Concessionaires operating campgrounds often complain about lack of support from the Forest Service (FS). Although some of these complaints may be two-faced, we've noticed FS presence at concessionaire-operated campgrounds is significantly reduced (compared to FS-operated campgrounds). Perhaps this is normal given FS responsibilities are reduced to oversight for concessionaire-operated campgrounds.

Assuming lack of support to concessionaires is true in some cases, is this an indicator of the FS level of priority for recreation? Although many of us hear the need for concessionaires is because of the lack of budget and staff, could some ranger districts having campground concessionaires be a way to keep recreation at arm's length. What do you think?

Hi Fred. Couple of questions for you that may help clarify the issue for me.

Does the FS contract with the concessionaires to save money or manpower, or both?

What do you mean by "lack of support"?

It's not so much saving money as it is the FS doesn't have the budget to keep the campground open - hope that's not splitting hairs. Lack of budget also translates into losing staff positions. It could be one or both.

We have been told by some concessionaires the FS is slow in responding to requests, not providing security either through the FS law enforcement officer (LEO) or local law enforcement, disputes between the FS and concessionaire over maintenance/repair responsibilities, enforcement of campground rules, e.g. stay limits (conflicts over eviction procedures/responsibilities if camper overstaying), etc.

Of course, these issues are what we have heard from concessionaires. We have not attempted to substantiate them.

Please elaborate

Not sure to what extent the FS "values" recreation in its overall plan. But would think that it would want to perhaps use the recreation card to win citizens over. The more public support they have the more likely they will be able to obtain funding from Congress. I do not think that the FS as a whole is keeping recreation at arms length. I do think that any FS employee, in the front lines as it were, in this age of budget cuts, lost positions and slim to none pay raises, might be tempted to just let the concessionaiers take care of themselves. Being as I like to see the FS run the campgrounds and not the concessionaire I could not and would not blame them if they felt that way.

I would have agreed, Joseph, until I read the Dombeck memos/letters and the recent article about the proposed Planning Rule in the Good Sam Club Hwys. Mag. See the discussions in the Forest Service Mission Statement topic and the Issues and Discussions forum. I'll be interested in reading what you have to say there.

Do we even have a right to expect the FS to prioritize recreation, even at a low level? I'm reluctant to push them because they may push back with user fees or some sort of access restrictions.