# Proposal to Privatize National Park Campgrounds



## Steve_Mevers (Feb 8, 2013)

I know this has already happened at Flamingo, but if you love our national parks like I do, let your voice be heard. 

There is a new proposal that has been submitted by a committee to the Department of Interior to privatize the National Park Campgrounds to better “meet visitors expectations”. “The committee largely is made up of representatives from the tourism, manufacturing, hospitality and recreation industries”. The proposal if adopted would have private companies manage the campgrounds, adding Wi Fi, food trucks, rental tents, cabins, etc... It would increase campground fees to be competitive with surrounding private campgrounds, and black out senior citizen discounts rates during the campgrounds busy season (in effect pretty much eliminating the senior discount). Anyone that knows me, knows that I am a conservative and capitalist at heart, but this is a very bad proposal. My wife and I have spent the last 5 years traveling around 80,000 miles while visiting National Parks and Monuments. The beauty of the National Park campgrounds is that they are not commercialized and you can unplug and enjoy nature in its natural setting, they totally meet our expectations. One of the committees goals is to increase occupancy, the popular campgrounds are totally booked months in advance so how is privatizing the campgrounds going to increase occupancy rates? Then there is the question should we even be trying to increase occupancy rates? The National Parks are already over crowded (well documented) and experience traffic jams during their peak season, the addition of more cabins, rental tents, food trucks, etc...will only aggravate the problem. The committee is toting this proposal as a way to raise more funds for the National Parks but in my honest opinion it is a shell game by people with special interest looking to profit on the National Parks. There is plenty of business opportunities in the surrounding communities to capitalize on all the tourist that visit our parks. I would much rather see the discussion shift to a possible user fee increase than the commercializing of our public parks. People come from all over the world to visit our National Parks, at times we see more foreign tourist than US citizens, there is no other country that has anything that compares to our National Parks. I am not trying to start a political debate, and hope that it doesn’t go down that road, google proposal to privatize National Park campgrounds and form your own opinion. I am just trying to get the word out to other users of the parks so that they can contact their elected officials and the Department of Interior to let their voices be heard.

National Parks link if you wish to contact them: 

https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/contact-form.htm?o=4A96D0B58DC08FB284A85DA8F601&r=/aboutus/contactus.htm


----------



## trekker (Sep 19, 2015)

Wonderful.


----------



## Fishshoot (Oct 26, 2017)

This is bullshit, there has been some press on it out here in the west. Recent administration both dems and reps have not funded our national parks imo


----------



## lemaymiami (Feb 9, 2007)

Thanks for the heads up.... the only Park I'm familiar with is Everglades (and I've been working there now for almost 24 years.. the permit I have to buy each year calls us Commercial Users and the permit a CUA...). That I know of, the campground was always part of the concessionaire's package of endeavors. I've always been told that all of the National Parks operate that way with a contracted concessionaire to handle and operate all of the convenience type stuff (motel/hotel, restaurants, guided tours, marinas, boat rentals, and probably lots of other stuff we don't have down at Flamingo...) -anything that someone might make a profit on while providing a service to visitors.

Over the years as the concessionaires changed out (they negotiate a five or ten year contract with Park authorities...) services have ranged from fair to poor or almost non-existent (right after hurricane Wilma when we lost the motel, restaurant, cabins - and darned nearly everything else until it was cleaned up and re-established) - in the case of Flamingo that was only the marina, marina store and that minimum campground area.... that got placed back into service...

The good news about the one Park I'm familiar with is that the current concessionaire is really on the ball and has obviously invested a bit of capital to not only renew, upgrade, and improve the services they provide - they're also bringing new services as well... In fact they're doing head and shoulders better than the Park itself is.... (serious understatement...).

Given that the National Park Service comes under the Interior Department... like every other part of our federal government system - they have to submit budget requests each year or so - and the amount that the Parks get each year is less and less. I can't claim to have the figures and I'm little more than a small bit of the action down at Flamingo but it doesn't surprise me at all that there's a push to privatize this or that... Anyone that thinks the National Park system is functioning well is seeing things that I'm not seeing where I am... 

I'll keep watching this with close interest and ask Adam Gelber (Pucker Factor on the web...) about it. For those not aware he's actually in charge of the current Everglades restoration project.... None of this has anything to do with restoring the waters and natural systems in the 'glades but I'd bet he's up to date on most of what's happening down there...


----------



## Steve_Mevers (Feb 8, 2013)

Fishshoot said:


> This is bullshit, there has been some press on it out here in the west. Recent administration both dems and reps have not funded our national parks imo


I was just made aware of it the other day. The committee was formed by the former Interior Secretary before he resigned. The campgrounds that are managed by rangers and campground hosts is a much better experience than when they are managed for profit IMO. I would rather see user fees increased to help offset the funding shortage. They announced that they want to do a “test” at a few parks, you know the small ones like Yosemite, Yellowstone, etc... if that happens it will never be reversed, it will be like going to Disney World if run for profit. We have camped at 37 national parks since 2014-2015, and we need to preserve them for our kids. The only campers I have talked to that are in favor of this are the ones that either cannot unplug from social media, or that have huge campers that will not fit in a lot of the National Park Campgrounds. If you cannot be without WiFI or cell signal for a few days, or you have to be plugged into electricity with a huge RV, there are plenty of campgrounds just outside the gates of the parks that have just what you need. Sorry for the rant, I will get off my soapbox now.


----------



## Steve_Mevers (Feb 8, 2013)

lemaymiami said:


> Thanks for the heads up.... the only Park I'm familiar with is Everglades (and I've been working there now for almost 24 years.. the permit I have to buy each year calls us Commercial Users and the permit a CUA...). That I know of, the campground was always part of the concessionaire's package of endeavors. I've always been told that all of the National Parks operate that way with a contracted concessionaire to handle and operate all of the convenience type stuff (motel/hotel, restaurants, guided tours, marinas, boat rentals, and probably lots of other stuff we don't have down at Flamingo...) -anything that someone might make a profit on while providing a service to visitors.
> 
> Over the years as the concessionaires changed out (they negotiate a five or ten year contract with Park authorities...) services have ranged from fair to poor or almost non-existent (right after hurricane Wilma when we lost the motel, restaurant, cabins - and darned nearly everything else until it was cleaned up and re-established) - in the case of Flamingo that was only the marina, marina store and that minimum campground area.... that got placed back into service...
> 
> ...


I have to agree with you that it has worked well in Flamingo, but Flamingo is really pretty unique when it comes to NP campgrounds.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

Yellowstone has been private for 70 years or so. 30 or so for Crater Lake.

Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Smokey Mountains, are a couple of the others.

The park service has been acquiring land and placing them in service and to me that is a better use of the money than dealing with employee issues.


----------



## Cam (Apr 5, 2017)

Complex topic with pros/cons on both sides. Public companies will extort whoever and whatever they can for a profit but as long as their is an open and routine bidding process for the management business I think privatizing park amenity management can work well. Where this turns decidedly negative for privatization is with sweetheart backroom deals with no accountability like so many deals done with government contractors.


----------



## Steve_Mevers (Feb 8, 2013)

I hate to see them turn the NP campgrounds into a KOA. So many people today go camping but they want hi speed Wi Fi, cable tv, and all the comforts of home, and then stay inside their campers.


----------



## Sublime (Oct 9, 2015)

On the subject of National parks, something has to be done about the crowds at popular parks like Yellowstone and Yosemite. If I remember right, $35 gets you a private vehicle pass for 7 days and $70 gets you a pass for a year. With over 4 million visitors per year at Yellowstone, they need to jack that up to about $75 per day or $150 per week.


----------



## Cam (Apr 5, 2017)

Sublime said:


> On the subject of National parks, something has to be done about the crowds at popular parks like Yellowstone and Yosemite. If I remember right, $35 gets you a private vehicle pass for 7 days and $70 gets you a pass for a year. With over 4 million visitors per year at Yellowstone, they need to jack that up to about $75 per day or $150 per week.


So price out poorer people from national parks? Sorry no. They should charge the amount necessary to keep the park accessible and operational, no more no less. Wait your turn in line if it is crowded.


----------



## LowHydrogen (Dec 31, 2015)

Sublime said:


> On the subject of National parks, something has to be done about the crowds at popular parks like Yellowstone and Yosemite. If I remember right, $35 gets you a private vehicle pass for 7 days and $70 gets you a pass for a year. With over 4 million visitors per year at Yellowstone, they need to jack that up to about $75 per day or $150 per week.





Cam said:


> So price out poorer people from national parks? Sorry no. They should charge the amount necessary to keep the park accessible and operational, no more no less. Wait your turn in line if it is crowded.


I agree with limiting people so the parks aren't like ATL at rush hour. I don't agree with doing it by pricing people out. Limit the amount of passes sold to X/per day and have the passes be day specific so people can still have access and not choked with people at the same time.


----------



## Sublime (Oct 9, 2015)

Tell me what you can do for your whole family for $7 a day. Yellowstone is CRAZY packed to the point of being downright unenjoyable at times. How about this? Raise entrance fees moderately and limit the amount of cars in the park at one time.


----------



## jimsmicro (Oct 29, 2013)

The Trump administration's proposed budget for 2020 cuts 2.7 billion dollars from the national park service.


----------



## LowHydrogen (Dec 31, 2015)

Sublime said:


> Tell me what you can do for your whole family for $7 a day. Yellowstone is CRAZY packed to the point of being downright unenjoyable at times. How about this? Raise entrance fees moderately and limit the amount of cars in the park at one time.


The parks belong to the people, I think it should be a place anyone can go if they can get there.

I definitely agree with limiting the people allowed in at one time, as long as it isn't done by deterring people via high fees. I also agree $35/vehicle for seven days is crazy cheap and probably a bit low. I think a small increase is probably more in line with the times. The current rate per day is lower than some boat launch fees.


----------



## Steve_Mevers (Feb 8, 2013)

Cam said:


> So price out poorer people from national parks? Sorry no. They should charge the amount necessary to keep the park accessible and operational, no more no less. Wait your turn in line if it is crowded.


I agree 100% that we should not be trying to reduce the amount of people entering the park by raising the entrance fee where poorer people cannot afford to go. Raise the entrance fee based on the monies needed for operating cost. Unfortunately the answer maybe that during peak season they may have to close popular areas to car traffic and provide a trolly or bus to transport the hordes of people. I try very hard to visit the parks on the shoulder season to avoid the crowds. If you go to some of the smaller or less popular parks the crowds are not bad.


----------



## Megalops (Oct 23, 2011)

Steve_Mevers said:


> I agree 100% that we should not be trying to reduce the amount of people entering the park by raising the entrance fee where poorer people cannot afford to go. Raise the entrance fee based on the monies needed for operating cost. Unfortunately the answer maybe that during peak season they may have to close popular areas to car traffic and provide a trolly or bus to transport the hordes of people. I try very hard to visit the parks on the shoulder season to avoid the crowds. If you go to some of the smaller or less popular parks the crowds are not bad.


Steve, don’t hate me for disagreeing but I disagree 100%. Poor people tend to not take ownership for their actions. Raise the fee much higher and you: 

1. Provide crowd control and income.
2. Bring in a set of folks with a different mindset. Ie. People with manners, morals and integrity that are not going to trash the place.

We are not talking about Disney World fees here either.


----------



## jmrodandgun (Sep 20, 2013)

Sublime said:


> Yellowstone is CRAZY packed to the point of being downright unenjoyable at times.


Unenjoyable for who?


----------



## jmrodandgun (Sep 20, 2013)

Megalops said:


> Poor people tend to not take ownership for their actions.


----------



## SomaliPirate (Feb 5, 2016)

Or man up and visit Yellowstone in January!


----------



## Megalops (Oct 23, 2011)

SomaliPirate said:


> Or man up and visit Yellowstone in January!


Then you get all the snowmobilers and engine exhaust.


----------



## jimsmicro (Oct 29, 2013)

Megalops said:


> Steve, don’t hate me for disagreeing but I disagree 100%. Poor people tend to not take ownership for their actions. Raise the fee much higher and you:
> 
> 1. Provide crowd control and income.
> 2. Bring in a set of folks with a different mindset. Ie. People with manners, morals and integrity that are not going to trash the place.
> ...


So basically you want to punish poor people and consider them second class citizens. Got it.


----------



## Megalops (Oct 23, 2011)

jimsmicro said:


> So basically you want to punish poor people and consider them second class citizens. Got it.


No Jim, that is not what I’m saying. How many really poor people are making the trek to Yellowstone? I mean Wyoming is full of destitute poor folk and large urban areas? Raise the price to reduce the admission rate. Sheesh. Makes sense to me.


----------



## EdK13 (Oct 3, 2013)

jmrodandgun said:


> Unenjoyable for who?


All Fauna and stomped into oblivion Flora...


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

Steve_Mevers said:


> I hate to see them turn the NP campgrounds into a KOA. So many people today go camping but they want hi speed Wi Fi, cable tv, and all the comforts of home, and then stay inside their campers.


But this is the world we live in. If these people with the disposable income don't get the comforts of home they will not come.

Remember, build it and they will come.

There is a lot of people who want to portray the facade of "look at us, we're campers" and never truly enjoy the journey.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

I am going to piss a few of you off.

Raise the prices so there is a surplus in revenue. Every year it seems like budgets are cut and the treasures inside the parks suffer. To run something as big as Yellowstone on the allocated budget is absurd. A one week delay in opening because of a budget reduction is $10 mil in spending in the communities surrounding the park. Plowing the roads is a $10,000 a day ordeal and that is just for fuel excluding the people who drive the plows.

If they simply break even how do they afford to rebuild the lodge when it becomes damaged? It was damaged in 1959 by an earthquake and in 1985 it finally was repaired due to lack of funding.

There are no where near enough people working there for all of the people visiting.

If the price keeps people out then so be it. Disney does not care if you can't afford to visit Mickey. They are packed to the gills every single day and raise the prices every year because people just come. If you are planning to make a trip from FL to Yellowstone you have to account for the 2,600 miles (one way and more if you do other sight seeing) and lodging, food, tolls, etc. you also have to account for the admission fee. I'm sorry but you are not going to visit the park even if it was free if you are on welfare. Life is not fair and doesn't need to be. This park is a treasure and it is getting destroyed by people who don't give a crap.

Someone above said to man up and go in January. Guess what? They don't plow the roads in January and the park is closed. However you can go snowmobiling trough it. But there is a daily allotment of snowmobiles allowed and they are booked solid. The cost to do this is quite expensive (several hundred dollars) makes the daily price look like chicken scratch. Oh, don't forget you still have to pay the daily fee.

The visitors have money and they are spending it. If you really want to visit the park you might need to buy a loaf of bread and some Bologna instead of hitting a resuarant one less time. If you cancel your trip because it costs an extra $100 then you probably need to rethink so many other items in you life.

Yellowstone is a unique situation but by raising the price the additional revenue can be used at other parks to help the ones that don't have 4 million people driving through it each summer.

Back to the management aspect. Can someone show me one thing that the government does which is more efficient than private industry? Spending money does not count.

Closer to home, Flamingo lodge has been closed since 2005 because the government is so efficient. If it were not for the current caretaker spending multi million dollars to rebuild lodging there would not be any. 

I get the idea that the parks belong to the people but when the government cut budgets because of their spending on entitlement problems, something has to be done to keep them open. The parks will continue to be cut from the budget because it is an easy target and keeping millions on weekly welfare and other benefit entitlements is taboo and will never be touched.

If you raise the price by $10 and 10,000 less people come you still have an additional $39,900,000 more than you did.


----------



## Megalops (Oct 23, 2011)

What @DuckNut said! ^^^


----------



## Steve_Mevers (Feb 8, 2013)

DuckNut said:


> I am going to piss a few of you off.
> 
> Raise the prices so there is a surplus in revenue. Every year it seems like budgets are cut and the treasures inside the parks suffer. To run something as big as Yellowstone on the allocated budget is absurd. A one week delay in opening because of a budget reduction is $10 mil in spending in the communities surrounding the park. Plowing the roads is a $10,000 a day ordeal and that is just for fuel excluding the people who drive the plows.
> 
> ...


You are definitely not going to piss me off, expressing opinions and discussing the issues in respectful manner is what adults do to find solutions to problems.


----------



## manny2376 (Mar 15, 2007)

@DuckNut whoa, whoa, whoa! Are we seeing eye to eye politically? Lol! 
Totally agree (at least at ENP)! The facilities there have been basically non existent for the last few years and more so after Irma. The new private party running the marina is doing an outstanding job stocking the marina store. The bathrooms are semi clean (which is an improvement) and they’ve invested in the campgrounds and services. 
If $100 is making or breaking you, maybe that vacation isn’t the best idea in the first place. So, raising fees isn’t that big of a deal to me, BUT at least funnel it back into the park.


----------



## lemaymiami (Feb 9, 2007)

Here's a bit of history about what actually happened after hurricane Wilma destroyed the facilities down at Flamingo in 2005.. The Park after a year or so scheduled meetings to hash out how to go about re-building Flamingo.... While the only things still able to be re-opened were the marina and store (after putting it all back together) as well as the campground (all operated by the existing concessionaire.... a minimum local outfit on their best day...).

We went to meetings chaired by the Park for a year or two to come up with a "plan" that most could agree on (with lots of heated discussions back and forth from the various user's groups). When the dust settled the "plan" was projected to cost $18 million (a tiny amount back when the Obama administration was spending like a drunken sailor on "shovel-ready" projects after the great crash....). Once completed, the plan was forwarded to National Park headquarters (in Colorado at the time - I've heard that their HQ has been re-located since then but don't know where...). 

Since the National Park Service comes under the Interior Department we then waited for a few years for approval and inclusion into their next budget request - but were told finally that the Service had decided not to re-build Flamingo at all.... and that's where things have stood since then.... 

During this entire process the existing concessionaire asked to be let out of its contract since they wouldn't have much of an income stream with no facilities to manage (no motel, no restaurant, no cabins - you get the idea...). I have no idea how all of that played out but with no facilities Flamingo became a day trip type place (and all of us guides saw less customers as a result..). The nearest motels are in Florida City - fifty miles from the ramp.... When I have folks wanting to stay a few days - I generally fish them out of Everglades City/ Chokoloskee as a result....

Finally a year or two ago we got a new concessionaire (might be longer ago but it took them some time to get going....). Now we actually have a great concessionaire - doing things and spending monies to make the place much more attractive.... Compare that to the Park which hasn't even replaced the fish cutting station at Flamingo in the two years since it was damaged by hurricane Irma.... I've heard that they're even considering bringing back cabins to go with the new houseboats and the campground.... 

Just to give you an idea of how those "planning sessions" went ten years ago... one of the paddlers actually proposed that all motor boats should be banned from the interior of the Park so that folks in canoes and kayaks could have a more "authentic" wilderness experience.... Of course if one of them ever gets into trouble - we'll be the ones doing the rescuing since I rarely ever even see a ranger in the interior (and that's usually on a Saturday...).


----------



## jimsmicro (Oct 29, 2013)

The problem with expecting national parks to pay for themselves is what happens if revenue is down? Maybe there are a few years where the economy is poor and people are traveling less. What then? These areas are first and foremost for environmental protection. If the government can't find the funding to protect its most sensitive and valued wilderness, what the hell is it spending its money on? We can't take a few billion from our insanely inflated "national defense" budget? We spent 7 trillion on the Iraq and Afghanistan war, but we can't find a couple of billion to preserve our national treasures?


----------



## ifsteve (Jul 1, 2010)

jmrodandgun said:


> Unenjoyable for who?


Me and most of my friends. In fact I haven't been to YNP in over 10 years and I live less than 2 hours away. From Memorial Day to Labor Day it is filled with idiots. And I don't use that term lightly. I could write pages of stuff I have seen up there including a wonderful summer I worked in West. OMG some of it was too funny.


----------



## Sublime (Oct 9, 2015)

jmrodandgun said:


> Unenjoyable for who?


----------



## jmrodandgun (Sep 20, 2013)

Those people look like they are having a great time.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2019)

Here is the only issue I can see with a moderate price increase...

The revenue taken in to the park doesn’t stay at the park! It goes in to a general fund and divvied up. I imagine that many of the budget cuts could be less of a strain with privatization of the concessions. The park service was NEVER meant to be profitable. It was meant to be self sufficient with a little tax payer help. Not sure about national but Florida state parks get that little help from doc stamps. As far as overcrowding goes, all parks have a maximum capacity set by the biologists, archeologist, and management personnel and that number can change throughout the year depending on various ecological situations. A moderate increase is not a bad thing at all in my opinion as long as it is moderate and the money stays with the park service.


----------



## mmthunt (Aug 11, 2018)

Just got back from 2 months fishing in Colorado. Hadn’t been out there for 7 years. Big surprise! I camp off grid, but mostly in National Park Campsites. RV’s pulling ATV’s and Razers all over the state, and I mean ALL over the state. Campgrounds packed,ATV’s and Razers all over the high country. The campgrounds which were managed by the NPS, even those way up in the high back country, were clean and the restrooms were immaculate. As a contrast, those NPS campsites that had facilities which were in part managed by a concession were filthy, to the point my wife refused to use them. The NPS restrooms, within 100 yds of the concession restrooms, were immaculate. The Colorado State Park campgrounds that we stayed in were high priced and the restrooms were filthy. 
Not sure what the right solution would be, but I don’t believe raising the rates to a much higher level would really ease the congestion problem. There are more people with more disposable income and that will not change, only increase. 
User fees are a partial answer, increased funding to the NPS, another and mandating that each park region must use the fees collected to maintain and improve the Park. I don’t mind paying for what I use, you get what you pay for.
Yellowstone, et al, a different story. Can’t even think of a solution for that mess.
I think the NPS is doing the best they can with the funding doled out to them, and I’m sure that there are serious fights within Interior and the NPS for that funding.
Concessions are not the way to go, they need to make a profit, the NPS needs to cover expenses. BIG difference!


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

manny2376 said:


> @DuckNut whoa, whoa, whoa! Are we seeing eye to eye politically? Lol!
> Totally agree (at least at ENP)! The facilities there have been basically non existent for the last few years and more so after Irma. The new private party running the marina is doing an outstanding job stocking the marina store. The bathrooms are semi clean (which is an improvement) and they’ve invested in the campgrounds and services.
> If $100 is making or breaking you, maybe that vacation isn’t the best idea in the first place. So, raising fees isn’t that big of a deal to me, BUT at least funnel it back into the park.


I look at so many things today at the price of entertainment. If I can do anything for say $40 an hour it is fine whatever the cost is. If I spend 10 hours at ENP, I would be cool with a $300 price tag.

The people who disrespect most places like this are the ones that bitch about the $12 and then jam 8 people in the car. When they are ready to leave at the end of the day they clean their cars out right there in the parking lot.

Yes, price some people out and the parks will be better off.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

lemaymiami said:


> Here's a bit of history about what actually happened after hurricane Wilma destroyed the facilities down at Flamingo in 2005.. The Park after a year or so scheduled meetings to hash out how to go about re-building Flamingo.... While the only things still able to be re-opened were the marina and store (after putting it all back together) as well as the campground (all operated by the existing concessionaire.... a minimum local outfit on their best day...).
> 
> We went to meetings chaired by the Park for a year or two to come up with a "plan" that most could agree on (with lots of heated discussions back and forth from the various user's groups). When the dust settled the "plan" was projected to cost $18 million (a tiny amount back when the Obama administration was spending like a drunken sailor on "shovel-ready" projects after the great crash....). Once completed, the plan was forwarded to National Park headquarters (in Colorado at the time - I've heard that their HQ has been re-located since then but don't know where...).
> 
> ...


The plan is for small cabins not a single hotel structure at first. Phase 2 would add the hotel a few more years down the road. My understanding is that the plans have been approved and it is in the construction scheduling phase.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

Boatbrains said:


> Here is the only issue I can see with a moderate price increase...
> 
> The revenue taken in to the park doesn’t stay at the park! It goes in to a general fund and divvied up. I imagine that many of the budget cuts could be less of a strain with privatization of the concessions. The park service was NEVER meant to be profitable. It was meant to be self sufficient with a little tax payer help. Not sure about national but Florida state parks get that little help from doc stamps. As far as overcrowding goes, all parks have a maximum capacity set by the biologists, archeologist, and management personnel and that number can change throughout the year depending on various ecological situations. A moderate increase is not a bad thing at all in my opinion as long as it is moderate and the money stays with the park service.


Very good synopsis.

Look at the picture above. How many of those people would not show up if you tacked on a hondo to the entrance fee? I'm guessing very few.

Charge on!


----------



## lemaymiami (Feb 9, 2007)

Great... Now if I’m around to see it...that would be really cool.

Seriously, I know that many of the more popular Parks become too popular at times... Maybe we can send them some of our skeeters...


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

mmthunt said:


> Just got back from 2 months fishing in Colorado. Hadn’t been out there for 7 years. Big surprise! I camp off grid, but mostly in National Park Campsites. RV’s pulling ATV’s and Razers all over the state, and I mean ALL over the state. Campgrounds packed,ATV’s and Razers all over the high country. The campgrounds which were managed by the NPS, even those way up in the high back country, were clean and the restrooms were immaculate. As a contrast, those NPS campsites that had facilities which were in part managed by a concession were filthy, to the point my wife refused to use them. The NPS restrooms, within 100 yds of the concession restrooms, were immaculate. The Colorado State Park campgrounds that we stayed in were high priced and the restrooms were filthy.
> Not sure what the right solution would be, but I don’t believe raising the rates to a much higher level would really ease the congestion problem. There are more people with more disposable income and that will not change, only increase.
> User fees are a partial answer, increased funding to the NPS, another and mandating that each park region must use the fees collected to maintain and improve the Park. I don’t mind paying for what I use, you get what you pay for.
> Yellowstone, et al, a different story. Can’t even think of a solution for that mess.
> ...


Price has a tendency to find equilibrium. If the park cost $6 to stay overnight it will attract $6 mentality. Have you ever seen cars on blocks in a golf course community? 

If the parks don't have adequate budgets to have the staff to clean up after $6 mentality you get piss on the seats.

I am not familiar with CO state parks but I am willing to bet they are more under funded than the NPS.


----------



## Steve_Mevers (Feb 8, 2013)

DuckNut said:


> Price has a tendency to find equilibrium. If the park cost $6 to stay overnight it will attract $6 mentality. Have you ever seen cars on blocks in a golf course community?
> 
> If the parks don't have adequate budgets to have the staff to clean up after $6 mentality you get piss on the seats.
> 
> I am not familiar with CO state parks but I am willing to bet they are more under funded than the NPS.


 I have met a lot of really fine people that don’t have a pot to piss in, and they are good stewards of the environment. Money doesn’t define a persons character.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

Steve_Mevers said:


> I have met a lot of really fine people that don’t have a pot to piss in, and they are good stewards of the environment. Money doesn’t define a persons character.


You are exactly right and I know a few as well. There are also those azzhats that have dump truck of money. But I think you statistically focused on the outlier.


----------



## jmrodandgun (Sep 20, 2013)

DuckNut said:


> If the park cost $6 to stay overnight it will attract $6 mentality. Have you ever seen cars on blocks in a golf course community?


I guess you have never been poor. The funny thing about a poor having a car on blocks in the driveway is rich people just keep their project cars in their garage.

Shit rich people pay to do for fun that poor people have to do to survive...

-Project cars
-Crossfit
-Camping

Fun fact. There was a time when we were so poor that $6 could have been the difference between having electricity or having running water. Our car wasn't on blocks because we didn't own a car, or even blocks. We did quite a bit of camping but I can assure you we would have rather stayed at the Hilton golf and beach resort.


----------



## Lowtidelowlife (Aug 19, 2014)

Capitalism and National Parks have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and could be argued to be antithetical. We are not preserving these areas in order for them to make money, which cheapens the idea entirely. We are preserving them for their sake and to bear witness the history of our country in its natural glory. 

Now if we could stop sending 4 billion dollars to Israel every year.....(had to say something to piss off the boomers on here, sorry)


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

jmrodandgun said:


> I guess you have never been poor. The funny thing about a poor having a car on blocks in the driveway is rich people just keep their project cars in their garage.
> 
> Shit rich people pay to do for fun that poor people have to do to survive...
> 
> ...


There was a time I was poor and I was in college and in the same situation as you describe.

I hated it so much I made the decision never to be poor again and adjusted my life accordingly. My cars will never be on blocks and I will never have to choose between water and a/c. I made the decision to work my ass off to afford to be able to say this.

I used to love the inner city but somehow or for some reason it is not safe to visit Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, LA, SF, St. Louis, Memphis, Miami...but I just can't put my finger on it. Nor can I figure out why all the derelict houses and all the trash on the ground.

Maybe you have an answer?

You offend me insinuating I should pay your water bill because you have less determination than I do!


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

Lowtidelowlife said:


> Capitalism and National Parks have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and could be argued to be antithetical. We are not preserving these areas in order for them to make money, which cheapens the idea entirely. We are preserving them for their sake and to bear witness the history of our country in its natural glory.
> 
> Now if we could stop sending 4 billion dollars to Israel every year.....(had to say something to piss off the boomers on here, sorry)


I find George Washing offensive and we must tear his face off Mt Rushmore! Andrew Jackson owned slaves. Roosevelt killed animals.

You have lost grip on reality. We are no longer preserving these areas, we are merely paying people to man the chotski stands. The lands have been left to their own peril and are rapidly becoming derelict.

They are tearing down our history on a daily basis because people are afraid to stand up and tell someone how fucked up they are.

Just like you. You are fucked in the head for thinking these parks will survive on budget allocations alone. Eventually welfare and national healthcare will close 50% of them and other entitlements will close the rest. If they can't support themselves they are as good as closed. Might not be tomorrow but it will happen. This is non political because both side cannot stop over spending.

Personally I am hoping I can buy a couple thousand acres in Yellowstone when they close it so I can build a kick ass subdivision.


----------



## jmrodandgun (Sep 20, 2013)

DuckNut said:


> There was a time I was poor and I was in college and in the same situation as you describe.


It's cute that you think being a broke college student is anything like living in poverty. 



DuckNut said:


> Maybe you have an answer?


My only answer is you can not treat a national park like a business, because it's not one. I could write a whole paragraph on why but it wouldn't matter. The short version is it's a tax payer funded park, it' should be as close to free as humanly possible.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

jmrodandgun said:


> It's cute that you think being a broke college student is anything like living in poverty.
> 
> My only answer is you can not treat a national park like a business, because it's not one. I could write a whole paragraph on why but it wouldn't matter. The short version is it's a tax payer funded park, it' should be as close to free as humanly possible.


I don't understand why you can't grasp being poor in college is the same as being poor out of college? I made the decision not to be poor and did something about it.

JM, I don't disagree with you whatsoever on the parks. But the reality is everything is stupid expensive and getting stupider. The expense and care of the parks certainly is a business because now "we need $15,000 to install a gate, $4,000 to install a camera system, and $225,000 to pave this strip of road" when once upon a time $9 for a padlock would have been adequate.

It would be wonderful if the parks were free but times have changed.

There are places that are almost free and nobody has mentioned them. The national wildlife refuges are open to the public but have not been included in this conversation? Why not?

By all means write all you want on the subject, I would be interested in reading your opinion.


----------



## Lowtidelowlife (Aug 19, 2014)

DuckNut said:


> I find George Washing offensive and we must tear his face off Mt Rushmore! Andrew Jackson owned slaves. Roosevelt killed animals.
> 
> You have lost grip on reality. We are no longer preserving these areas, we are merely paying people to man the chotski stands. The lands have been left to their own peril and are rapidly becoming derelict.
> 
> ...


I don’t think you read what I wrote at all. I’m stating the parks deserve absolutely the funding necessary to protect them and have them flourish. Why would you think I’m fine with removing statues and history? How badly did you misjudge my position here? What I’m saying is if the government could stop endless wars for “our greatest ally” we could fund the things that truly are loved and appreciated by real Americans.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

Lowtidelowlife said:


> I don’t think you read what I wrote at all. I’m stating the parks deserve absolutely the funding necessary to protect them and have them flourish. Why would you think I’m fine with removing statues and history? How badly did you misjudge my position here? What I’m saying is if the government could stop endless wars for “our greatest ally” we could fund the things that truly are loved and appreciated by real Americans.


I certainly did read what you wrote and understood every word. What I was trying to get across is that I agree with you, but the reality is starkly different.

Our parks are a national treasure and so are the statues across the country. People are screaming because our forefathers are monsters and they are all being removed and taken to landfills. If things continue like this our history will be removed and destroyed, just like the statues of our former presidents. History books will be rewritten to omit the truth. Every president on Rushmore is fair game for the leftist extreme.

It is wishful thinking that the parks should be fully funded, just not the case and every year more money is spent on entitlements and that means less for everything else.

One of my clients has a handyman (Steve) who worked 27 years as a historic restoration expert for the parks including Yellowstone. He got a pink slip a couple years ago when the budget cuts came. There is no longer a restoration person to repair all the glorious buildings in Yellowstone and Tetons. Won't be too many years before they are in disrepair and closed to visitors.

This is the world we are now living in. Our leaders do not work for us and our country. Our leaders are more content to send money to foreign countries than maintain our treasures, money we will never see again, money we will never benefit from.


----------



## Megalops (Oct 23, 2011)

jmrodandgun said:


> It's cute that you think being a broke college student is anything like living in poverty.
> 
> 
> 
> My only answer is you can not treat a national park like a business, because it's not one. I could write a whole paragraph on why but it wouldn't matter. The short version is it's a tax payer funded park, it' should be as close to free as humanly possible.


I find it cute that your parents decided to go camping when $6 bucks meant electricity or water! 

"Hey Marge! What'll it be? Lights, water...or camping?"
"Camping!"

LMAO.


----------



## Megalops (Oct 23, 2011)

Lowtidelowlife said:


> I don’t think you read what I wrote at all. I’m stating the parks deserve absolutely the funding necessary to protect them and have them flourish. Why would you think I’m fine with removing statues and history? How badly did you misjudge my position here? What I’m saying is if the government could stop endless wars for “our greatest ally” we could fund the things that truly are loved and appreciated by real Americans.


Yeah but that $4 billion is mostly military aid. I'm all for it. Just my opinion.


----------



## Castman (Sep 22, 2019)

Steve_Mevers said:


> I know this has already happened at Flamingo, but if you love our national parks like I do, let your voice be heard.
> 
> There is a new proposal that has been submitted by a committee to the Department of Interior to privatize the National Park Campgrounds to better “meet visitors expectations”. “The committee largely is made up of representatives from the tourism, manufacturing, hospitality and recreation industries”. The proposal if adopted would have private companies manage the campgrounds, adding Wi Fi, food trucks, rental tents, cabins, etc... It would increase campground fees to be competitive with surrounding private campgrounds, and black out senior citizen discounts rates during the campgrounds busy season (in effect pretty much eliminating the senior discount). Anyone that knows me, knows that I am a conservative and capitalist at heart, but this is a very bad proposal. My wife and I have spent the last 5 years traveling around 80,000 miles while visiting National Parks and Monuments. The beauty of the National Park campgrounds is that they are not commercialized and you can unplug and enjoy nature in its natural setting, they totally meet our expectations. One of the committees goals is to increase occupancy, the popular campgrounds are totally booked months in advance so how is privatizing the campgrounds going to increase occupancy rates? Then there is the question should we even be trying to increase occupancy rates? The National Parks are already over crowded (well documented) and experience traffic jams during their peak season, the addition of more cabins, rental tents, food trucks, etc...will only aggravate the problem. The committee is toting this proposal as a way to raise more funds for the National Parks but in my honest opinion it is a shell game by people with special interest looking to profit on the National Parks. There is plenty of business opportunities in the surrounding communities to capitalize on all the tourist that visit our parks. I would much rather see the discussion shift to a possible user fee increase than the commercializing of our public parks. People come from all over the world to visit our National Parks, at times we see more foreign tourist than US citizens, there is no other country that has anything that compares to our National Parks. I am not trying to start a political debate, and hope that it doesn’t go down that road, google proposal to privatize National Park campgrounds and form your own opinion. I am just trying to get the word out to other users of the parks so that they can contact their elected officials and the Department of Interior to let their voices be heard.
> 
> ...


----------



## Castman (Sep 22, 2019)

Privatisation does not work. It will cost us the tax payers in the long run.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

Steve_Mevers said:


> I have met a lot of really fine people that don’t have a pot to piss in, and they are good stewards of the environment. Money doesn’t define a persons character.


Is everything about calling people out and trying to make people feel bad for telling the truth?
The point ducknut is trying to convey is if something is free it will be taken advantage of. Stop the BS and trying to sound like the voice of the poor and be real...Can you imagine what kind of condition a free hotel would be in? You know exactly what it would look like if it didn’t burn to the ground because a methican tried to use the bathroom to cook up a batch in the tub...
Any parks that are free to get in and in turn have zero security are shitholes because every drunk meth head and third worlder will be there trashing the place up. If you want to take up for these trashy people quit your day job and go pick up the piles of beer cans, feces and trash they leave behind after they get done bank fishing with their Wal-Mart surf rods and double drop orange bead treble hook rigs. I get sick of people that demonize anyone that tells the truth.
And just to be honest I grew up poor but it wax never a reason to be white trash either. My dad would have beat my ass for throwing a gum wrapper on the ground.


----------



## mro (Jan 24, 2018)

Once upon a time my Dad and I used to go the the "wilderness" camping and fishing. Taking to heart the saying, leave only foot prints and take only memories (except fish  )

There were NO amenities, but occasionally an outhouse where one might park their car. During this time park rangers were there to manage the park, trails (like the John Muir trail), mark trees that needed removal (generally by a lumber company), fire watchers and a few signs etc..
The rangers evolved into cops, Yosemite turned into "Disneyland" and camping in the wilderness now has wi-fi, electric hook ups, cabins, fast food and hotels.
For those places where a road can easily be put, the wilderness has been rolled back for some of the most beautiful places on the planet and with all the amenities draws people who would otherwise never go.
Over crowding should not happen and the number of people admitted should be limited at the gate not by pricing people out.

There are just to many people and the three or so percent that are always a problem have turned into a high enough figure to screw things up for the rest of us.


----------



## mro (Jan 24, 2018)

BTW, back in the day, (70's) 
(ask bob)

Flamingo had days/weeks in the off season (summer) when the ramp seldom had more than a few trailers in it and the fishing was great...

Hotel, restaurant, *mosquitoes, * ramp and some camping spots. That was pretty much it.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

Castman said:


> Privatisation does not work. It will cost us the tax payers in the long run.


Can you name one government program which operates more efficiently than a private one?

I can't.


----------



## Lowtidelowlife (Aug 19, 2014)

DuckNut said:


> Can you name one government program which operates more efficiently than a private one?
> 
> I can't.


prison.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

Lowtidelowlife said:


> prison.


Ahh yes, prisons. CCA and GEO made about $4bil combined in 2018.

In order for a private company to be awarded a contract to operate a prison privately its bid must come in 10% lower than the governments cost per day per inmate.

These 2 companies are making profits so they certainly are not losing money.

Care to try again?


----------



## Lowtidelowlife (Aug 19, 2014)

DuckNut said:


> Ahh yes, prisons. CCA and GEO made about $4bil combined in 2018.
> 
> In order for a private company to be awarded a contract to operate a prison privately its bid must come in 10% lower than the governments cost per day per inmate.
> 
> ...


putting people in prison was incentivized and probably one of the largest failures to date of privatizing a public service. Your absolute unwillingness to argue in good faith says a lot about you. I get it man. I was a libertarian once. 

protecting bottom lines, paying guards less, having smaller staff, has an inverse effect on inmate on inmate violence as well as inmate on guard attacks, like, who would have thought??


----------



## jmrodandgun (Sep 20, 2013)

I fished public land for free yesterday and no poor people were out there trashing the place but I did see a $75,000 glitter boat throwing cigarette butts in the water.


----------



## EdK13 (Oct 3, 2013)

jmrodandgun said:


> I fished public land for free yesterday and no poor people were out there trashing the place but I did see a $75,000 glitter boat throwing cigarette butts in the water.


I bet you cussed them boys out good! What did you say to the polluters?


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

EdK13 said:


> I bet you cussed them boys out good! What did you say to the polluters?


Nothing I bet. Too scared to offend them just like most people these days. I have no problem speaking up to people in public but get demonized for doing so.


----------



## EdK13 (Oct 3, 2013)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Nothing I bet. Too scared to offend them just like most people these days. I have no problem speaking up to people in public but get demonized for doing so.


I remember hearing about you following polluters, collecting their garbage, seeing them at the ramp, putting their trash in their boat, and then cussing them out.


----------



## jmrodandgun (Sep 20, 2013)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Nothing I bet. Too scared to offend them just like most people these days. I have no problem speaking up to people in public but get demonized for doing so.


Scared probably isn't the word I'd use to describe it but a wise man once taught me you can't start a conversation with "hey motherfucker!" No good would have come from a confrontation.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

EdK13 said:


> I remember hearing about you following polluters, collecting their garbage, seeing them at the ramp, putting their trash in their boat, and then cussing them out.


No cussing them out but I did follow an airboat full of drunk duck hunters back to the ramp as I netted a 24 pack of empty Bud Light cans and the empty box and when I got to the ramp I walked to the boat on their trailer and dumped the trash in it and told them “Hey you guys dropped something.”
They never said a word.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

jmrodandgun said:


> Scared probably isn't the word I'd use to describe it but a wise man once taught me you can't start a conversation with "hey motherfucker!" No good would have come from a confrontation.


Worried? Haha


----------



## jmrodandgun (Sep 20, 2013)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Worried? Haha


Not at all. The point is nothing I could say or do would change anything. The only person who would feel better would be me and I don't need to call people out on their shit to make myself feel like I've done something good.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

jmrodandgun said:


> Not at all. The point is nothing I could say or do would change anything. The only person who would feel better would be me and I don't need to call people out on their shit to make myself feel like I've done something good.


That’s the difference between now and the good old days. Don’t complain about seeing someone flicking cigarette butts in the water and not speak up when you are witnessing it. Just like a few of my guide buddies won’t educate people when they witness them burning shorelines, chopping grass and trenching the flats while burning for redfish or any of the plethora of other either inconsiderate or ignorant acts on the water. If no one speaks up they’ll never have a second thought about it.


----------



## jmrodandgun (Sep 20, 2013)

Maybe, maybe not. My point is it's not something that's isolated poor people.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

jmrodandgun said:


> Maybe, maybe not. My point is it's not something that's isolated poor people.


Not at all what I stated but you know it’s more prevalent.


----------



## jmrodandgun (Sep 20, 2013)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Not at all what I stated but you know it’s more prevalent.


Is it? Nearly all the examples given has been people who are objectively not poor.


----------



## EdK13 (Oct 3, 2013)

jmrodandgun said:


> Is it? Nearly all the examples given has been people who are objectively not poor.


All that matters is that you took the time to notice a littering glitter boat and cleaned up the butts left floating in your treasured public waters. Well done.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

Lowtidelowlife said:


> putting people in prison was incentivized and probably one of the largest failures to date of privatizing a public service. Your absolute unwillingness to argue in good faith says a lot about you. I get it man. I was a libertarian once.
> 
> protecting bottom lines, paying guards less, having smaller staff, has an inverse effect on inmate on inmate violence as well as inmate on guard attacks, like, who would have thought??


What unwillingness of good faith are you talking about? Is it the part where the govt mandates the costs to save them 10% or the billions being paid to the private companies. Or is it the facts that get your goat?

I could care less who runs the prisons. They are filled with people who should not be out mingling with others and society is better off with them in there (there are exceptions like the guy who got caught smoking fish whistles). Gandhi could run the joint and the facts would be the same. The return rate is unacceptable no matter who is in charge. Just like most of the homeless, they need help but do not want it and unwilling to take it.

Protecting bottom lines...this is how the companies maintain their contracts.

Paying guards less...they are not enslaved and are free to seek opportunity anywhere they see fit.

Having smaller staff...maybe, just maybe all of the regulatory work is being completed without a fleet of people (efficient).

Inmate violence...they are where they are because they are violent. Pack them in like rats and tempers flare. But the private run prisons have a specific number allowed and the over crowding is at the state run facilities.

I take it you are a guard who is unhappy. Here is some good faith advice, leave the job that makes you unhappy and find something that makes you happy.

Remember, Jim Koch said if you love what you do, you will never work a day in your life.

Libertarian- that is funny right there. Not even remotely close. You need to do some reading to educate yourself.


----------



## Lowtidelowlife (Aug 19, 2014)

DuckNut said:


> What unwillingness of good faith are you talking about? Is it the part where the govt mandates the costs to save them 10% or the billions being paid to the private companies. Or is it the facts that get your goat?
> 
> I could care less who runs the prisons. They are filled with people who should not be out mingling with others and society is better off with them in there (there are exceptions like the guy who got caught smoking fish whistles). Gandhi could run the joint and the facts would be the same. The return rate is unacceptable no matter who is in charge. Just like most of the homeless, they need help but do not want it and unwilling to take it.
> 
> ...


----------



## lemaymiami (Feb 9, 2007)

This thread went south pretty quickly... 

On a more local front - they're finally installing a new fish-cutting facility down at Flamingo (or at least made a start on it....). We've been without one now for more than two years and the local crocodile population has been enjoying the leavings from folks forced to cut fish on their skiffs in the water at the ramp each day....

Did they ask the guides who need it for any input? Of course not...

Everglades National Park is my favorite place in this world... but don't ask me what I think about the folks who run it.... If you can't say anything nice.....


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

lemaymiami said:


> This thread went south pretty quickly...
> 
> On a more local front - they're finally installing a new fish-cutting facility down at Flamingo (or at least made a start on it....). We've been without one now for more than two years and the local crocodile population has been enjoying the leavings from folks forced to cut fish on their skiffs in the water at the ramp each day....
> 
> ...


It’s the internet, would you expect any less?


----------



## Megalops (Oct 23, 2011)

Okay guys, how do we fund the National Parks and help the more popular ones limit admission rates?


----------



## mro (Jan 24, 2018)

I'd think that the only fair way would to require reservations to the popular sites that are prone to over crowding. 
And since there are those that just can't be civilized or trash an area there should be cameras so the miscreants can be fined or jailed as needed.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

You have completely missed my point and have taken this conversation personally.

I too believe the parks should be funded with reckless abandon. But the reality is that every politician will keep spending on entitlements rather than fund a park. The parks will become victims of spending addictions.


----------



## jasonrl23 (Jul 27, 2009)

mro said:


> I'd think that the only fair way would to require reservations to the popular sites that are prone to over crowding.


This is very similar to he Boundary Waters Canoe Area. 1 million plus acres of camping. Its controlled by a permit system per entry point. Each entry point allows a set amount of people per day, and spaced out time wise to ensure you do not see the other groups. Essentially you feel alone due to the spacing of groups entering. My last trip there was 70 miles and we only ran into 3 or 4 groups, mostly because we stopped at popular camps.


----------



## mro (Jan 24, 2018)

For a short number of years when I was growing up my Dad and sometimes my older brother would back-pack starting at the Hetch Hetchy reservoir dam. After we went a couple times and became familiar to the area we would arrive at the dam on a Thursday or Friday night and hike to the top of the mountain above the reservoir (about 4 miles all up hill) then a little further to our camping spot. Day light we were up and going the rest of the way to Laurel lake, pitch camp have a snack and go catch a few fish for brunch.

Only went early spring or late fall.
We did go to a few other lakes up there but Laurel was by far the one I liked best and the time of year we went was the best for fishing and the best for seeing the fewest people. Most people don't care to hike through spring snow drifts and you always ran the chance of being caught in a storm up there in the late fall. (This is the place I caught trout on the fly when it was snowing  )
Quit going when we had to share the lakes with others in 1968.

Some places it takes only couple extra people to become "crowded".


----------



## Steve_Mevers (Feb 8, 2013)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Is everything about calling people out and trying to make people feel bad for telling the truth?
> The point ducknut is trying to convey is if something is free it will be taken advantage of. Stop the BS and trying to sound like the voice of the poor and be real...Can you imagine what kind of condition a free hotel would be in? You know exactly what it would look like if it didn’t burn to the ground because a methican tried to use the bathroom to cook up a batch in the tub...
> Any parks that are free to get in and in turn have zero security are shitholes because every drunk meth head and third worlder will be there trashing the place up. If you want to take up for these trashy people quit your day job and go pick up the piles of beer cans, feces and trash they leave behind after they get done bank fishing with their Wal-Mart surf rods and double drop orange bead treble hook rigs. I get sick of people that demonize anyone that tells the truth.
> And just to be honest I grew up poor but it wax never a reason to be white trash either. My dad would have beat my ass for throwing a gum wrapper on the ground.


Where did I ever say the parks should be free? In fact I said I supported an increase in user fees if that is what is needed to support the parks. I do not support privatizing them and turning the campgrounds into KOA’s.


----------



## Steve_Mevers (Feb 8, 2013)

lemaymiami said:


> This thread went south pretty quickly...
> 
> On a more local front - they're finally installing a new fish-cutting facility down at Flamingo (or at least made a start on it....). We've been without one now for more than two years and the local crocodile population has been enjoying the leavings from folks forced to cut fish on their skiffs in the water at the ramp each day....
> 
> ...


You got that right.


----------



## Guest (Nov 11, 2019)

jimsmicro said:


> The Trump administration's proposed budget for 2020 cuts 2.7 billion dollars from the national park service.


Hard to "like" this post. Maybe a "hate" option might be useful?


----------



## Guest (Nov 11, 2019)

Megalops said:


> Steve, don’t hate me for disagreeing but I disagree 100%. Poor people tend to not take ownership for their actions. Raise the fee much higher and you:
> 
> 1. Provide crowd control and income.
> 2. Bring in a set of folks with a different mindset. Ie. People with manners, morals and integrity that are not going to trash the place.
> ...


"Poor people tend to not take ownership for their actions"? Is that a fact or an assumption? I've seen plenty of "richer" people not take a great deal of ownership for their actions.


----------



## paulrad (May 10, 2016)

Problem 1: Parks not funded well.
Problem 2: Parks overcrowded.

So people say "raise the fees". I'd bet that this would help fix the funding. But it won't fix the overcrowding because the people making the trip to go to those parks are still going to come in if you charge an extra 100$. And if you start charging enough to really reduce the crowds at places like YNP, I bet you'd have to bump the fees super, super high. It would really be parks for the 1%ers then.

So instead, how about a simple rule saying that if you aren't a US citizen then you can't come into our parks? Why should a million asians be allowed into YNP anyway? It's not their park. They have no right to enjoy it. It's ours.


----------



## Steve_Mevers (Feb 8, 2013)

paulrad said:


> Problem 1: Parks not funded well.
> Problem 2: Parks overcrowded.
> 
> So people say "raise the fees". I'd bet that this would help fix the funding. But it won't fix the overcrowding because the people making the trip to go to those parks are still going to come in if you charge an extra 100$. And if you start charging enough to really reduce the crowds at places like YNP, I bet you'd have to bump the fees super, super high. It would really be parks for the 1%ers then.
> ...


I think eventually you will see a reservation system at the major parks. A lot of the Asians arrive on tour buses, so they do increase the crowd, but they are not a significant impact on the traffic. We are loving our parks to death.


----------



## jasonrl23 (Jul 27, 2009)

mike_parker said:


> Hard to "like" this post. Maybe a "hate" option might be useful?


https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1207/03-11-2019-budget-proposal.htm


----------



## manny2376 (Mar 15, 2007)

paulrad said:


> Problem 1: Parks not funded well.
> Problem 2: Parks overcrowded.
> 
> So people say "raise the fees". I'd bet that this would help fix the funding. But it won't fix the overcrowding because the people making the trip to go to those parks are still going to come in if you charge an extra 100$. And if you start charging enough to really reduce the crowds at places like YNP, I bet you'd have to bump the fees super, super high. It would really be parks for the 1%ers then.
> ...


it’s pretty sad how you systemically spread your hate on every post you make. You’re straight garbage!


----------



## paulrad (May 10, 2016)

manny2376 said:


> it’s pretty sad how you systemically spread your hate on every post you make. You’re straight garbage!


Pretty interesting that Manuel thinks that non-Americans have the right to not only be in America, but also have the right to scarce resources like our national parks so that actual Americans can't enjoy them.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

mike_parker said:


> Hard to "like" this post. Maybe a "hate" option might be useful?


Mike,

The post you quoted is just some azz clown posting a complete lie to fit his narrative!

If it were true there would be zero money in the budget for the parks because their budget is $2.7b. And no, the NPS budget was not completely eliminated.

Also, did you know the lowest NPS budget under Trump is more than the biggest under Obama?

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42757.pdf


----------



## Cliff (Oct 13, 2016)

I would guess almost all Asians who visit the parks are here legally. Most on tourist and student visas and do have the right to go to the parks. Chinese tourism is a major driver of many small towns near Yellowstone. Go to West Yellowstone and you will find Chinese restaurants on every corner. Most people are happy to be able to make a living from Asian tourists. I can hardly believe we are hoping for a world where US people cannot fish in Belize and Chinese cannot visit Yellowstone.


----------



## paulrad (May 10, 2016)

Cliff said:


> I would guess almost all Asians who visit the parks are here legally. Most on tourist and student visas and do have the right to go to the parks. Chinese tourism is a major driver of many small towns near Yellowstone. Go to West Yellowstone and you will find Chinese restaurants on every corner. Most people are happy to be able to make a living from Asian tourists. I can hardly believe we are hoping for a world where US people cannot fish in Belize and Chinese cannot visit Yellowstone.


Clif,
I wish more people would make a reasoned response like you just did. Excellent job! Totally refreshing change from the shrill cries of the babies like Manny. 

That said I think your points are valid but I disagree and here's why. Visitors don't have the same rights here as natives. There are certain things that are and ought to be reserved just for Americans. Here's an analogy: I think very highly of Japanese people. They're hard working, polite, smart, and they tend to have some integrity. I'd be honored to host Japanese visitors in my home. They would have access to whatever they want in the fridge, etc. But they don't have all the rights to every part of my home that family members have. It's completely reasonable!

Maybe a compromise could be made such that during peak season, the park is reserved for Americans only. Then during times where the park sees less use, we let non-American visitors come then?


----------



## manny2376 (Mar 15, 2007)

paulrad said:


> Clif,
> I wish more people would make a reasoned response like you just did. Excellent job! Totally refreshing change from the shrill cries of the babies like Manny.
> 
> That said I think your points are valid but I disagree and here's why. Visitors don't have the same rights here as natives. There are certain things that are and ought to be reserved just for Americans. Here's an analogy: I think very highly of Japanese people. They're hard working, polite, smart, and they tend to have some integrity. I'd be honored to host Japanese visitors in my home. They would have access to whatever they want in the fridge, etc. But they don't have all the rights to every part of my home that family members have. It's completely reasonable!
> ...


you’re a racist, narrow minded , ignorant, piece of garbage!


----------



## SomaliPirate (Feb 5, 2016)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Is everything about calling people out and trying to make people feel bad for telling the truth?
> The point ducknut is trying to convey is if something is free it will be taken advantage of. Stop the BS and trying to sound like the voice of the poor and be real...Can you imagine what kind of condition a free hotel would be in? You know exactly what it would look like if it didn’t burn to the ground because a methican tried to use the bathroom to cook up a batch in the tub...
> Any parks that are free to get in and in turn have zero security are shitholes because every drunk meth head and third worlder will be there trashing the place up. If you want to take up for these trashy people quit your day job and go pick up the piles of beer cans, feces and trash they leave behind after they get done bank fishing with their Wal-Mart surf rods and double drop orange bead treble hook rigs. I get sick of people that demonize anyone that tells the truth.
> And just to be honest I grew up poor but it wax never a reason to be white trash either. My dad would have beat my ass for throwing a gum wrapper on the ground.


The best analogy would be the state of the free ramps versus the ones with a 10 or 15 buck launch fee...


----------



## paulrad (May 10, 2016)

manny2376 said:


> you’re a racist, narrow minded , ignorant, piece of garbage!


Need a safe space?


----------



## EdK13 (Oct 3, 2013)

SomaliPirate said:


> The best analogy would be the state of the free ramps versus the ones with a 10 or 15 buck launch fee...


You should posit that to the cat channeling Leon Trotsky' ..


----------



## jmrodandgun (Sep 20, 2013)

paulrad said:


> So instead, how about a simple rule saying that if you aren't a US citizen then you can't come into our parks? Why should a million asians be allowed into YNP anyway? It's not their park. They have no right to enjoy it. It's ours.


It's hard to tell if this is hyperbole or if you're being honest. I'd be interested to know how you would go about enforcing that law and how you would explain it to the tourists who support the massive economy that's adjacent to these national parks. 

It would be pretty cool to see you defend your position and then try and go on a vacation. 

Either way I hope you feel better soon.


----------



## mro (Jan 24, 2018)

There are only two problems.
One: There are so many people, and the number is growing daily.
NO solution to this until it reaches "critical mass".
So the only solution for access to public property is "rationing" which in the future may come down to a lottery type of reservation system.

TWO: Management, or lack of.
Look no further than Washington DC. Notice any commonsense proposals coming out of that place?

My dad foresaw a time when just going camping would be restricted for the average citizen and talked me into getting our "private" property in the mountains.

Looking back, maybe the reason I so liked big a$$ thunder storms in the Sierras was not that it was like hearing from God, but that at that time of year there were so few people around.

Attacking each other just distracts from the discussion and I would really like to hear of solutions other than what I think.


----------



## paulrad (May 10, 2016)

jmrodandgun said:


> I'd be interested to know how you would go about enforcing that law


"Hi. Welcome to Yellowstone. I'll need $20 and a passport for everybody in the vehicle."
"Herro. Here is passports."
"Well, these aren't American passports. You can't come in until November. Try back then."



jmrodandgun said:


> ...and how you would explain it to the tourists who support the massive economy that's adjacent to these national parks.


"Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ears! Our parks are overcrowded. In order to reduce the demand during peak times we are restricting access to Americans only. America is for Americans."



jmrodandgun said:


> Either way I hope you feel better soon.


Thanks for the concern. I'm fine. You might want to check on Manny though. I think he's still sobbing in the corner.


----------



## SomaliPirate (Feb 5, 2016)

paulrad said:


> "Hi. Welcome to Yellowstone. I'll need $20 and a passport for everybody in the vehicle."
> "Herro. Here is passports."
> "Well, these aren't American passports. You can't come in until November. Try back then."
> 
> ...


I honestly get where you're coming from. U.S. parks for U.S. citizens to enjoy; it kind of makes sense. I will play devil's advocate though and say turnabout is fair play, and I wouldn't want to be restricted or banned from visiting cool sites in foreign countries. Also I will say that despite the crowding in Yellowstone, I found that if you're willing to get out of your car and walk any trail for about 1/4 mile you can be almost alone.


----------



## jimsmicro (Oct 29, 2013)

DuckNut said:


> Mike,
> 
> The post you quoted is just some azz clown posting a complete lie to fit his narrative!
> 
> ...


The national park service has a 12 BILLION dollar backlog on maintenance and repairs.

https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/upload/FY2019-NPS-Budget-Justification.pdf

It doesn't matter anyway, the presidents budget is dead on arrival to Congress anyway. They set and approve the budget.


----------



## manny2376 (Mar 15, 2007)

paulrad said:


> "Hi. Welcome to Yellowstone. I'll need $20 and a passport for everybody in the vehicle."
> "Herro. Here is passports."
> "Well, these aren't American passports. You can't come in until November. Try back then."
> 
> ...


“safe space”, “sobbing”... even your jokes suck ass! Garbage in garbage out I guess.


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2019)

manny2376 said:


> you’re a racist, narrow minded , ignorant, piece of garbage!


I might not go that far, but narrow minded I could agree with.


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2019)

manny2376 said:


> it’s pretty sad how you systemically spread your hate on every post you make. You’re straight garbage!


Maybe Prad is one of those Russian bots?


----------



## manny2376 (Mar 15, 2007)

mike_parker said:


> Maybe Prad is one of those Russian bots?


$20 his next post says “triggered”...


----------



## Guest (Nov 13, 2019)

manny2376 said:


> $20 his next post says “triggered”...


You're on!


----------



## paulrad (May 10, 2016)

I guess this means that Manny owes Parker $20. Pay him.


----------



## Guest (Nov 13, 2019)

paulrad said:


> I guess this means that Manny owes Parker $20. Pay him.


Ok, you can say it now!


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

jimsmicro said:


> The national park service has a 12 BILLION dollar backlog on maintenance and repairs.
> 
> https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/upload/FY2019-NPS-Budget-Justification.pdf
> 
> It doesn't matter anyway, the presidents budget is dead on arrival to Congress anyway. They set and approve the budget.


Is that all??? Surprised it's that small.


----------



## Les_Lammers (Feb 17, 2007)

Steve_Mevers said:


> I was just made aware of it the other day. The committee was formed by the former Interior Secretary before he resigned. The campgrounds that are managed by rangers and campground hosts is a much better experience than when they are managed for profit IMO. I would rather see user fees increased to help offset the funding shortage. They announced that they want to do a “test” at a few parks, you know the small ones like Yosemite, Yellowstone, etc... if that happens it will never be reversed, it will be like going to Disney World if run for profit. We have camped at 37 national parks since 2014-2015, and we need to preserve them for our kids. The only campers I have talked to that are in favor of this are the ones that either cannot unplug from social media, or that have huge campers that will not fit in a lot of the National Park Campgrounds. If you cannot be without WiFI or cell signal for a few days, or you have to be plugged into electricity with a huge RV, there are plenty of campgrounds just outside the gates of the parks that have just what you need. Sorry for the rant, I will get off my soapbox now.


https://commercialalert.org/national-parks/

https://www.latimes.com/environment...ministration-privatize-national-parks-tourism

https://www.outsideonline.com/2404058/interior-department-privatizing-campgrounds-plan

Read 'em and weep. This is being done very quietly and without public input.


----------



## Guest (Nov 14, 2019)

paulrad said:


> I guess this means that Manny owes Parker $20. Pay him.


Thanks prad for the restraint! I should split the 20 with you [if I ever see it].


----------



## paulrad (May 10, 2016)

mike_parker said:


> Thanks prad for the restraint! I should split the 20 with you [if I ever see it].


lol! That $20 is all you.


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2019)

paulrad said:


> lol! That $20 is all you.


Great, thanks! Maybe I'll buy a M.A.G.A. hat!


----------



## Steve_Mevers (Feb 8, 2013)

SomaliPirate said:


> I honestly get where you're coming from. U.S. parks for U.S. citizens to enjoy; it kind of makes sense. I will play devil's advocate though and say turnabout is fair play, and I wouldn't want to be restricted or banned from visiting cool sites in foreign countries. Also I will say that despite the crowding in Yellowstone, I found that if you're willing to get out of your car and walk any trail for about 1/4 mile you can be almost alone.


True, get out and walk a little and you will be almost alone. Hiked a 10 mile round trip into one of the Slough Creek meadows to fish and there were still about 4 of us there.


----------



## mro (Jan 24, 2018)

Steve_Mevers said:


> and you will be almost alone.


Almost alone...
I imagine that must be like "a little bit pregnant".


----------



## Megalops (Oct 23, 2011)

Les_Lammers said:


> https://commercialalert.org/national-parks/
> 
> https://www.latimes.com/environment...ministration-privatize-national-parks-tourism
> 
> ...


Thanks Les. If it’s so secret why is it all over the internet. Hmmmmmm....


----------



## SomaliPirate (Feb 5, 2016)

mike_parker said:


> Great, thanks! Maybe I'll buy a M.A.G.A. hat!


Make Angling Great Again?


----------



## Guest (Nov 18, 2019)

SomaliPirate said:


> Make Angling Great Again?


That's what I meant! What were you thinking?


----------



## Les_Lammers (Feb 17, 2007)

jasonrl23 said:


> This is very similar to he Boundary Waters Canoe Area. 1 million plus acres of camping. Its controlled by a permit system per entry point. Each entry point allows a set amount of people per day, and spaced out time wise to ensure you do not see the other groups. Essentially you feel alone due to the spacing of groups entering. My last trip there was 70 miles and we only ran into 3 or 4 groups, mostly because we stopped at popular camps.


The backcountry campsites in the Glades are rationed that way.


----------

