What's this BS! Cook Lake cg, Black Hills NF, charges $2/per pet/per night! Concessionaire operated, YES.

We have seen this in some private CGs and motels, but until recently, never in NF/NG CGs. This is but another indicator of privately-managed NF CGs trying to emulate the way it's done in the real world - private industry.. And, the Forest Service is letting it happen. Is this [concessionaire-operated CGs] the sacrifice we must make for campgrounds to remain open - at least, that's the threat? By permitting concessionaire-operated CGs, does this mean the Forest Service really does care about recreation? Is this topic loaded - yes.

Our "kids," below. $4 per night. Guess we should sell them to a concessionaire

Are we biased? Not a chance!

Okay Fred, I see they touched a nerve. It appears it's all about money.

I don't want to veer off topic, but I had a chance to talk to the concessionaires operating within our local national forests and found something rather encouraging.

The Forest Service is allowing the concessionaire to put their profits back into the campground. If the concessionaires don't spend it, it goes back into the federal budget. Locally new ADA bathrooms are being installed, as well as new picnic tables and fire pits. Haven't seen improvements like this ever.

But specific to your issue, the cost of "poop bags" must have REALLY increased.

Happy to hear about concessionaire-funded CG improvements. Maybe the word will spread to both concessionaire and FS. We'll be meeting with FS staff in a variety of locations in the next few weeks - think we'll pursue the pet subject and see what responses we get.

Charging for pets - the person(s) who came up and approved that idea are obviously on drugs. I'm sure it is to cover the cost of the person that digs thru the vegitation on trails to pick up after owners who are not carrying bags!



Next thing you know we'll be charged for the amount of ashes left in the firepit.

When I finally retire from the Corp work world, one of my goals is to work with the NFS / NPS. I can just imagine me trying to keep a straight face while explaining the tax on dogs. !

We just finished re-researching campgrounds (CG) in the Black Hills NF in South Dakota - you know, Mt. Rushmore. The concessionaire is Forest Recreation Management (FRM) out of Hill City, SD. A few days ago, we had lunch with staff from the Forest Service (FS) supervisor's office and FRM. The lunch was cordial and remained so even when we brought up the pet fee issue.

All developed CGs in the Black Hills NF are operated by FRM and have been for the last 13 years. It seems, with FS approval, FRM implemented the fee because of disregard to the "leash law" and several attack and bite incidents by dogs. According to them, the objective is to discourage campers from bringing their dog(s) into a campground. Further, according to FRM, the majority of the incidents were caused by dogs owned by local campers. We strongly disagreed with the policy and implied that the luncheon was not the end of the discussion.

Rather then our discussing the issue further in this reply, we are in the process of preparing a paper objecting to the policy and requesting it be rescinded. It will be addressed to the Black Hills NF, FS Washington office and FRM. To help us ensure we don't miss any salient points, it would be most helpful if you all would continue weighing in now with your thoughts on the matter here on this forum. We will also be implementing a Facebook discussion. The paper will be published here when completed. And, please, if you agree with the policy, sound off.

Well, at least they appear to understand the concept that higher user fees will reduce use.

"korbe" wrote:
Well, at least they appear to understand the concept that higher user fees will reduce use.
---
IMO, charging a "pet fee" will accomplish nothing except to annoy pet owners, responsible and otherwise; a fee, unless it's a significant amount, will do nothing to discourage locals or anybody else from bringing their dogs to a campground.

Higher user fees, implemented for whatever reasons, are seldom a deterrent to people doing what they want to do; I would bet that very few will do much but whine and complain - while they're pulling out their wallets to pay the fee and bring their dogs into the campground.

goseedo: My statement was a little tongue n cheek regarding raising fees in general.

My sarcastic mind works like this: The gov't wants to raise revenue so they increase fees. Consumers use it less because of the increased cost. So they raise the fees some more because of the lost revenue. Example: Postage stamps.

Just learned, while talking with Pawnee NG folks, the cost of a "off-leash" ticket has gone from $25 to $100. I would think one of those tickets would be more effective than a $2 per pet per night fee, wouldn't you?

I follow your reports on the National Forests and Grasslands with great interest. The energy, devotion and love you demonstrate to these wonderful resources of ours is inspirational.

Your report on the Black Hills NF charging for pets is one more example of additional fees being added on to everything we do. It is my feeling that much of this is due to the concessionaire looking for ways to add additional funds to their pockets. Not unlike the attempt to reduce the senior/disabled discounts last year.

Charging for pets is TOTALLY unacceptable. And the reasons/excuses you were given are an insult. This is contradictory to the freedom we all enjoy when using OUR lands.

Count us in on any effort to have this FEE/TAX recinded and to nip in the bud any spreading of the concept to other unethical forests.

Jerry and Dee Thomas

Thanks Jerry and Dee for your comments. I've got the first draft to the concessionaire and FS about half finished. The national grasslands we are researching now are taking a ton of positive time and may not get back to the letter until we get off the road mid-October. Figure we've got a little time since the FS doesn't start making decisions about CG fees for the upcoming season until Jan/Feb. In the meantime, maybe they'll be some additional comments.

Suzi, you get my vote," punish the offender, not everyone", the excuse of excess dog poo is full of crap, no one picks up after my little guy, but my wife or I, and it's not about a lousy 2 bucks, (Va State Parks charge $5) which is another reason we don't use them.
This whole thing smacks of the same BS that they tried on the Seniors & Disabled. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but it sure seems sometimes like the FS is in somebodys pocket.

Bukhrn - you should know this is not about dog poo. It's about local dogs allegedly attacking people. The idea about charging is to reduce the number of dogs in the campgrounds. According to the concessionaire, it's working.

Then shoot the local dogs, why punish everyone, & of course they say it's working, they have to justify it somehow.

I don't know about shooting the dogs, but as previously stated, this is a law enforcement issue and we believe, should be dealt with that way. We understand if ticketed by the Forest Service, the fine is $100. Seems like a few of those might significantly reduce violations.

You should know that we have been discussing this matter with the Washington office (WO). They were not aware of the pet fee charge and are looking into it; they seemed concerned. I'm sure we will get a response soon and if not, we will press the matter further when we meet with the WO this summer.