There are two threads going that mention the new directive that the US Forest Service is proposing for Forest Service campgrounds to change the discount for Senior and Disabled pass holders to 10% from the current 50%. I think this is something that Escapees should get involved in as if one agency does it, then all of the agencies will jump on. I've already sent emails to our two senators and representative about this issue as well as add a public comment to the US Forest Service.

Barb

Hi Barb,

We're working on an e-news and letter right this moment!

Hugs,
Angie

there is NO free lunch maybe 10% is not the right nomber but its too cheap as it is and its time to pay a fair share...come on you can'ttake it with you...jim

I don't know about you, but I've been paying and paying and paying taxes for years - - these are public lands and it seems only right that after supporting them for so many years we should get to enjoy what we paid for all these years.

Barb

totally concur, what about the Golden Access pas, how is that impacted?

If this measure is passed, it will affect both passes.

There is already another multiple-page discussion going on about this matter elsewhere on these forums. It would be great if all the discussion was limited to that discussion so that the information isn't scattered all over the place.

I've been paying and paying and paying taxes for years also and - - these are public lands.

Please write your response to your elected officials. I for one believe that this is just the beginning of a move by the vendors to lock us out!! If you don't speak out now it will be too late.

Safe Travels!

A few thoughts on USFS' Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

I'm against the proposed rule change for the following reasons:

** I agree the gov't (and USFS) need for budgetary help, but this proposal helps the bottomline of the campground concession operators, not the USFS.

** USFS campgrounds were constructed on federal property, using USFS funds, at no cost to the concessions. Concession contractors merely operate the previously constructed campgrounds, and collect the fee's (partly remitted to USFS, I'm sure). The concession operations have very little if any, capital in the game (maybe some pickup trucks here and there...and some refurbishments). The costs for land acquisition and campground construction was already bore by you and me (aka: Taxpayers).

** Most campgrounds use campground volunteers for a sizeable part of the day-to-day maintenance and administation, so the concession's profitability is already being helped through volunteer labor. Hmmm...since the concession is robably not a tax exempt (ie. 501 c 3) organization, I wonder if they are paying taxes on the dollar value of that volunteer labor?

** The "Golden Age/Access" Pass began year's ago as a means of providing funds for the Soils and Water Conservation Fund - and did a creditable job, for decades. All this occurred long before anyone thought of saving money by using for-profit concession operaters in federal build campgrounds. This system isn't broke - so don't try to fix it by enhancing concession prifitability.

** At the very least, the USFS needs to do an independent cost/benefit analysis to see just what and who might be served in this process. The current administration is reviewing the whole countracting-out ("A76") process anyway, so maybe the USFS would be better served politically by getting rid of it campground concessions entirely, and going backto USFS management and volunteerism!

** Since Golden Age/Access Passes are so easy to obtain (you only have to wait 62 years...or be disabled) they've already set a pretty tight standard. Changing the rules now will simply create more heat than light; not advisable.

There may be other criterion that would support the status quo on the Passes, and if I think of any more I may incorporate them in my letter to USFS' Ms. Holbrook. But for the moment, these items will be the framework for my letter.

...and one final thought. If this goes through does anyone think the NPS, BLM, COE and other's won't get hammered by their contractor's to follow suit?

The NPS already allows their concessionaire-run parks to not honor the Senior and Access passes (Trailer Village at Grand Canyon NP, for example).

Since the COE was not written into the America the Beautiful act, they don't have to honor any of the passes at all, but most currently do.

Much camping on BLM lands is already free, and the LTVAs do not honor the passes, anyway. They could, of course, try to do away with honoring the passes at their fee campgrounds.

I certainly agree with your point #1: This proposal wouldn't rankle as much if the increased fees to seniors and the disabled were going to go to the USFS. But it's not...it's going to the concessionaires. I doubt that much, if any, of the increase fees will ever find its way to the USFS.

Link to the full text.
http://yosemitenews.info/forum/read.php?1,20637,20646

Folks this important! We all need to followup on this. We may lose this one if we don't act. Please post your comments and write your elected officials.

Safe Travels!

The concessionaries avocating discontinuance of the discounts are recruiting at rallys and RV shows and advertising in RV Club magizines. I hope our members know that when they consider working for one of them. This is new December 16,2009. Please read this article if you can. http://www.deltacountyindependent.com/inde...47&Itemid=0

So is this an issue for the Escapees office? If not why not? What help can we expect??

Safe Travels!

Stardreamers, please read the first and second post on this thread.

Thank you! I missed that part.

Safe Travels!

Hey Angie, it's almost the middle of January and I haven't seen any SKP response. There is less than a month left for any input that could affect this decision and as a recipient of this discount, I am very concerned about a possible loss of a benefit I feel I have paid for in tax dollars contirubuted over my 65 years of life. Please inform us of what actions Escapees Inc. have taken to assist us in this situation.

Wondering what's up with this?

Really??? Think about the number of retirees that fulltime and volunteer alot of their time throughout the year. You dont think that they deserve a break. Majority are living on a fraction of what they made while working.

This is not an acceptable deal and should be changed.

And this change, if it goes through, won't affect just us "old" people...it will also affect those with permanent disabilities who have an Access Pass (the old Golden Access Passport).

I'm sorry, but the concessionaires knew what the deal was with the passes when they signed the contracts with the USFS. If they need more money, they should renegotiate the contract, instead of trying to get more money on the backs of seniors and the disabled.

If you haven't already read it, Suzi Dow of ForestCamping.com submitted a formal Response to the Proposed Directive. It's an excellent, well-reasoned response that I encourage everyone to read. And then be sure you make your own response to this proposed change.

"...the concessionaires knew what the deal was with the passes when they signed the contracts with the USPS."
---
I know that you meant the "USFS", but it gave me a laugh!

I don't understand why volunteerism by some means that all others in that age class deserve a discount? Most resident RVing volunteers get their site for free when they are volunteering, no access pass required. In addition they may get amenities not provided to campers such as free propane and laundry facilities. If a volunteer (even a non-resident volunteer) serves enough hours, they can get a Volunteer Pass no age requirement or disability required to qualify.



The concession run campgrounds run by Xantara and Recreation Resources Management and others that I have stayed in do not use volunteers. They used paid employees. In my experience, Government run campgrounds are the ones that use volunteer camphosts and laborers. The proposed Forest Service rule changes do not affect the benefits of the America the Beautiful or Golden passes at government run campgrounds.

I encourage everyone to make their opinion known to the Forest Service and their elected representatives. When making your comments, please take into consideration that the legislative fix to this situation proposed by the Senate will deposit 85% of the recreational fees collected by the Forest Service, BLM and Fish and Wildlife Service into the U.S. Treasury rather than 80% of the fees being available for use only at the facility where collected as is currently the law.

Oops! Thanks for the headsup, Rosita...I've edited my previous post to correct the spelling!

Has anyone (who has submitted their comments or written their representives/senators) received *any* feedback response, or even an acknowledgement?!? (To date, I haven't -- wrote them in Dec.)

-Don

No feeback, from "THEM" or Escapees - on this thread, maybe elsewhere ?

I believe that February 1 is the deadline for submitting comments to the USFS on this proposal, so any decisions are still pending. But, unless I missed something, I'm also surprised that there has been no "position statement" put forth by Escapees on this issue; why not?

I got the standard email response: we have received your email, your opinions are important to me..... from both Senators and my Congressman. My guess is that this is an automatic computer generated response. No specifics as to where they stand on the issue.

TCW - that is all I have ever received, except being put on mailing list for campaign contributions.

I've sent one note to Senator Kay Baily Hutchison, one to Congressman Kevin Brady, and one to the Forrest Service, and commented on the comment page. By Escapees monitoring this forum, I figure I've sent a message to them also. I have received the same action (or would it be re-action) from all.

Dave,

All three of my representatives usually send a canned response explaining their position on an issue (if they have one). The Congressman has actually called me personally a couple of times over the years and staff members have probably called a half dozen times which shocks me as I am not politically connected and not a campaign contributer. My guess is that with everything going on right now, this issue is pretty low on the priority list.

It is easy to complain but sometimes when you provide an alternative it doesn't fall on totally deaf ears. Saw the post below on the Boomers E-group regarding the park closures in Arizona. Another option Extreme Makeover Home Edition, they have assisted clean up on community parks in the past. You may hear back from ABC or Pepsi before others?
===============




Anyone with grant writing experience? Not that that is necessarily required, probably creativity in the suggestions and the greater the number of people affected will have more of an impact, but nothing ventured nothing gained. This could be a perfect opportunity to obtain funds for parks:

USA Today Newspaper FIND MONEY FOR YOUR PERSONAL PROJECTS AND CHARITIES
Posted 12h 42m ago
"For the first time in 23 years, Pepsi won't promote itself during the Super Bowl. Instead, it will focus on so-called cause marketing. Pepsi wants the public to suggest projects that can improve communities. It launched the Refresh Everything site http://www.refresheverything.com/ to gather grant suggestions and take votes. Pepsi will give away millions per month to winning projects. Pepsi's undertaking is just one example of how the Internet can be used to raise money." The complete article here:

=========================
Here is some good news for RV'ers that park in Walmarts in CHIEFLAND, Fla.

I have written grants for years in my capacity as an LEO and as a civilian to help a few smaller communities and my personal experience has been far better with Corporations and foundations as opposed to the State and Federal Govt.
It has been my experience ( as has been mentioned by others in this thread ) thru my dealings with the Govt ( primarily Senators and Congressmen ) that all I have ever received is the standard form letters or "a line of #%" from the office employees hired by my elected representatives.And they are hired to do just that.Try,just try to contact and talk to your Representatives even in the so called "off season" and see where you get.
IMHO and experience I can see my Representatives listening to the dollars and sense of the contracted business's over a few drinks and a steak dinner in Washington as opposed to listening to a handful of people who want to save a buck.Sorry to put it that way,but that's what I have personally seen.
I have never,ever in the State of North Dakota received a return phone call from a Govt elected representative on behalf of the entire communities I was seeking help for,NEVER.
I often wonder when I see these issues brought up ( and beleive me,I get that discounted pass myself so it is an important issue to me ) if it wouldn't be easier to form a non-profit for our RVing community and apply for Govt grants,foundation grants and Corporate grants and use those grants to offset the higher costs brought on by larger Govt and the monies spent by contracter lobbyist.
The other solution may be to use that grant money to send our own lobbyist to Washington to spend cheer and steak dinners and our issues.
OR,do we already have a lobbyist in Washington?,and maybe they aren't doing the job they were sent there to do.

I guess I've missed something on this whole issue. I keep seeing reference to the fact that the concessionaires are going to make more money. They bid on jobs such as a given campground and collect money for that governmental entity. They are paid the contracted amount and pass on the funds they receive from customers. I don't see greed on their part nor where they are making more profit. This does not mean that I agree with the reduction of rates for Golden Age or Access at NFS facilities but no other governmental agency I know of (NFS or any other) allows these discounts for concessionaire-run campgrounds.

They bid on a percentage basis. In most cases, the concessionaires (contractors) keep 80% or more and 20% or less is returned to the federal government for maintenance.

So they will be making more profit. Now, making a profit is NOT a bad thing.

However, my concern is that Forest Service campgrounds were never designed for "profitable" operations. They were designed for providing a quality camping experience for a family. Quite frankly, I do not think anybody can make money running Forest Service campgrounds over the long term. Concessionaires already have federal exemptions from overtime and other labor laws and they are barely running even. Dropping the Goldens will not make them profitable.

The campground fees on Forest Service campgrounds managed by concessionaires are already prices much higher than other providers. The only reason the campgrounds are used are because of the senior discount. In my view, this will make the Forest Service campgrounds even more empty this summer.

In the interest of full disclosure, I did oversee the concessionaire program on a National Forest for ten years as part of my job.

The downfall of the Forest Service may just be that it was not intended to be "profitable" but some thought should have been at least given to being "self sustaining" for its preservation?

As we evolve, what is a "quality family camping experience"? What is valuable to one person might be useless to another. With "progress", technology advances and an abundance of organized activities that young people seem to be scheduling these days does the next generation want rustic camping? Are their planners too full for time to camp.

With fewer dollars to go around there is competition for the dollars there are. Many RVing forums discuss Big Rig sites, FHU's, Internet Access, Cable TV or Satellite TV. For those of us that grew up "camping" ie tents, sleeping bags and out houses in state and national parks vs RV'ing has that interest or appreciation developed in subsequent generations? If the only reason people are using the parks is because of the senior discount that would be a pretty narrow market for a park to remain viable.

Maybe there is an interest in the outdoors but a preference to visit it while staying in sticks n bricks accommodations? Instead of campsites...motel rooms, bed n breakfast or other type inns?

Vladmir,

Your insight on this situation is greatly appreciated. I personnally never saw enough value added in the concession run campgrounds that did not have hookups to justify the price with or without the discount. If I want to camp, I can disperse camp somewhere on most National Forests for free. If DW wants all the RV amenities, I have not found many Forest Service concession run campgrounds that have them.

My understanding of the proposed rule change is that the concessionaire would be required to give a 10% discount, but could choose to give a higher discount just as National Park concessionaires can choose to give a discount or not. If the rule goes through, perhaps, concessionaires who find their campgrounds empty, will choose to give bigger discounts just as commercial parks join Passport America, Happy Camper and Camp Club rather than see the sites sit empty. Then again, perhaps not. If they loose enough money, they will not rebid or will have to rethink their business model. Of course this would take time to play out and the using public would likely be the loser at least in the short run.

This is just a reminder.

If you have NOT contacted your elected representatives on this issue. This is a good time to do it right before the end of the comment period. Please note in your message that the comment period closes Feb 1, 2009.

IF you have CONTACTED your elected representative this would be a good time to CONTACT THEM AGAIN. This shows that you are tracking the Golden Age and Access discount issue and you expect them to do the same. Again, remind them that the comment period is ending soon.

The second contact is important since it shows to elected officials that IT IS IMPORTANT to you and you are tracking this issue.

Thanks. Hopefully, the Forest Service will reconsider this new policy.

Any updates on this?

OK, I will ask. What has happened? What is the update?

Safe Travels!

Federal park and state parks are suffering:

New York State proposing the closure of parks.
Nevada Considering Closing Parks
Denali may increase climbing fees 150%
Oregon considering State Park Camping Fee Hikes

Long ago the company I was working for was trying to cut operating costs. When employees complained about potential job cuts the executive didn't mince words and replied "It takes money to grease the doors and wax the floors nothing is free, if you can show me a plan to pay for it you can have it". They didn't think he was serious and just chuckled. The company was bought out a couple years later and 80% of the jobs were phased out by the new owner in the first 2 years. His comment made an impression on me, I started night school and got a new job when I was laid off.

It will come down to dollars and "sense". How many people are affected and how the entity can maintain a balance sheet in the black or better yet a profit for the owners and or stock holders if applicable. Another thread was commenting on "credit cards or cash" the global economy is sick and that trickles down to eventually affect each and every one of us. No one will be immune from it. Hopefully we will still have credit cards available next year, more important a source of income to pay for them. .

When it comes to saving our parks we need a creative, realistic and practical approach to paying the bills. Lets sharpen our pencils and see what we can come up with.

JM,

In my opinion and experience, there have been a few things that have at least helped some public land and park agencies through tough times. The one that I think is most important is establishing a dedicated funding source and ensuring that it can not be raided. At the state level, this has taken many forms such as license plates, lottery proceeds, user fees, proceeds from timber sales and royalties from oil or gas wells. If what I remember reading is correct; the problems in some states, such as New Mexico, are the result of take backs by the legislature. As I posted a couple of times, the Senate Bill that arose in response to the Forest Service Rule changes, will deposit 85% of the user fees from all agencies except the National Park Service into the treasury instead of requiring that 80% be used at the facility where collected as is now the case. I do not believe this change will help as I do not think funding our public lands is a high priority thus the money users (we) pay will go to other programs.

Another concept that has proven to work over time, is excise taxes on certain items with the proceeds dedicated to specific programs. The examples are the excise taxes on hunting and fishing gear, ammunition and marine fuel taxes. The monies collected are distributed to the states based on the number of users in the state and can only be used for certain types of expeditures. Hunters, fisherman and boaters proposed these taxes and worked hard to get them implemented. In the early 1980's and again in the mid-1990's there were proposals to create such funds by placing an excise tax on a wide range of outdoor gear (the proposed tax was about half that on fishing and hunting gear). The proposals drew strong opposition from hikers, campers, wildlife watchers, the Sierra Club, no fee organizations, some manufacturers/retailers of camping gear and others that preferred retaining reliance on funding from the general funds. Outdoor recreation is a multi-billion $ industry. While I no longer have the economic analysis, the money that would have been generated was substantial. While it may not have prevented the current crisis, I am sure our public lands would be in much better shape both physically and finacially today had such funds been established.

In today's economic and political climate, it is my opinion that a very strong and focussed coalition of user groups will be necessary to bring attention to the situation facing our public lands. In my opinion, at this time, the focus of each user group is "no cost or no additional cost for us" which does not bode well for putting together a proposal that will either work or gain enough support to be implemented. Hopefully, I am wrong. Perhaps the closures and decreases in services will finally force all user groups to come together and develop a strategy for sustainable funding of our public lands.

Who uses Texas Parks?

Just read this State Parks Survey Article and though it is a small sample, 27,000, it is interesting to note one conclusion:
"State Parks Director Walt Dabney told the Statesman he was surprised to learn that families are coming without children. He suggested that young families with school children may not have grown up camping and may also be busy doing other activities."

Just read about this possibility: Lion’s Club offers to operate west-end campground "The Lion's operate campgrounds throughout North America, most of which are sought-after camping locations because of the club's reputation for providing excellent service and value."

Just heard today that the USFS received so much heat from both the public and the Congressional delegations, that they have rescinded all future plans and existing concessionaire contracts that reduced the Golden Age discount from 50% to 10%. This needs to be verified, even though the info came from a Congressional Office.

Those are all great ideas.

In Washington State, the Off-Road Vehicle community way back in the 1970's refused to accept the tax rebate for state gas tax when the gas was burned off state supported roads that is BLM, Forest Service, and Department of Natural Resource Roads.

Instead they asked that the money go to support ORV projects. Over the years, the program has done surveys on who uses non-gas tax supported roads and it has been broadened to support hikers, horseman, mountain bikers, and campers.

Something similar can be done in other states and at the Federal Gas Tax level. The gas tax you paid on gas burned on Forest Service and BLM roads NEVER gets to those agencies for road maintenance or recreation management.

The argument of fairness can be used in setting aside these funds.

But even fairness is a tough argument with politicians. In Washington State these funds were raided to pay for State Parks!!

Not meaning to hijack this thread, can you tell us if the Lion's club campgrounds work the same as Elks, Moose, etc?!? (Ie, are they for members-only use -- can members bring guests or are they open to the public?!?)

Thx,
Don

I Googled "Lions Club Campgrounds in Canada and found several...LINKS....
Here is one Lions Club Campgrounds in Alberta, Canada

Where did you hear the information? Which Congressional Office?

Where did you hear the information? Which Congressional Office?
---
I'd like to know that, too. (Of course, I tend not to believe anything that comes out of any "Congressional Office".) I haven't been able to find one verifiable source of this information, just a lot of rumors on a few forums which seem to feed off each other. And, per a post yesterday by Suzi Dow of www.forestcamping.com, her call to the Forest Service on this brought only the response that they were still looking at the feedback. ???

My residence is Florida and my concern was with the Ocala NF concessionaire. The info came from my congressional district, via email, that is the reason I said, "this needs to be verified" by the club management, that supposedly was looking into this.

So again what is the timeline or progress on this proposal?

Thanks,

Safe Travels!

"So again what is the timeline or progress on this proposal?"
---
The comment window closed February 1st; beyond that, there is no timetable for the FS to make or report any decisions, AFAIK. Fred and Suzi Dow at www.forestcamping.com (see the "Forums" on the site) are keeping a close watch on any progress, so you might check there for updated news. Until the plug is pulled, I plan to use my Golden Age Pass (or whatever they call it now) for NF and other "fed" campgrounds as often as I can.