US Public campgrounds/parks going to be privatized?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an RV or an interest in RVing!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

VallAndMo

Well-known member
Joined
May 6, 2011
Posts
550
Hello folks,

Just came across this:
http://www.hcn.org/articles/economy-rv-industry-lobbies-to-privatize-more-services-on-public-lands

We're not interested in politics, but we've camped on many US campgrounds both public and private, and we liked the public ones *much* better. We hope that they do not fall victim to that... :-\

Cheers,
--
  Vall & Mo.
 
Some facilities in some national parks are managed by private companies, but they do so under contracts.  They do NOT own the campgrounds and can lose their contracts to other companies.

I think this article is mostly talking about adding campgrounds to a few of the more-heavily visited national parks, not turning over every campground in every national park.

There has also been debate between those who think the national park experience should be primitive with no hookups, mostly focusing on tenters, and those who think there should be campgrounds with more hookups.  There has even been a big debate about allowing cell towers in national parks to improve cell service because some people believe phones and such do not belong in natural areas.

 
JudyJB said:
There has even been a big debate about allowing cell towers in national parks to improve cell service because some people believe phones and such do not belong in natural areas.
Those people change their mind when there is an accident and they can't get a signal to call for help.
 
Having visited Yellostone this summer and stayed in 3 campgrounds ran by Xanterra (Grant, Canyon and Fishing Bridge, with fishing bridge being the only full hookup campground), I had no issue with the way they were operated, the campgrounds appeared to be well maintained, the staff that I dealt with were all reasonably pleasant to deal with, though there was a certain bureaucratic paperwork feel with the must read these regulations to you, and get you to agree at each check in.

Now personally I would prefer more full hookup campgrounds, though I am no big fan of the fishing bridge packed in like sardines layout.  I think the real need is for more campgrounds at Yellowstone regardless of type, water and electric with central dump station would be great, if they were more spread out like the no hookup campgrounds, it would also be nice if they had more, smaller campgrounds, the size of some of the ones at yellowstone is absurd with a 5 minute drive from the entrance just to get to ones camping loop.

So I am neither for or against concession operated campgrounds, but if this is a way to provide a service where otherwise none would exist, or where we would have only unmaintained  dilapidated campgrounds I would pick this.  There is a perfect example of a dilapidated campground in a national forest about 60 miles from where I live, 25 or 30 years ago it was a nice lake front campground, now only the boat lunch remains functional, the visitor building is boarded up and falling apart, the dump station is non-functional and overgrown, and the rv sites themselves are being reclaimed by the forest.  I drove by and saw it last year and it was in sad shape, I think camping is still allowed there, but it is now no longer considered an official campground, and I suspect maybe only 1 in 5 of the rv sites is still accessible due to overhanging limbs, etc.

 
Sadly it is politics but many National Park Campgrounds (I'm specifically thinking Grand Canyon) have already been privatized in one way or another.    Either leased to a management comnpany or operated by one... In most all cases... the Management company does NOT do as good a job as the national park service or COE used to do when they ran it.
 
As others have stated, they are talking about park operations & management, not actual ownership. However, the trend is to write park management contracts that make the contractors responsible for both maintenance and improvements but allowing them flexibility to set prices and operating rules.  Many (not all) NP users are demanding more and better services that the National Park Service cannot fund or staff, so the practical solution is to make park management contracts attractive to investment by private operators. It's a conundrum, because the park experience inevitably changes once it becomes a for-profit business.

Mt Rushmore is a love/hate example of this.  Many years ago, the NPS gave a long term contract for Rushmore operation to a company with the caveat that they had to build a parking garage to accommodate the many visitors. The company would only accept the contract if they could set the park entry fee and include the parking garage price in it. NPS got the capital investment needed to build the garage and visitors got badly needed parking, but the complaints have been vigorous ever since. The primary one is that the NPS Park passes are not accepted there. Every visitor has to pay the entry fee because that is how the parking garage gets paid for.
 
JudyJB said:
There has even been a big debate about allowing cell towers in national parks to improve cell service because some people believe phones and such do not belong in natural areas.

make the towers look like trees, Disney knows how to do it. 
 
I've worked for a private park management company at the Allegheny National Forest, which has been "privatized" for 20+ years now. Yellowstone and Grand Teton campgrounds are also largely operated by contractors and have been for many years. Not many complaints about those.
 
I think a good alternative to contracting with for-profit commercial entities to operate national park facilities is to offer them to related non-profit groups instead. The Cradle of Forestry in America Interpretive Association that operates campgrounds and other facilities mostly located in national forests in three states is a good of example of this kind of partnership.

https://cfaia.org/about-cradle-of-forestry-interpretive-association/
 
I worked for Cradle of Forestry one summer and you are right that non-profit groups are probably more visitor & park-care oriented. However, the NPS and Park Service cannot insist that a contractor be a non-profit - federal law requires that they grant contracts to the low bidder if the bid meets the specs.

Anecdote: The year I worked for Cradle was a major upheaval for them. They and the Forest Service got sued by a for-profit park management service because Cradle did not pay their volunteers to the same federal standards that contracting businesses were required to do. The upshot of it was that Cradle had to start paying everybody per federal wage standards, including benefits , or give up their contracts. No choice - federal law. But that increased their costs and forced them to raise park entry fees and charge for some services.
 
Catblaster, it is not how the towers look, but whether they should be there at all, because supposedly, we should not be using cell phones and other devices out in pristine nature.  Ruins the atmosphere, etc.

I agree that there is a safety issue without cell towers.  I was once stuck in my RV trying to get out of a parking lot at Yellowstone because people driving in had parked illegally on one side of the entrance road, blocking anyone from exiting.  There was no ranger or emergency phone, and no cell service.  Vehicles trying to get in were blocking those of us trying to get out.  One RV drove over some curbs and over bushes to get out.  I refused to do that, got out of my vehicle, tried to find someone who spoke English, and rounded up a group of helpers.  One lady used her big Suburban to block anyone else from coming in, while two other people got the lineup in the entrance to pull into the full parking lot, so those of us trying to get out could get out.  If there had been a medical emergency, we would have been in serious trouble.  I finally got out and drove to a nearby ranger station and ranted for several minutes until they sent a ranger to clear up the traffic.  I was really mad that an older woman like me should have to be directing traffic!!! 
 
My take on the cell tower issue is that no one is making them use their cell phone, if they want to turn it off while hiking in the national park, fine, if they want to leave it back home, or at camp fine, but don't tell the rest of us that we can't.
 
whether they should be there at all, because supposedly, we should not be using cell phones and other devices out in pristine nature.

I know the type.  "If gawd had intended us to use cell phones, he would have included an antenna on our heads."  ;)
 
Gary RV_Wizard said:
I know the type.  "If gawd had intended us to use cell phones, he would have included an antenna on our heads."  ;)

My answer to that is always, "And why are you wearing clothes? You weren't born with them..." :)
 
Gary RV_Wizard said:
I know the type.  "If gawd had intended us to use cell phones, he would have included an antenna on our heads."  ;)

This reminds me of an All in The Family  episode where the Bunkers ran out of water and Edith got some from the toilet tank.  Archie said that if God had intended for you to drink that water he would have sent it to the kitchen.
 
I like the clothes response.  I think the cell phone tower complainers are the ones who think we should not be driving big gas-guzzling RVs into national parks and should all be camping in tents. 

I have pointed out to a few younger people at gas stations who have made comments about how much gas my big rig must use that since I do not have a sticks and bricks home, I use only about 80 gallons of propane a year to heat my motorhome and provide hot water and cooking fuel.  In addition, my toilet only uses a couple of cups of water (not gallons) per flush, and I average less than 15 gallons of water usage per day, including showers!!  How much water and energy do they use in their homes?  That usually shuts them up.

Also, I have stayed at Trailer Village at Grand Canyon and been very pleased with their service. It was recently turned over to another company, by the way, and I appreciated the paved sites they put in a couple of years ago.  Nice upgrade.
 
Gary RV_Wizard said:
............................
Anecdote: The year I worked for Cradle was a major upheaval for them. They and the Forest Service got sued by a for-profit park management service because Cradle did not pay their volunteers to the same federal standards that contracting businesses were required to do. The upshot of it was that Cradle had to start paying everybody per federal wage standards, including benefits , or give up their contracts. No choice - federal law. But that increased their costs and forced them to raise park entry fees and charge for some services.

Generally speaking, not-for-profit organizations are not my favorite people. They take advantage of peoples good nature and 'understanding', while those in command collect large salaries. While the Red Cross is very large and not much to compare it to, the thinking is the same - great salaries for Pres and the chosen ones while everything else is donated.
 
The differences in camping amenities can fall into two different groups (for me). One is the "vacation or weekend camper that wants to get away from all the city madness" and the others are the "I do this months or years at a time" camper and wants all the usual conveniences available. 

The different opinions can be dramatic. 
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
131,753
Posts
1,384,359
Members
137,524
Latest member
freetoroam
Back
Top Bottom