The recreation industry, seemingly represented by the American Recreation Coalition (ARC), wants to upgrade and modernize national forest campgrounds. The Powerpoint presentation below outlines what the recreation industry wants from the Forest Service in or near some campgrounds. Some of them, extracted from the presentation, include:

- Proper site design for market today and tomorrow
-— Water/Electric, Sewer and Wi-Fi
-— Cabins/Park Trailers/Rental RVs/Yurts/Tent Rentals
-— In Season On Site RV Storage
—- Campstores and new recreation offerings (disc golf, etc)
—- Easy access to recreation fun – trails, water and more

So, let's talk about this. To start off, please take the poll. Your vote does count; it will be seen by thousands to include the Forest Service and the recreation industry. You can always change your vote later if you wish.

Click here - http://www.forestcamping.com/forum_docs/ARC_Privatization_Plan_2012_Powerpoint.pdf to view the ARC presentation to the Forest Service on June 6, 2012.

My opinion is that the forest service should be disolved and taken over by the BLM. Basically, they do the same job.

As for this proposal. Sounds like dreams of future concessionairs. Hope their dreams don't come true.

Some campgrounds need some repair, possibly to allow for larger RVs. But electricity, running water, and Wifi? Damn, might as well stay home and go camping in the backyard.

I have no doubt that all these new services on federal lands would find a market. The question is whether this would be a proper use of public property, or should that market be served by the private sector? And what happens to all the people who either can't afford the new higher prices or are looking for a different kind of experience? Where are they supposed to go?
The National Forests were not set aside for the profit of either the Forest Service or private corporations. Recreation facilities on the Forests should offer the basics at an affordable price, not be a "me too" of KOA or even the National Parks. Giving our public lands to private companies to use as their working capital is just wrong. The Forest Service has full legal authority to retain campground revenue and use it for operating expenses. Why do they need concessionaires at all?

" Why do they need concessionaires at all?"
My sentiments exactly, when these concessionaires get thier grubby little fingers into the NFS, all they do is whine about how much money they're losing, ( when in fact, they are not losing) they are simply not making as much as they would like.
If they can't figure how much they'll make ahead of time, perhaps they shouldn't bid on the contracts in the first place.
It is however, the NFS that should be horse whipped for knuckling under to these pirates, & giving away our public property.
As far as these new proposals, most of us like the NF CG's the way they are, or with at least better maintenance & a couple minor upgrades, such as water availability at each CG, (not necessarily each site), & perhaps a dump site at each CG.
Most of us go to NF CG's because they are affordable, closer to nature, and do not have all the ammenities being proposed.
I mean, do we really need WIFI in a forest setting, is that what we go there for? RV Rentals, wouldn't one already have rented one BEFORE they got to the CG? RV storage? come on folks. A campstore, why, so the concessionaire can rip us off for even more money?
All I can see this becoming is, the National Forest Service "Postage Stamp Syndrome", higher CG fees=less usage= higher fees to make up for lost income= less usage= and on & on.
There is a thread on the forum Titled, Does the FS really care about reacreation. It would seem not.

this topic is rather upsetting...thanks for the alert, Fred. Agree with the other posts,, an occasional improvement to the entry roads, or upgrade toilets to accessible; some simple maintenance....... concessionaires,: no no no no , wi fi: no no no no...... and it is very nice when large RV's have their own area..... thanks for this opportunity for comments..... pat

Merrill campground at Eagle Lake, Lassen National Forest, is a good example of a concessionaire operated and improved campground. Eagle Lake is a popular fishing destination with a paved highway used for access to the campground. The campground has been incrementally improved over the past 20 years, now providing full hookups at the upper loops, power and water connections within the middle loops, and dry camping at the lakefront loops.

This past year new ADA compliant restrooms were constructed. So it does appear that at least some of the "profits" are making their way back to the campground. Fees are now comparable to commercial parks.

There are a couple of other FS campgrounds within the basin that are operated by the same concessionaire, but have not been improved with hookups and continue to be for dry camping only.

We observed all these campgrounds during the 4th of July and Merrill, the only campground with hookups, was packed with campers, while the other non-hookup campgrounds were noticeably empty.

It appears the "new generation" of campers prefer the niceties of home compared to those of us that would prefer to "rough-it". That is also why a lot more generators get turned on while dry camping, IMHO.

Merrill Campground is a good example of how concessionaire run campgrounds will work. However, I do believe that a lot of different factors must come into play in order for it to succeed:
1. The campground is located near a destination (Eagle Lake) that is visited by a lot of people throughout the season;
2. The campground has a paved highway for access;
3. Sewer, power, and water systems, although upgraded, were existing within the area.

I visit many FS campgrounds that are so primitive that the above example will not work. And personally, I hope it never does. Having a host at these more primitive campgrounds is nice, but not necessary.

In my estimation, SOME FS campgrounds could be improved, but many factors should be evaluated before they get converted.

Another concessionaire run campground at another lake in nearby Plumas National Forest has been able to raise the cost to stay overnight. The fee is now $24.00. Pit toilets, garbage bins at the entrance, hose bibs scattered around, and the sound of generators echoing throughout the grounds every evening is what users have to look forward to.

We do not go there any more.

And there-in lies a large part of the problem, If we wanted all the amenities & commercial park Prices, we would go to commercial Parks.

Another problem I have with this is, that once these concessionaires have laid out the money to "upgrade" all the CG's do you really think you'll ever get them out ? I don't think so, what this amounts to is the USFS "Giving" these CG's to the concessionaires to do what they will & charge what they will. Essentially, the FS campgrounds on public property, will become commercial Campgrounds. Let the FS make acceptance of the Interagency Passes Mandatory, & see if they are still willing to take these CG's.

Good point, bukhrn. Forest Service staff are aware of issues pertaining to removal of "improvements" from a CG. I believe, if the Forest Service buys into privatization, the permit will require the concessionaire to build them in such a manner that provides capability to remove the privately owned property.

Here is my two cents -

f5fstop - BLM and FS are merging in the Pacific Northwest (OR & WA). So, how is that working?

In my opinion, the need for concessionaires-run campgrounds was, initially, a lack of funding for recreation. Now it's a lack of staff devoted to recreation. Who's fault? Probably ours for assuming "our" campground was safe.

Individually there isn't much we can do but collective we can influence the powers that be. (Remember the move to reduce the Senior Discount a couple of years ago?) Let the Forest Service hear from you when you see, find, or experience something you think shouldn't be.

I'm not real happy about campground hosts, I surely don't want to see a campground run by a company on contract with the forest service. I'm probably in the in the minority on my campground host opinion, but my recent experience up on Grand Mesa is a good example of my objection. I fished several lakes while I was on the Mesa and fully half that were populated by so called campground host had the look of an old 50's trailer park. The host's rigs were typically old 70's class C motorhomes with junk piled around to make them "comfortable". At one I stopped to launch my canoe and had what I thought was a homeless person approach me. He ended up being the host and was looking for $3 to authorize the launch of my canoe.

Now I'm no silver spoon high roller by any stretch, but I have seen the same thing before in National Forest.I object to the junk in the middle of my National Forest! Especially when it appears by all indications that the Forest Service doesn't have any standards at all as to who they hire to keep an eye on a campground.

I remember the days when a forest service employee made a circuit and made sure the pit toilets were halfway clean and contained toilet paper, after the weekend a trash truck would come around to collect trash....and we paid $3 a night. Now we pay upwards of $12 to $15 for the same old broken down tables and pit toilet and get to drive by a junky old camper at the entrance.....and occasionally run into a "ricky the ranger" host with an attitude.

Just my 2 cents.....

Mike

Suzi asked:

Don't know how it's working out there, but they tried it first here in Colorado and it ended in divorce.

When we go to a FS CG it is to get "off the grid" and away from the amenities that are being described and added in some cases. We do not go to a national forest if we are looking for a paved, organized camping experience. I like a gravel road and the feeling it gives that we are getting away from "civilization"! I appreciate that many big rigs cannot make the trip on a gravel road with overhanging trees or sharp curves and that leaves more quiet spaces for smaller rigs. I don't expect or even want hook ups...just a water source somewhere in camp and if there are no vault toilets a dump station would be helpful. As far as camp hosts, I like to see them, if they are friendly and doing the job of overseeing the campground. I don't see any need for a whole staff of folks, particularly if they are just keeping to themselves most of the time and not making the rounds. Picnic tables are nice, but we bring our own just in case.

I agree with some others here about the new generation seeming to need all the comforts of home. IMHO they should stay home! As has already been stated, we don't need any more junk in our national forests. Storage, wifi, stores, yurts, cabins...please say NO. There is a place for those things, near the interstate, in a commercial setting, but not in our forests.

I am posting on this forum at Fred's suggestion. We have already priv-
atized many of our FS campgrounds in my humble opinion, we just have
not deeded the property to them. I have been using FS C/G's since my
father worked for the FS from the late '50's, first with my parents. I have been a primary user since the early '70's and as was stated all that was
needed to have a viable and enjoyable visit was the local FS ranger to
drive through a few times during the day to see that everyone was registered and had paid for their site. My experience with most camp
hosts have been positive, probably 90% so, but as stated in my previous
post under "concessionaire obligations" it is the negative actions of the
few that leave a bad taste. My personal opinion is that ALL the FS CG's
could and should be manned (camp hosts) by volunteers, not by a corp.
that has one goal in mind...maximize profits. Ihave traveled long distances
and arrived at 3 different FS C/G's over the last 2 years only to find the
concessionaire (RRM) had closed them up to 2 weeks earlier than the FS
website stated they would be open. Frustrating. Who is in charge? The
FS issues the contracts so why would they allow the contractor to not
keep the C/G's open? I would bet that they were not penalized for the
early closures or they would not do it. Like I stated earlier they literally
laughed when I stated that the FS said the campground would be open for
anothe 2 weeks and stated and I quote "...the FS doesn't tell us what to do, we tell them." Nice.