designed by Richpublicans and Democrits alike to let as much cheap labor leak into the country as their constituants can use in near slave labor conditions, and the federal government can't bloody well manage anything including land, and shouldn't be - the individual states should. Problem is, Heir Trump is not a statesman. can't deliver a complete thought without utilizing a tweet. and could not develop consensus on anything including land use. To offer party contrast, think back to either Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton. If either of them were to suggest that bringing in vendors to the national parks would provide better facilities, better user experience, and help meet conservation goals they would have done so with the presentation of much research, would have presented the idea in an educated manner with the support of senior electedes and staff, and with outreach at the local NPS level.

Never seen that approach from the MAGA crowd...

well said.

 

[RadioRick]

I agree but in our partisan political environment I doubt anyone could do so and not get lambasted by the other side. The administration in power will do what they want and get sued anyway so were all screwed until states get more power as it was supposed to be.

I'm afraid your right. As long as we continue to live with 2 party rule we will have to deal with the bipolar disorder that is US politics.

 

[RadioRick]

I think it is a bad idea.

Why - not that I'm saying it's a good idea either. Status quo has left us with a Laundromat in the village at South Yellowstone that looks like it is right out of the 50's. Building in parks that are closed to to "Differed (Ignored?) maintenance. What will right the NPS operations. Xanterra already does the lions share of the work in the western parks as a concessionaire, would increasing their level of engagement be a bad thing? Can the NPS reinvest in these treasures while our tax money is stolen to feed social welfare programs?

 

[Todd & Meg]

I hind it funny that President Trump gets labeled as not being a statesman, but it’s ok to call him President Orange.

One issue I see is presidents wanting to pad their legacy by adding to the National Park system or other public land but than don’t fund it. Obama was great for this. The Pullman National monument, Bears Ears, etc. this should not happen unless they also come up with the money to fully fund it for 20 years.

I remember the first time I was at the South Rim of the GC, it was over 20 years ago. I told my uncle who was living in AZ for 30 years at that time that the park service needs to bring in Disney to run the place. He flipped out at the thought. But I still say the same thing. There are private companies that their business is people, they know how to manage the people at their property. The park service can learn a lot from them.

The Park Service, Forest Service, BLM all have more land than they can manage with the funds they have. I don’t know the solution, but it is $35 to get in a lot of parks, camping is $15 per night for a fire ring, a pit toilet. $25 a night with a flush toilet. How much higher can it go?

Todd

 

[grubworm]

the park service needs to bring in Disney to run the place.
How much higher can it go?

that kind of makes sense, but just like going to Disney World, you will need to take out a mortgage on your house to take the family there for a few days. GC is cutting back on parking areas around the rim and charging for shuttle service on top of the huge toll fee just to drive thru, imagine if Disney had 100% control of all services, it would be brutal. i dont see any good answers either. eventually there will not be any land at all to camp on or hike and then it will be a non-issue

 

[Todd & Meg]

that kind of makes sense, but just like going to Disney World, you will need to take out a mortgage on your house to take the family there for a few days. GC is cutting back on parking areas around the rim and charging for shuttle service on top of the huge toll fee just to drive thru, imagine if Disney had 100% control of all services, it would be brutal. i dont see any good answers either. eventually there will not be any land at all to camp on or hike and then it will be a non-issue

Yes and No. there are a lot of things you pay for at Disney that you don’t need at a National Park, amusements, security ( at Disney level), landscaping. I’m just talking crowd control, food, parking, and design and construction. Have you ever seen subpar construction at Disney? They know how to do that better than anyone. I think I would like 100% Disney control over 100% government control. Lol

Todd

 

[DrivingTacoLoco]

I think I would like 100% Disney control over 100% government control. Lol

Be careful what ypu wish for. You just may get it.
crowd control, food, parking, and design and construction. I think that's a bout 50%. I could see that. Unfortunately I'm not sure the vendors could make it profitable unless the government subsidizes.

 

[SinisterJK]

Call me crazy but our parks should not be commercialized! What a load of crock is that! Its a total bad idea in my opinion! I would completely as I already do stay away from places like that. For example I'm in Orlando, My wife actually works selling tickets so we go to a lot of hospitality events for the theme parks and get tix all the time....The one place I refuse to go and because its just not camping is to Fort Wilderness Lodge for that same reason....It's commercialized...If I light my fire some yuppie millennial gets his panties in a knot about his Jetta and some over priced tent he scored on Amazon or some crazy can barely pronounce the name websites now getting ash on it. Then if I crack a beer or light a joint or a cigarette here comes the ranger Joe looking a Rent-A-Ranger with his Disney badge to tell me some crap that blah blah blah this is a "FAMILY" zone. I respect that maybe not everyone is 420 or tobacco friendly, cool no worries we respect everyone but in our family that's not Taboo which is why we end up off the beaten path to avoid that headache but to have the peace of mind that when I'm out in the open I'm out in the open. I hate it, would never in my life want to stay at a park that's commercialized. Even having to pull into a "CAMP SPOT" in a park or a Smokey the Bear KOA is like a last resort for me. I enjoy being totally off grid, off the beaten path where the testament of "DONT FOLLOW ME YOU WONT MAKE IT" holds true. Wake up to what not everyone can get to or see just from staying in Campsite BS1 @ the Fee Based Camping. I want to wake up make coffee and say holly shit how the hell did we get here and damn its worth every minute of the crawl to get here and enjoy this. I really hope the future doesn't lead to that and its just another hair brained idea in the wind....

 

[DrivingTacoLoco]

Call me crazy but our parks should not be commercialized! What a load of crock is that! Its a total bad idea in my opinion! I would completely as I already do stay away from places like that. For example I'm in Orlando, My wife actually works selling tickets so we go to a lot of hospitality events for the theme parks and get tix all the time....The one place I refuse to go and because its just not camping is to Fort Wilderness Lodge for that same reason....It's commercialized...If I light my fire some yuppie millennial gets his panties in a knot about his Jetta and some over priced tent he scored on Amazon or some crazy can barely pronounce the name websites now getting ash on it. Then if I crack a beer or light a joint or a cigarette here comes the ranger Joe looking a Rent-A-Ranger with his Disney badge to tell me some crap that blah blah blah this is a "FAMILY" zone. I respect that maybe not everyone is 420 or tobacco friendly, cool no worries we respect everyone but in our family that's not Taboo which is why we end up off the beaten path to avoid that headache but to have the peace of mind that when I'm out in the open I'm out in the open. I hate it, would never in my life want to stay at a park that's commercialized. Even having to pull into a "CAMP SPOT" in a park or a Smokey the Bear KOA is like a last resort for me. I enjoy being totally off grid, off the beaten path where the testament of "DONT FOLLOW ME YOU WONT MAKE IT" holds true. Wake up to what not everyone can get to or see just from staying in Campsite BS1 @ the Fee Based Camping. I want to wake up make coffee and say holly shit how the hell did we get here and damn its worth every minute of the crawl to get here and enjoy this. I really hope the future doesn't lead to that and its just another hair brained idea in the wind....

I don't want to turn national parks into Disneyland but there can be a lot in-between. Forest rangers don't need to clean toilets or sling burgers. A decent vendor can do that better and more efficiently. As with most things it's where the line is drawn that matters.