Privatize national park campgrounds, food trucks, senior discount blackout dates

[Ohiomike]

We camped at a state park in West Virginia that was privately managed. It was a good experience. Full hookups $30 per night and pool access to the resort up the hill. Indoor pool access was $6 per day for entire campsite. We didn’t use that. Trash was picked up daily and there was a nice paid camp host that did a great job. There was a rock climbing wall you could pay extra to do but wasn’t really obstructing nature. Overall well managed place. The state figured out they can’t manage as well as a private company and it worked out well. Canaan Valley State Park was the location. I would recommend it.

[falconview]

Originally Posted by grindstone01

The original Nat'l Park system was set up to be available to all the people, not just the wealthy. That's why is was not supposed to be based on entry fees which we seem to have gotten away from. Many people (us included) have passed by Nat'l parks because the entrance fee was not worth it. Gov is suppose to provide infrastructure for the masses, not for profit.
I may get in trouble for this comment "Government exist for the people, business exist for profit", the two don't mix well.

Yes this sucks big time and what is going to happen with the senior lifetime passes. You got it, they will be canceled. Seniors have supported national lands all their lives and still do with their taxe and never complained, then to have the rug pulled out from under them. Just another move of the rich and corporations taking over this country.

Then what is going to happen when attendance goes down? You got it the national lands will be sold off and no more for the public and it will be sold for pennies on the dollar for the rich and corporations to get richer, all at the cost of the lower classes.

[xyzabc]

Originally Posted by StanD

Really? Maybe that's not what happens in all parks in all States. It's my understanding, please correct me if I'm wrong, that in Washington State the moneys generated from the parks goes into the General Fund. That money used to be to run the parks. Guess what happens when you give a pot of money to a politician? So now, to help generate more money you have to buy a Discovery Pass just to set foot on any State land. Then to top it off they attached a $5.00 fee to the cost of your auto license tabs to help make up for the shortfall. It's supposed to go to the Parks Dept. You can opt out of the $5.00 it you happen to notice it's there.
Maybe improved stewardship is what we need and maybe we need to keep the money generated by the parks in the parks.

Don't equate state parks with national parks. Each state operates under their own rules (money stays at park/money goes into general fund). The National Park system works under different rules.

The rules for NPs have and will change as long as this administration sees everything as a source of money. Hopefully that will change in the next election. Guiding money into your own and crony friends is not how this country works. Maybe it does for Putin and his serfs in Russia, but not here.

And as I've said for over 60 years, I've rarely seen anyone in government know how to spend my money better than I do. But I also realize roads, military, public health/safety and national parks (as examples) are for the public good.

I respect the opinions who agree or disagree with me. That is what this country is about.

[Earl II]

Seems to me that the original post was talking about concessionaires at the National Parks, right? Maybe someone who actually used to work for the federal government in the national parks should chime in, but, the concessions run the restaurants, gas stations and reservations. I still see federal employees working for the NPS driving around in their vehicles and in the NPS visitor centers, etc. I ask those that don't think the concessionaires in business at all- do you really think we should have full time federal employees doing these jobs? Look up the Xanterra corporation and look at what they do many national parks. I would rather have it as it is rather than more federal employees. Don't worry, there are plenty of federal NPS employees still in our national parks.

[Steve 716]

Unfortunately, with the periodic cuts to government national park funding comes ways to keep operating the parks on less. Increases in park admission rates and cuts in park personnel, maintenance, and amenities are among of the results. Park personnel have pride and they do everything they can to make parks attractive and safe for visitors even with less funding and they do a good job of it. Also unfortunately, privatization is another result. Private companies bid for the contracts to run stores, campgrounds, and other venues and the winner generally does not do a very good job. I remember the first time we drove our B+ RV into Yellowstone to a privatized campground (and calling it a campground is generous). There were potholes everywhere, some sites were so close together that not everyone could fully extend their slides, and the grounds were pretty much trashed. It was not a pleasant experience. The campground store was poorly stocked, insufficiently staffed, and prices were outrageous. Meanwhile, the park roads were well maintained and safety was something that was not taken for granted. Again, park employees take pride in what they do and what they do is excellent. Given fiscal realities I expect that areas of privatization will increase with a corresponding drop in quality and concern.

[picker]

Yep.......the swamp at work.


They are determined to Fred Harvey--ize the NP system, turning it, EVEN MORE into the Vegas strip.


I have seen the wonders as they were.


I weep, however, for my grandchildren........and my three baby G-G-Kids.

[twogypsies]

Originally Posted by StanD

Really? Maybe that's not what happens in all parks in all States. It's my understanding, please correct me if I'm wrong, that in Washington State the moneys generated from the parks goes into the General Fund.

You're talking about state parks. The topic is national parks.

[twogypsies]

For the folks complaining about entrance fees.... how much money do you pay for a day at an amusement park, NASCAR, football or baseball game, siteseeing tour, 3 hours at the movies with your family, a family meal in a restaurant, etc. etc. No where will you see the preserved beauty as you do in our national parks. It's worth every penny. Give up a few of the extra unnecessary things you do during the year and visit a national park instead. $80 is for a year's entrance to any national park in the U.S., including national forests, national wildlife areas and others. What a bargain that is - even for seniors!

[jayc2640]

Originally Posted by richard5933

This is a false statement. There are lots of things we use tax funds for that not everyone uses, but we don't call them socialism.

Take the roads as the first example. Would you say that having public roads is socialism? Or capitalism? I'd say it's neither - I'd say that it's us as a community deciding that having paved roads is a good thing, pooling our dollars together, and then using that money to pave the road.

Or how about public schools? To me, it's neither socialism or capitalism. It's us deciding that having stupid kids running around is a bad idea and then doing something about it.

Where do people get the idea that every last thing in a capitalistic society has to make a profit or be privately owned to be worth doing?



What are the pros of privatizing public parks which were bought and paid for with public funds?

For that matter, where did we get the notion that everything in our country has to pay for itself?

Do you really think that your fuel taxes and vehicle taxes pay the full cost of operating the roads and bridges in our country? If not for funds coming from the overall tax base you wouldn't be driving your RV very far without paying through the nose for every mile in tolls. We drive on roads which are heavily subsidized through tax revenue, and I don't hear anyone calling that socialism.

You want true capitalism, then we have to start charging every company the full and true cost for every mile they travel on publicly owned roads. Every bridge they cross, and for every stop light that keeps them from having a collision. Might as well charge every driver the full cost for that matter. No more handouts, right?

We would have to start charging for every police call, for every fire department run, and for every time any civil service worker does anything.

I get tired of people claiming that having anything publicly funded equals socialism. We have the things we have which are publicly funded because we, as a society, determined that they are good for society. That's not socialism, it's not capitalism, it's just us deciding that some things are worth paying for. Back to the subject of this thread, I believe one of those things worth paying for is public parks which are to be for the benefit of everyone.

First of all, it isn't a false statement. Anything that is collectively paid for by a society is socialistic. Secondly, I never said that all government funded (socialistic) services were bad. I have no issue with our taxes paying for military, roads, law enforcement, etc. because virtually everyone in our society benefits from these things. However, I don't feel that society as a whole should be compelled to pay for something that isn't being used by the majority of our citizens.

[Wench]

https://www.nationalparkstraveler.or...ior-14-percent

[cgsquirrel]

the takeover of ohio state park (the profitable ones)by a colorado based company turned the parks into a joke.the state of colorado doesnt even use xanterra.the food sucks plain and simple.
my wife and i went thru the west with a stop at ynp.her first trip and showing her the sights,we went to old faithful.then went to the lodge to eat breakfast buffet.the f'n eggs were ice cold.my wife long suffering (married to me)spoke up to the waiter.his response "to bad,come back for lunch".are crown jewels are being dummied down.guess who runs ynp???thats right xanterra.
and to the person who responded that he has a 1 million dollar coach and pays more should get more.im a disabled vet and payed with blood.whats that worth?

[richard5933]

Originally Posted by jayc2640

First of all, it isn't a false statement. Anything that is collectively paid for by a society is socialistic. Secondly, I never said that all government funded (socialistic) services were bad. I have no issue with our taxes paying for military, roads, law enforcement, etc. because virtually everyone in our society benefits from these things. However, I don't feel that society as a whole should be compelled to pay for something that isn't being used by the majority of our citizens.

Guess we're using different dictionaries.

so·cial·ism

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Socialism as a term is generally used to refer to collective ownership of the means of production, and in its pure form there is no private ownership of anything. That's not the same as a society pooling its resources to accomplish a common goal.

I think that a problem here is that the term 'socialism' is being confused with things which are done in a capitalistic society for the social benefit it its citizens. Just because something is done for the public good doesn't make it a socialistic (as you call it).

In a capitalistic society, like ours, it is still quite acceptable for us to decide as a group to pool our resources and purchase things which none of us would be able to purchase as individuals. Some of these things are the ones you mention like the military, roads, law enforcement, etc.

Some things don't benefit everyone directly, yet as a country we still deem them important enough to spend public money on. Not everyone will visit the Smithsonian, but we decided long ago that it was beneficial to fund such a place. Not everyone will visit The Badlands National Monument, but we decided that it was worthwhile to spend the money to preserve that place for future generations.

Where I differ from some others here is I believe we have set aside places like The Badlands (and other National Parks & Monuments) to preserve them for future generations, not so that a few people will be able to make a buck from them. We set them aside so that they are there for those that wish to visit, and because we decided they were important enough to preserve.

Are there problems with the funding of the National Parks? Of course. It hasn't been a priority for many years, and that's why I hope that everyone concerned will contact their representatives to push them to properly fund the system.

[RBTALLMAN1]

This thread has, unfortunately, morphed into a political, liberal vs conservative debate. Moderator, please take it off.

[Busskipper]

Originally Posted by RBTALLMAN1

This thread has, unfortunately, morphed into a political, liberal vs conservative debate. Moderator, please take it off.