GUEST COMMENTARY
Private Concessionaire: We Aren’t Trying to Take Your Land
By Guest Writer, 3-12-10
Editor’s Note: Two weeks ago I posted a hard-hitting column about recreation fees leading to privatization of our public lands and how the Forest Service facilitates the process by turning over management of so many campgrounds and other recreation areas to private concessionaires. After this commentary went online, I was contacted by Warren Meyer, who runs one of the major companies involved in private management of public recreation. He made some good points, and I asked him to write this guest commentary so you can see the other side of this issue.--Bill Schneider
I know there has been a lot of concern about the role of private recreation businesses on public lands, and the relation this might have to the expansion of recreation fees. As the head of one of the larger Forest Service campground concession companies, I wanted to address some of these issues.
When discussing the word “privatization” in the context of recreation, it’s important to understand we are talking about a partnership, not a replacement. We are not trying to take the land away from the public. We aren’t trying to pave the wilderness. We aren’t trying to build condos in front of Old Faithful. Public agencies still must establish the mission and character of their lands, and set the standards for its preservation and use.
Our company’s approach is to accept whatever recreation or preservation mission the public owner of a park sets, and then to manage the park to that mission. What we bring to the table is that we can often operate a park and keep it open less expensively than can the government. Typically, we operate with the fees paid at the gate, without big fee hikes and without the need for subsidies from taxes.
And this is the heart of the problem--that recreation costs money. Even a small roadside picnic area can require thousands of dollars a year to clean the bathrooms, haul the trash, and maintain the area to keep it safe. For decades, recreation costs in the Forest Service were funded by timber sales, but these have largely disappeared and Congress has not provided a funding source to replace them. Forest Service recreation budgets have, for years, been insufficient to cover recreation operations as well as necessary major maintenance and refurbishment of facilities.
The Forest Service, looking to stretch its meager recreation budget as far as possible, has turned to private companies to run many of its campgrounds and developed day use facilities. This partnership has largely worked well, with the Forest Service benefiting from the efficiency and customer service focus of private management while retaining tight control over operating standards (concessionaires can’t change a fee, or modify operating hours, or alter any number of other aspects of a park’s operations without the Forest Service’s written approval).
Private concessionaires play a critical role in keeping fees reasonable. Without private concessions, the Forest Service would be forced to raise fees substantially or to close hundreds of recreation areas, a story we unfortunately see being played out in many state parks organizations. For an illustration of this, we can look to my home state of Arizona, where the state parks organization is closing some campgrounds and day use areas and doubling entry fees in many of the others. Similarly, the proliferation of new use and access fees on Forest Service lands has nothing to do with private companies that actually serve to keep fees reasonable. The problem is not privatization; the problem is appropriations, or the lack thereof.
I know that the recent Forest Service proposal to reduce Golden Age discounts has been blamed on demands made by private concessionaires. In fact, the new proposal does little if anything to benefit our company.
The Forest Service presented their current fee discount proposal to concessionaires as a trade. The Forest Service wanted concessionaires to provide free or discounted use for a number of newly created passes, which, by the enabling legislation, did not clearly apply at concession-run facilities. In turn, the senior camping discount would be reduced to offset the cost of accepting these new passes. A further benefit was that camping fees to younger campers that had been rising in order to subsidize the senior discounts could be kept in check.
In our official comments, I agreed that this was financially fair for our company--that one part roughly balanced the other and that our company didn’t gain or lose financially--but that the plan did not address some of the real inequities in the fee pass program. The solution to maintaining current programs like the senior camping discount lies with the appropriations process--without new funding, any new discount or pass can only be provided at the cost of reducing an existing program or increasing fees to other visitors, and this is true irrespective of whether the Forest Service or a private concessionaire operates the parks.
My sense is that the use of “privatization” for what we do is perhaps a poor choice of words, as I think many people associate the word with a total takeover of public lands by private companies, to do with as they please. This is certainly not our goal. We want the public to retain ownership of its public lands, and to have control, through its agencies, of how these lands are used. Within this context, however, in our times of trillion dollar government budget deficits, private recreation management is a critical part of the solution to keeping public recreation sites open.
Footnote: Warren Meyer is President of Recreation Resource Management. He welcomes readers to contact him with questions of concerns either by email (Warren@camprrm.com) or by going to his blog, parkprivatization.com..
[End of article]The USFS can't fund recreation due to a paucity of income from selling timber. Rightly predicted long ago. Denied by the Green Lobby. Who would you believe today? The Sierra Club or the guy who owns a recreation facilities contracting company?
The USFS can't run campgrounds as well and as cheaply as a private contractor can. Interesting. Evidently that diverse workfarce is so involved in tending to itself that work has become an expensive bother. They need to have a workshop on that. Have Planned Parenthood conduct it.
Freebies have to be offset by fee increases, to which there are practical limits. Understandable. Economics have a certainty to them, and an undeniable truth. Except, of course, if you are in Congress or the Administration.
In short, the USFS listened to the Green Lobby and cut off their own funding, resulting in far less money to be siphoned off for recreation maintenance and support, which Congress will not infill. There is the regulated and bargained inefficiency of government work rules, of pay that far exceeds private industry, and benefits for health insurance, vacation pay, and pensions that drive the cost of USFS daily operations through the stratosphere, which to this point has been addressed by not hiring replacements upon retirements, and by laying off personnel and closing facilities and combining offices, the end result of which puts USFS management facilities far, far from the land on which they are supposed to be managing, and just the time to drive back and forth reduces work days to half getting there and back, and half doing something productive, the result of which is that they can't accomplish anything beyond taking care of each other and keeping the workplace a civil and non confrontational safe place to be while the public schools baby sit their kids. Same old bullshit we have seen for decades. Essentially, the public can no longer afford the rank and file USFS employee, not unlike General Motors could not compete in the auto business. All good people, and all doing their best in a situation far from their creation. By retirement, most are humped over in the submission pose of someone mentally horsewhipped for a career. But they can't leave because the money can't be replaced working in the private sector. The little ditty is saw yesterday that says the 7 highest gross per capita income counties in the USA surround Washington DC. The Willie Sutton Phenomena: That is where they keep and spend the money!!!
The logical next step, of course, is to outsource the recreation maintenance and management offshore, and get some of the $0.83 a day labor cleaning the crappers, picking up papers, and painting signs that tell you more and more what you cannot do or where you cannot go. Feng Shui placement of camping spots. Maybe it would be an improvement. I doubt it. You would have all these people in their off hours trapping chipmunks and picking mushrooms and herbs, burning sticks in cooking fires, and pretty soon the forests would look like they did before Europeans arrived to declare them Wilderness, where the hand of man has never been...Can I interest you in a bottle of Dr. Bear Bait's magic Elixir? The recipe was given to me by a Chief. Had a beautiful daughter. Shining Star. Ah, yes. Lovely girl. I digress...
So the very same US Government, which cannot balance a budget at the Post Office, Amtrak, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, is telling us they cannot provide recreation on public land (no taxes to pay which is a business benefit of magnitude) because their employees cost too much, their management is so overburdened with overhead they cannot get the job done (because whatever it costs to actually DO something on a Ranger District has to have added to it an over-ride fee to support the Forest S.O., and another to support the Regional Office, and an even bigger one to support the Chief's Office---vigorish, if you will, to the mob in management, and a form of corruption deeply imbedded into US Govt workings day to day--doubles the cost of a roll of toilet paper or a reply to a NEPA question), and they are self professed failures, which Congress knows, and that is why Congress will not fund them to piss away money at will, let alone do basic work. Now we have contractors collecting fee for use to be used to pay them their contracting expenses, profits and risk.
This is the very same US Government the Obamanation and its leaders, the likes of WhiteHorse Harry Reid, Nancy "Bag Lady" Pelosi, and their Sooper Majority Congress are pressing hard to take over all aspects of health care and say that by doing so, they will save us trillions of dollars. They can't, won't, and never will be able to do that. If the USFS can't run a primitive campground cheaper than a non-tax paying private contractor, then how in the hell is the US Government going to bring one iota of savings or care or concern or even humanity to the health care of its citizens?? It cannot and will not. Blather and BS, and all about Power and Control. The public will, I hope, tell them to stick it where the sun does not shine, and only Katie Couric might find it.
As an aside, the big contractor in my neck of the woods manages almost 2000 individual camp sites, which he does with his crew that runs his ski area in winter. The campground contract allows him to furnish year around employment for workers in non-technical jobs not requiring a PhD in computer science. Of course, I have no idea how they address the summer closures of many areas due to project wildland fire. I know the public is getting hosed by fires and the resulting recreation closures that can last for years. I hope the contractors are protected, because without them, there is no recreation infrastructure on public lands. All you will see is closed gates and disrepair. Only your Congress can address the problem, and they are not going to.
Bear Bait mistake: I said "non-tax paying private contractor.." which is a huge disservice to the contractors who do pay taxes, unlike the USFS.....my bad...It should read ... "tax paying contractor...." Sorry.
Comment By Matt M., 3-12-10Bearbait, I could only make is far as "Planned Parenthood" in your comment before I couldn't take it anymore.
What do they have to do with the USFS and concessionaires?
Matt: I get cynical. PP is an NGO. The USFS can't operate unless they have the OK from an NGO. If they want a task accomplished, they will plead they don't have the personnel, and will contract the service LIKE THEY DO WITH CAMPGROUNDS. They are contracting with NGOs for ideas and information to fight forest fires, or not to fight them. When you contract out policy making, your Outfit has lost its way. I was suggesting they had better have an internal conversation about working as opposed to how to behave and interact AT work, or maybe the whole of their operation should be contracted out. Outsourced. Turned over to a group that can accomplish stated goals on time and under budget. Contract with Planned Parenthood to hold the conversation.
I am also taking a shot at PP because "a woman's right to choose" is having the unintended consequence of gender preference birthing across the third world. Places in Asia now have statistically significant more males born for every 100 female births. Female fetuses aborted are in the millions each year. There are social consequences and anticipated social disorder from that result. Hey, that is just like the USFS and their recreation fees. Young jobless metrosexuals aren't camping and geriatric pensioners are, and the promised senior discount is being dropped due to non participation of the younger generations. Hey!! just like health insurance premiums going up because young people are not buying insurance because they are healthy and don't need it, thus reducing the insurance pool and freeing up money for tattoos and piercings. Shit sometimes does not work as planned. USFS recreation is one such thing. No logging made the whole USFS budget a line item drain on the budget which has needed defense, education, and entitlement funds. The result is not well liked. Nor is it working like a fine Swiss watch. Dysfunctional is a kind description.
Bear bait, I think I might agree with something you said, but it's really hard to dig it out. Maybe you could make your point in less than 1000 words or something.
Comment By bearbait, 3-12-10Boggs: My points are that the USFS is inept, unable, and not trustworthy, so Congress will not properly fund the Agency.
Contractors can do what US Govt workers cannot do because you have to be physically fit and willing to work, which has not been a requirement of Federal workers for a long time. People are "differently abled" and you cannot discriminate, which means most hires cannot do physical work at the same level required of private employment.
Contractors can do more work for less money because they are not saddled with a government wage and salary schedule 30% more than private work of same type and scope and a benefit schedule that is 80% more than private employment. The country can't afford the cost of US Govt trash collectors or facility maintainers.
The basic problem is demographic. Older people use USFS recreation opportunity much more than younger people, partly due to a senior discount and available time. The highest users pay the least. The business plan didn't account for use by age class. Like health insurance, the people using recreation improvements the most are being priced out of it, and in part due to decreased participation by younger age groups. There is a flaw in "commons" economics and cost sharing.
The solution is for Congress to budget more money for recreation on public lands, all the while the "let it burn" management of public lands requires hundreds of millions more for fire fighting every year, and when those funds run short, the USFS will use their recreation budgeted money to put out fires. Congress feels they can't win on the USFS budget so they give it short shrift. Burning trees instead of logging them has a downside in that it is a deficit spending venture. Again, Congress has little sympathy. Especially when your state has 6 or fewer congressmen.
All this was predicted thirty years ago, and the predictions have been borne out. With the Stimulus, Bank saving, the Federal takeover of GM and Chrysler, war efforts, failing education country wide, health care in crisis, reality should illuminate the pettiness of the whole USFS recreation issue. No high stepping Chicago pol gives a shit about Utah or Montana public land campground fees, and neither do the dandies from New England or the South. We whine to ourselves.
The more entrenched our public lands become with private managment, the harder it is going to be to pry them away. They are like weeds.
I run several public land websites(one of them a camping site) and I can't count how many complaints I have received from people who were mistreated by private concessionaires. The amountof crabbyness and incompetence seems to fester because of alack of accountability. It's the wild west.
The sooner we can get these leeches off our public lands, the better off we will be. Keep private, private and keep our public lands free.
bearbait doesn't know what he's talking about. It's liking reading something that Glenn Beck wrote: half-truths, conflations, and outright misleading statements. The USFS listened and listens to the green lobby? You gotta be kidding me...seriously? The USFS has been sued plenty, but I wouldn't say the agency is under the influence of NGOs (especially not Planned Parenthood--which is where bearbait loses the modicum of credibility he had).
The "let it burn" policy of the USFS is no such thing. Most fire management goes to protect the urban/wild interface--more McMansions built close to public lands the more the USFS spends on fire. Plus, the USFS lost money on most timber sales over time, so the funding that went to recreation back then was mostly a bookkeeping endeavor.
Money that goes to politically -motivated fire management (protecting private property, essentially) should be budgeted for recreation, but the USFS has only a minimal culture of recreation management, i.e., most forest supervisors and regional administrators do not have significant backgrounds in recreation. The mission of the USFS should be adjusted to reflect reality starting with moving the agency out of USDA.
A long time ago I learned the saying figures lie and liars figure was very true. A good accountant or administrator can doctor the figures in picking up garbage and delivering toilet paper look like a cost that is unsustainable or show its true figure which is a fraction of what it is shown to cost in a study done to increase the budget. Most of the Forest Services budget goes to self inflicted enviromental impact studies to carry out the simplest chores such as improving a boat ramp or adding another vault toilet next to a existing one. First the enviromental study,then a engineer, then a archaeologist survey then who knows what else and a series of hearings and meetings and approval passed up the line. When the boat ramp at corn creek on the Salmon river was improved a tent was errected over it for weeks while archaeologists looked for evidence of natuive culture. Now this was where a ramp already was. When asked what would happen to the ramp if something was found I only got a grin and was told then it would have to be relocated shutting down main river raft trips till a new suitable location was found. The forest service is like the rest of our culture blowing money that is not theirs then whining when it runs out. Anyone who has worked for the FS will tell you stories of waste and unneeded work . One thing I agree with is that private enterprise is more effcient than the Government but can we afford it. AS for the fire costs I was told by a retiree that the new policy of relieving fire crews after(I BELIEVE) a couple of weeks on the line as opposed to staying on the job till it was done greatly increased the transportation of crews all over the country to a fire. They had to be indoctrinated before they started and spent little time at the fire. This policy was to give them a break and it also enabled other forests to use up fire money where there were nop fires. I dont trust my memory on the time on the fire that I was told but it was done to give crews more time off and greatly increased the costs.
Comment By bearbait, 3-13-10Why shouldn't private property be protected from fire originating on public land? This urban-wild interface decoy is there because the USFS has to blame someone other than themselves. Incinerating the whole of USFS lands is not what the public wants, that I know of. There are Forests in the West now, that have had more the 50% of their total land base burned in the last two decades. Some of it twice over the same acres. The first fire kills trees, and the second fire burns dead wood. The third fire is the vaunted brush fire we see in SoCal every fall. In perpetuity.
The USFS is all about recreation in 2010. If you look for a 1990 employee who was in timber, you will find him or her in recreation today. Or retired or at another agency. There just not many of them because the USFS is but a shadow of itself when they allowed logging.
The USFS has a small budget because their buddy NGOs get paid for suing them by The Justice Department. EAJA pays like a slot machine, and private contributors pay billions to "protect" the very lands being incinerated. The USFS is charged for their defending their actions. Your recreation money is spent on legal representation, and in time delays and constant re-planning.
Payroll is a big part of running any endeavor. The USFS payroll gets rolled into an accounting system that feeds the layer above it, and the layer above that. Throw out contractors taking care of campgrounds, and you will instantly have more than half of them gated and closed permanently. That is because it takes so many more dollars to have the USFS manage and maintain with their own personnel. In Region 6, campgrounds got closed and combined ranger districts got palaces for ranger stations. The new one at Oakridge on the Willamette NF because radical enviros burned the old one down. Either way, the prior ranger stations had Homeland Security issues, and were unwieldy for a vastly reduced workforce. I wonder if there is even office and work space to have USFS employees managing and maintaining recreation assets.
Saying I don't know what I am talking about is disingenuous as well. The USFS DID NOT LOSE MONEY ON THE TOTAL TIMBER SALE PROGRAM. It lost money in some Regions due to far less timber per acre and higher logging and administrative costs per thousand board feet of timber. Region 6, the PNW, brought in hundreds of millions more than they spent. Any business can point out a spot where money is being lost. But they keep on because they have jobs or synergies that make the whole a better performer. The USFS made money from their timber sale program AS A WHOLE. Now that there is so little timber sold, and the overhead has to be serviced clear to the Chief's Office, there is little cash flow, and not enough volume to pay for overhead. NO money that can be diverted to recreation.
In other words, when the USFS quit harvesting lands that grow a thousand board feet of timber per acre annually, or on lands that grew a quarter of that amount, the timber kept growing and is now a fire hazard. The loss of that timber revenue in Oregon, Washington, California, resulted in a quick depletion of recreation funds across the whole of the USFS. It is one Congressional budget, not an issue of Regional or Forest budgets. The spotted owl was saved, theoretically. In reality, more than half its habitat has been destroyed by fire, most of it in the last ten years. More timber has been killed by fire in the spotted owl forests than had been logged, totally, in the past. There has been a litigated and upheld trade off from logging to fire destruction of the timber. That has resulted in a great loss of money for recreation. If you want more money, get the Congress to budget it. Sen. Baucus of Montana is the head financial dude for the Senate. Harry Reid is the friend of conservation. Evidently, the recreation interests don't have the clout or a compelling case, and therefore inadequate funding for public land recreation.
If you don't like the status quo, you need to prevail on your congressional delegation to adequately fund the USFS recreation budget so that the USFS can do the work. They solved the temp deal for fire fighting by creating a permanent temporary work force. You don't get to work and get paid all year, but you keep your retirement and health benefits during the furlough period in winter. They can draw unemployment. So fire season ends in November, and you ski until spring when they might want you to fight fire in the SW. And like gypsy combine outfits, you work your way north and west all season long. Maybe the answer is a permanent temporary recreation workforce. But it is about the most bang for the buck, and if you take away the private contractors that are there now, you will have less than half the opportunity presently available.
At a very beautiful spot in Oregon, Camp Sherman, on the Metolius River, I stopped at the Camp Sherman Store one sunny afternoon. A half dozen USFS personnel were on their hands and knees examining the lawn on the NW side of the store. It turns out the store is on leased USFS land, and to ensure that the lawn stayed green and worked as a fire break, the store owners were putting in an underground PVC irrigation system. The USFS personnel were archeologists and planners, all looking for the Indian relics and anything that would fall under the Antiquities Act that possibly could be there and excavated in the ditching to place the PVC underground irrigation. IF there were something there, it would have to GPS located, documented, pictures taken, you know the drill. We are talking about maybe 300 square feet of grass. Three rigs. A half dozen Indiana Jones types. And my smart ass question "What 'cha lookin' for? Someone lose their Buzz Lightyear decoder ring?" was not met with any humor. Can you now imagine the process that outfit has to go through to fight a fire or do anything? The USFS has been constructed into a money drain of gargantuan proportions BY CONGRESS. They created the monster, and all they have to do is void all past legislation, and create a new document under which the USFS would operate. That will never happen because there are too many legal firms mining taxpayer money suing the USFS at every attempt to do good, bad or to be indifferent. The USFS cannot win. They are designed for failure by Congress, and are now pros at it. Expecting good from them is a waste of time, effort and treasure. At least the contracting of recreation management, maintenance, and use enables a modicum of opportunity for the public. But, in order to even have that level of opportunity, there is a cost to users that is either met or the gates get locked and improvements shut down or off.
Lots of folks say they don't like how the USFS runs things, but for all intents and purposes, they have to operate in their culture, and that culture rests in Washington DC among the NGO lobby, the Chief's Office, the USDA, the Administration and Congress. If you don't like the status quo, only your Congressional delegation can be a part of changing it. You either stand up or bend over, but either way it is your choice in a representative government like ours.
Bearbite, you should try writing an epic poem like the Iliad or the Odyssey or maybe a novel like Finnegans Wake.
Comment By Bert Stanton, 3-13-10I think an epic lullaby is more appropriate.
Comment By dave, 3-13-10Thanks for the very informative article. I am a senior and much enjoy clean bathrooms and maintained campsites. In no way would I expect someone else's fees to rise to enable them to lower mine. I'll be glad to pay your fees, and will look forward to finding clean spots that we can all be proud of.
Mike: "
The sooner we can get these leeches off our public lands, the better off we will be. " Really????? What rock did you crawl out from under? I don't wish to camp around the trash you leave behind.
I am in the third quarter century of my life and I understood bearbait perfectly well, and what is more I agree with him 100%. EVERY user of the forests should pay their fair share of the cost of maintenance and their useage. I have no problem paying full price to camp, but I do have a problem with having my fees raised so hikers and back country users can have a free ride on my dollar. Environmentalists do not want anyone else using the lands, we harm it somehow by being there, but somehow they should be subsidized because they evidently believe their waste actually improves the land (in their elevated opinion of themselves).
Comment By Todd, 3-13-10Oh by the way Mr. Meyers, a very good explanation of the ture expenses.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 3-13-10Myth: Recreation on public land is a right already paid for by the fact that the land is public. Reality: Recreational use of public land is no more of a right than mining, logging or grazing on public land. Myth: Recreational fees will lead to privatization. Reality: User fees are the fairest and most efficient way to provide the building, cleanup and maintenance cost of providing recreational services. Much fairer than a broad based tax and will not lead to selling off of public land. Myth: Seniors deserve a discount recreational pass at public campgrounds. Reality: The low income public deserves a means tested low income pass regardless of age group.
Comment By Todd, 3-13-10You are right on the money Mickey. We ahve everything backwards including letting those who can spend huge amounts of time off to hike "wilderness" that they have shut ordinary families out of, to have a totally free ride.
Comment By Mike, 3-13-10++Thanks for the very informative article. I am a senior and much enjoy clean bathrooms and maintained campsites. In no way would I expect someone else's fees to rise to enable them to lower mine. I'll be glad to pay your fees, and will look forward to finding clean spots that we can all be proud of.++
This sounds like a commercial. I would advise the moderator to check the IP of this post. Itsounds like a plant.
Todd - Most of the USFS lands are roaded and trailed for your own enjoyement. Also, there are thousands of famileis who enjoy wilderness and hike it together. Many also hunt, fish and raft the wilderness to get away from crowds.
It's important to remember that for years, the USFS was able to manage campgrounds. What private groups are trying to do is get their claws into every aspect of planning and management. They more theycan do so, and the longer they hang on the harder it will be to remove them from the land.
The USFS spends and loses most of its moeny on the timber program. Millions are lost every year from building roads deep in the backcountry that don;t need to be built. This is well documented and proven fact by the CBO. By cutting back on that waste, the USFS could easily fund its recreation system. Instead, they have spread themselves too thin, and the guise of a "private partnership" has cropepd up.
Like I said, I have received numerous compalints of private conessionaires not acepting disabiity passes or senior passes, or trying to rip off the campers. They will also be rude to them once they found out they are not paying full price. A lot of these complaints have come from the Gallatin National Forest consessionairs from Bakers Hole up to Red Cliff. The Xanterra run campgrounds in Yellowstone are a huge sour eof complaints. Funny how I never get a single complaint from USFS run campgrounds in terms of scams or rudneness. Every compalint I get is fomr private consessionaires.
Think Halliburton!
Comment By Hockeyman, 3-15-10It was nice to hear the oter side of a recreation article for a change! Meyer is entitled to his defense of his $$$'s, and bearbait makes lots of good points. However saying that the f/s no longer lets timber get cut, is shear idiocy. The "greens" have sued smokey into oblivion and beyond. I'm certain ol Willy was correct when he said kill all the lawyers. If frivolous lawsuits that lost had to pay the other guys way , then maybe they would think twice about their bottom feeding ways. Keep the debate going!
Comment By Fotoware, 3-15-10The Forest Service is already implementing the plan to close individual recreation sites that don't pay their own way. They have already done extensive financial analysis of individual sites and plan to close the ones that don't generate a profit. We have already seen some of this occurring today. Many Forest Service employees who don't work in recreation want to let the recreation program live or die on its own, secretly hoping that it will fail miserably, resulting in a badly-needed re-organization. The FLAME Act was a step to protect non-fire budgets but, I think fire costs will continue to spiral out of control and less and less people will want to recreate in fried forests.
Comment By Warren Meyer, 3-15-10I don't tend to mix it up in comments sections, but I did want to address the issue of quality. There are certainly private companies who do poor work. There are also Ranger Districts who do poor work as well. And government lands managers who do a poor job of managing their private contractors/concessionaires. I am not convinced private companies do a poor job at a higher rate than does the government in running things. At the end of the day, private companies have two sources of accountability that the government does not have:
1. If visitors hate the place and don't show up, my financials look worse. Again, I don't get paid any money by the government, our company only makes money if visitors think the entry or camping fee is a fair value. Given the way a lot of public agencies work (with revenue going to the general treasury but costs hitting the local budget), public agency budgets often look better if no one shows up!
2. My contracts expire -- in the USFS, they expire after 5 years. If I do a bad job, I am gone.
The campgrounds we run are consistently ranked by visitors as among the best around. Take one site - camparizona.com. Click on their top 10 list for 2009. Campgrounds we have run for over a decade in the Forest Service are ranked #2, #4, and #5. We had three campgrounds on their 2008 list as well. Sunset magazine did a story a while ago about the 50 best campgrounds in the West. It listed only 2 in Arizona, and we ran one of them. The Juniper Springs canoe run, which we operate for the USFS, is often ranked as the best wilderness attraction in Florida.
I encourage you to visit any of the sites we run and make up your own mind (http://www.camprrm.com). If you don't think we did a good job, email me after your visit (I handle nearly every customer complaint in the company personally anyway) and I will discuss your experience and refund your money.
Interesting commentary.
Bearbait is wrong on the Postal Service. They are fiscally independent of the Fed since the early 70's. They contract out some services, like dispatch, and take the lowest bidder generally--not always the best scenario, but typical of government regulated entities.
As far as the Forest Service goes, they have been underfunded since their inception, when they were also grossly understaffed. THE REAL PROBLEM is inherent in the nature of large entities, whether they be governmental or private, ie; the people doing the groundwork get the lesser share of the pie, while administration outgrows its britches, increasing the expense to everyone to the benefit of those who justify their existence by creating more rules that don't connect to overall budgetary constraints or Public need.
However, the Forest Service has a unique mission that does not conform to basic economics. Certainly those who visit National Forests would say that along with appreciating what the land has to give them, they also appreciate knowing cultural history--"this was the site of an pioneer settlement, once the direct wagon route between...." is something that gives future generations an expanded appreciation for the land we all profess to care about, and for.
The FS has a history of being metaphorically castrated by private industry as well as the federal government, leading to why they are heavily regulated now. I can think of no more worthy investment than in a Public agency that oversees land management. If it is privatized, we are sunk. The best thing we can do is to demand that the Forest Service be well funded to provide premier land management, ie; make sure DC "gets it".
Anybody who has ever bothered to study U. S. History at a level beyond the survey will realize that it is like a siphon. Inserted into the taxpayer the siphon pumps money into industries whose expertise at siphoning has been honed since the first contract was signed.
Economics students can then watch that siphon in action to realize how our economy has expanded and our monetary values have inflated.
Actually the PO does get soem special subsidies:
http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2009/09/01/the-post-office-is-subsidized-2/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27513.html
Part of this is due to the very generous health insurance sharing they have forever.
But back to the topic at hand, are you really saying that you believe it is more cost efficient to have campgrounds run by government employees, especially if they are GS 9 or above? I was upset the first time I stayed at a concessionaire run campground, then I saw folks in forest service and park uniforms hauling trash and cleaning toilets, and I wonder how much they are being paid. On top of that concessionaires provide jobs for folks that might not othrwise be able to travel.
The Forest Circus and the other federal land management agencies including the Bureau of Land Mismanagement long ago learned how to stretch their limited funds by exploiting GS-2 & GS-3 seasonal slave labor to do their shit work in exchange for a dream job of working in the great outdoors.
Comment By mochsie, 3-17-10Criticisms are valid, BUT...
what is the answer? Teddy and Gifford didn't do all they did just to make themselves look good, nor did Mather. We need the Forest Service, we just need them to get it right, and our government to understand WHY.
Sour grapes on the health insurance. That's one reason why people go into government employment. Smart. Beats selling the farm to pay ludicrous medical bills
The Forest Service often feels they can teach any temp employee to do any kind of forestry work. Each temp can work 1039 hours out of each year, one hour short of the Feds having to pay benefits and make the position permanent. While natural resource projects get more and more complex, employees are becoming less and less skilled. I worked as a temp for 15 seasons before I finally got a permanent appointment.
Comment By lfehl, 3-19-10Back and forth and back and forth.
Lack of logging in the national forests is not what causes budget shortfalls. Logging is an upredictable source of revenue; it is a global commodity that when you produce too much, (like Tester's bill will) prices fall. When the housing market goes down, demand falls, prices fall. Just becasue you want to log off trees that might catch on fire does not mean anyone wants to buy them.
Here's the only solution: petetion our Congress to appropriate enough budget for these types of services. Stop whining at the USFS...they can't create any more money by themselves.
There is a good point to the impact study that goes on....for example, if a minig operation should be allowed in an area, but just like so many things, it has run amoke with minutia that an army of consultants who study minuta do not want stopped...
petetion our Congress to appropriate enough budget for these types of services. Stop whining at the USFS...they can't create any more money by themselves.
That would entail taxing--the actual third rail of U. S. politics. Comment By Todd, 3-19-10
No matter how you shake it, those who use the forests need to pay for that use, no matter how they use it. Everyone who uses the forests receives a benefit, and the less folks that are allowed to use it, the higher the fees need to be for those who are able to access it.
Comment By Jed, 3-19-10"those who use the forests need to pay for that use, no matter how they use it." Which is why timber should be sold to industry for pennies on the dollar?
Comment By Todd, 3-19-10Wilderness backpackers do not even pay pennies.
Comment By bearbait, 3-19-10Jed is breathing free air and would like others to pay for theirs. This deal about "pennies on the dollar" for Federal timber is just ignorance in America, brought to you by the Enviromental NGOs, who are running out of other people's money to keep themselves going. If all you were doing was buying the timber, maybe so. But there are roads required to be built, and others to maintain, and special logging methods and considerations, and you have to examine the road profile for arrowheads or flint, and don't cut a tree that might be old or just a fast growing kid. Jed, you don't have a clue. Does your mother feed you still, like the Enviros do? Are you taking "smart pills?" Oh, you are and they taste like horseshit? When you figure that out, you will be smarter.
That is really the root of the problem in the USA. We no longer can support government and jobs at the same time. So education is a goal of policy makers that can't interface with a generation of entitlement raised kids. They don't go to school and don't study.
So we export the jobs so government employees can afford America's most comfortable middle class lifestyle. No longer willing or able to withstand the regulation, taxes, work rules, government fraud, directed hatred and frivolous investigations and litigation, American employers quit, and buyers moved to import from offshore leaving a huge job hole in this country which is to be filled by illegal immigrants mowing lawns, selling dope, shining each other's shoes. And is.
A friend's wife was interviewed for a job in a plant lab, raising tissue culture trees. She has a BA in Horticulture, many hours of graduate school, and a dozen years experience. She lost a job with a nationally large nursery due to the turndown in housing and the recession. So she interviewed for a similar job at another less known nursery. And they liked her!! Really wanted her to work for them. How many hours? We don't know. What are the benefits? There are none. No vacation pay, no health insurance, no 401K..nothing. How much does it pay? $12 an hour.
She did not take the job. Her husband got a call from a person in management at the company who told him his wife was missing a great opportunity. He sort of giggled when he told me about it over lunch.
I told him to take out his pen, and on the placemat, multiply 22 days time 8 for hours worked a month straight time. Then multiply by 12 for the wage, and you would have the monthly gross wage before taxes and expenses of getting there, etc... $2112 a month. Before taxes with no, zero benefits. So I told him to call the smart guy and explain to him his wife is a trained scientist, with years of horticulture lab experience. A high school drop out with a CDL can drive a bus for Portland, Oregon and the TriCounty transportation monopoly, a government service, or sweep their floors, or file papers as a clerk, and their fucking health insurance, one of those wipe your ass, teeth, eyes, and total care for sniffles to orthodonture to x number of eyeglasses a year, cost the three involved counties $2200 a month per employee. That is a benefit before taxes. There are no taxes on that benefit. It is a cadillac plan that if you were buying it personally, with after tax income, the Obama Health Care bill will tax you on that plan, but not if you are a union member getting such a plan. Fuck the private sector. Fuck the taxpayers. Unions first government bleeding America. The fare paying bus passenger or light rail passenger is paying less than 10% of the cost of his ride. A tri-county payroll tax and the US Dept of Transportation are paying the rest. All because mass transportation is a liberal wet dream and they are now making the rules and spending the money like drunken poobahs of some third world dictatorship.. And then for some management type to call you to tell her what an OPPORTUNITY she is passing up to work for less a month than a dumber than a dog's dick arrogant fat ass city bus driver gets for free insurance. The final insult!!! I told him to tell her to go get a job at TriMet, the bus company. And tell his friend to put his great opportunity up his ass sideways.
"Wilderness backpackers do not even pay pennies." Nor do they extract anything from the wilderness.
Comment By Jed, 3-19-10Barebate is pimping for woods products. Or maybe just the chamber of commerce.
Comment By bearbait, 3-19-10And Jed is pimping for using other people's money, which is dwindling if not already gone.
If I knew how to do it, I would "pimp" for having a vibrant economy. The antithesis of that is closing in around us, and the results get uglier every day. The little weekly newspaper for my county, which has a segment of Salem on the west side of the Willamette River, had eleven pages of home foreclosure legal notices this week. Usually we run about 5 for the last year or so, and in real tough time before, maybe three pages. In "good" times, it runs a page or less. Even in the best of times, people get in over their heads, I guess. The empty storefronts are not a comfort. If I could "pimp" to have some of them with viable businesses in occupancy, I would be happy to.
The issue with recreation is that the word "accessible" has a lot of meaning and interpretation. Bushwhacking the "wilderness" is a pretty minor league sport to be reserving so much land for so few users. Having grandma and grandpa in a motor home or travel trailer for a couple of weeks in a USFS campground has value. Up the road from me is a three county urban area where literally billions of good tax dollars have been spent to build light rail for commuters. They pay a fare that covers less than ten percent of the operations costs, let alone a peso towards any debt service. It retrospect, it would have been cheaper to buy each daily full time rider an efficient gas using auto, and give them a fuel card for the same amount of money a month they spend on light rail or bus. But the world is about perception, and the perception that going broke as a nation is preferable to being solvent troubles me. And, boy-oh-howdy are we going down that road lickety split (for you Mr. Wire) to hell in a hand basket on that level. A trillion here and trillion there (to quote another former US Senator from Illinois) and it can add up to some serious money. We are now beyond that.
Yes, I would pimp for the Chamber of Commerce. Better than pimp for more government jobs. We have run out of USA "other people's money", so now we are borrowing other people's money in the rest of the world. The vigorish will eat us up.
As for "extracting" value from public lands, why not? If I am not mistaken, a huge amount of our seafood comes from the oceanic commons, which evolved into a regulated derby fishery, and to end that insanity, the Congress and the Administrations have been allocating marine life to fishers based on their investment of time and treasure in the industry and to fishing success on the high seas based on the measurement of annual pounds of any given species landed over a period of years. Sounds a lot more like privatized than the campground cleaners and minders under contract. Not unlike grazing cattle on the public domain for a fee, I don't think there is a royalty or percentage of the catch going to the Feds for their share for policing and doling out the commons. I guess income taxes, boat and fishing registration and annual fees leave little for a royalty or poundage fee. States do collect poundage fees from resources under the Federal Domain and control. Go figure. And the USFS is putting out some "stewardship" contracts, which cover designated acres, some as high as 50,000, with a set of actions, activities, and removals of fiber that have to happen over a period, and you get paid so much for whatever. That is not privatizing the forest, but a stewardship contractor does have some proprietary interest in outcomes and incomes....
So when logging trees purchased from the Feds is demeaned, all the while fisheries, grazing, recreation, mining, oil and other mineral industries continue to serve the American economy and produce natural resources fuel our national economy, I have to take some umbrage at the inconsistency of the argument. Is your going fishing in the ocean and keeping the fish not an extractive, albeit recreational, industry? or 'shrooming in the woods? This deal about it is better to have the forests burn rather than having a tree logged is just plain illogical thinking. But that is legal in the USA. A protected right, your having that opinion. It is ok to be stupid. Just don't talk about it. And don't discriminate against it.