Please Re-Register To Access All Our Forums New Features on RV-Living Forum
Post all your RV questions or comments on RV Forum
Here we go....... again....
http://rvdailyreport.com/campground/changes-to-nps-fees-seek-to-sustain-funding/
Opportunity, perhaps but I'll believe it when some activity on the issue takes place in Washington DC.
Perhaps this might be a GREAT OPPORTUNITY to re-invest our tax money in America, rather than sending billions overseas. I believe that these great values to our future generations were to be tax funded not user funded. Protected by OUR GOVERNMENT. Am I missing something here?
Safe Travels!
It's also been suggested that the US just turn all public lands over to the states to manage. Wouldn't that "save" the most?
It's also been suggested that the US just turn all public lands over to the states to manage. Wouldn't that "save" the most?
It might save the Federal government money, but I am not sure the states could run things all that much cheaper. Labor rates may be lower or higher depending on the state. Many states already charge entrance fees and the camping fees are generally higher than for non-concession Park Service campgrounds. Most states do not give discounts to non-residents, so things like the senior pass that many on this forum hold sacred might be gone for all but residents of each particular state.
We are really talking about peanuts when talking about the Park Service budget. The 2016 appropriation was $2.851 billion of the $3.95 trillion federal budget. That's less than 0.08%. The Park Service budget is less than the budget of Austin, TX and many other cities. It is less than the $4.309 billion budget for the House of Representatives and Senate combined and far less than the $660 billion in Affordable Care Act health insurance subsidies.
Another funding mechanism that has been suggested over the years, is the institution of an excise tax on all camping, hiking, outdoor recreation equipment and RVs, ATVs, etc. similar to the ones on fishing tackle, firearms and ammunition. This proposal has met opposition from some in the recreation industry and some user groups. When it comes down to it, nobody wants to pay the bills through taxes even though the approximately 50% that actually pay federal taxes already are.
I doubt that politicians will want to give up their control of the Park Service budget, because it is one of the ways that they can tell their constituents, look what I did for you by getting funding for X,Y,Z at your local National Park.
Edited October 16, 2016 by TCW
It might save the Federal government money, but I am not sure the states could run things all that much cheaper. Labor rates may be lower or higher depending on the state. Many states already charge entrance fees and the camping fees are generally higher than for non-concession Park Service campgrounds. Most states do not give discounts to non-residents, so things like the senior pass that many on this forum hold sacred might be gone for all but residents of each particular state.
In the total scheme of things, I believe that the federal agencies are a better choice of land management of our national parks and also of most other federally controlled lands but I do think that some combining of agencies would save money as well as improving the management of those lands and facilities. An example is the federal lakes in the US are managed some by the COE, some by Bureau of Reclamation, others by the TVA, and one or two others. Most all of those lakes have parks on them which are each managed by a different agency and with different regulations. There are many other examples.
Part of the issue for the NPS and for most other federal parks is what happens to money taken in at the gates and how that money is to be distributed as well as any additional money from public taxes. In general the larger, more visited parks revenues are used to subsidize the low receipts of smaller, less used parks. So who chooses where this money is to be used and how? The senior pass allows we older citizens to get into parks free and to stay in campgrounds for half price, so can the parks afford that benefit, or is it time for us to contribute? What about increasing user fees, or does that prevent use of parks by poor families unfairly? And what of special rates for kids groups like Boy & Girl Scouts? If we are to have parks, someone has to pay the bills.
Another issue is the use of volunteers, like RV folks. Each time that a job is filled by one of us, doesn't that take away a position from the career park employees? Is that really fair, and should volunteers then be taxed on the value of any benefit the park supplies to them? Park budgets are not a simple issue and you can rest assured that anytime that politicians of any level get involved the issue will get even more complicated.
I doubt that politicians will want to give up their control of the Park Service budget, because it is one of the ways that they can tell their constituents, look what I did for you by getting funding for X,Y,Z at your local National Park.
That is also part of the problem as Congress also fights to put spending in the more influential member's districts, often ignoring the real needs of the parks and the agency that manages them. A former Yellowstone Park financial officer once told a group meeting that one of the problems that park has is that it is located in an area with so few voters that Congress wants to spend their money in more influential districts.
The same would apply to the bureaucrats if you were to try and combine some of the federal agencies that manage our lands & lakes, or to move them from one agency to another. One example of this is that the COE is a part of the US Army and they don't want to give up their lakes because each COE district provides an easy duty station for another Colonel or above. They want to protect the number of senior positions!
...In the total scheme of things, I believe that the federal agencies are a better choice of land management of our national parks and also of most other federally controlled lands but I do think that some combining of agencies would save money as well as improving the management of those lands and facilities. An example is the federal lakes in the US are managed some by the COE, some by Bureau of Reclamation, others by the TVA, and one or two others. Most all of those lakes have parks on them which are each managed by a different agency and with different regulations. There are many other examples...
While recreation is currently an aspect of the land management agencies you mention, their original missions are different. The Corps lakes are mostly for flood control, The Bureau of Reclamation's mission was to promote economic development by providing power and water in the Western states. The Tennessee Valley Authorities primary mission is to provide electric power. There is somewhat of a trend within the Corps to have the lands and recreation management managed by other agencies. For example, recreation and land management at Santa Rosa Lake, NM is managed as a State Park. The dam is managed by the Corps. At Kanopolis Lake In Kansas, some of the campgrounds are managed by the state park system and large tracts of the land are managed as a Wildlife area by the state.
...Part of the issue for the NPS and for most other federal parks is what happens to money taken in at the gates and how that money is to be distributed...
The current law, the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, requires that 80% of the fees collected be spent at the facility where they are collected. The other 20% can be redistributed by the agency.
Edited October 16, 2016 by TCW
. At Kanopolis Lake In Kansas, some of the campgrounds are managed by the state park system and large tracts of the land are managed as a Wildlife area by the state.
Interesting choice... Kanopolis State Park (the first Kansas state park) is one that I used to spend time at with my family when I was a boy growing up there. I had forgotten that it was a COE lake. 
Just sharing below updated information for all of your kind reference.
Please note NPS has announced via email on AUG 9, 19, as the cua program implementation for road based commercial tour operators has been postponed till April 1, 2020.
I think that if the parks spent their money on maintenance and park improvements that it would go a lot further. They need to stop adding land until they catch up on the maintenance backlog. And some improvements would generate revenue in my opinion, like converting campgrounds to FHU and charging higher camping fees. And adding more campgrounds.
To get this done they need to kill those irrational environmental and archaeological studies that they do before every minor improvement. Like requiring those studies before they run a new sewer line under an existing road to a bathroom. That was reported by one park management company. And that killed the bathroom fix.
Some return of lands to the states would also make sense, I'm talking about BLM and NF lands not parklands. A look of the history of Yellowstone would show why giving that to the states would be a mistake. But lots of BLM and NF land is just leased out to ranchers. Why do they need federal protection to do that?
Here's a good explanation of where the park entrance fees go - 80% of money collected.
https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/fees-at-work.htm
Having volunteered in national parks we saw first-hand how short of money our parks are. They are constantly having to make decisions on what needs attention first. They can't rely on budget money. The general public has absolutely no idea how much money it takes to keep these parks running. They want the things they see to be there for their use but there is so much behind-the-scene that needs attention, also. For instance, Grand Canyon's water supply which visitors take for granted is constantly breaking and being re-patched because of lack of funding. Also, having volunteers doesn't takes the place of paid employees. If not for volunteers the things they do just wouldn't get done. Volunteers do the 'extras' that employees have no time to do. The parks are severely underfunded.
They need to stop adding land until they catch up on the maintenance backlog.
The NPS does not add land or get rid of it. Congress is who keeps adding more land and locations to the NPS responsibility and they nearly always do so without any improvement in funding.
To get this done they need to kill those irrational environmental and archaeological studies that they do before every minor improvement.
Those studies are mandated by the same Congress via the environmental laws that they pass.
Some return of lands to the states would also make sense, I'm talking about BLM and NF lands not parklands.
Which would require an act of Congress.
Having volunteered in national parks we saw first-hand how short of money our parks are. They are constantly having to make decisions on what needs attention first.
Sad but true and that same thing is true of many other agencies such as the USFWS who cares for our wildlife refuges, the COE parks managenemt, pretty much all park management agencies.
Leave a reply
