Geezer Pass proposed changes?

[smlobx]

I know that many of us take advantage of the Senior Pass and these proposed changes don’t make me very happy...

https://www.rvtravel.com/seniors-take-bullet-in-parks-pass-proposal/

 

[Wandering Sagebrush]

This geezer doesn’t like that proposal.

 

[ntsqd]

So it costs $80 to get a 50% campsite fee reduction, but only on "base" sites? I presume that to mean sites without hook-ups. I'll guess that the vast portion of the buyers of those passes are looking for sites with hook-ups. I'm left to wonder why not just abolish the program? Is it only about the optics of abolishing the program vs. being able to eventually say "No one uses this program any more, we should quietly stop offering it?"

 

[rando]

The other part of this 'report' that worries me more (selfishly as I am still a ways from geezerdom) is the push to further privatize the services within the national parks. I have several concerns about this:

1. Private companies are in business to make a profit, and the current parks with private concessionaires (think Xanterra Parks & Resorts/Delaware North/Aramark) tend to have many more money make concessions - think lodges, snack bars, boat rentals, restaurants, tours etc. To me this in not what the parks are about - they are an escape from consumerism and industrial tourism. There seems to be a real risk of increased privatization -> increased profit making activities -> increased consumerism and commercialization within the parks.

2. I have definitely thought that once I reach geezerdom, I would consider volunteering in the parks. It seems that many of the park or non-profit run services (information desks, campgrounds, bookstores) are staffed by volunteers, and often these folks are super knowledgable about the parks that they love. The book stores run by the Canyonlands Natural History Association are a great example. I certainly have no interest in volunteering at Xanterra/Aramark/etc run facility where the primary outcome would be my free labor enriching a private company. I can imagine this would be a widely held belief and would lead to reduced volunteerism in the parks, which would drive up costs even further.

Finally, I am not sure how skimming off a layer of profit will in any way improve the current budget shortfalls in the parks?

 

[Kolockum]

Below is the text right out of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. There must be some new modifying legislation because it specifically states that the Golden Age pass is $10.

I also would like to point out that in 1966 the National Parks bicentennial was a huge deal and the government spent millions to upgrade the infrastructure before the big day. In fact a lot of the existing infrastructure still being used to this day came from that spending package. There wasn't any push by the government for the centennial...


16 U.S.C 460l–6a (4)(.a.)

(.b.) RECREATION USE FEES.—Each Federal agency developing, administering, providing or furnishing at Federal expense, specialized outdoor recreation sites, facilities, equipment, or services shall, in accordance with this subsection and subsection (d) of this section, provide for the collection of daily recreation use fees at the place of use or any reasonably convenient location: Provided, That in no event shall there be a charge by any such agency for the use, either singly or in any combination, of drinking water, wayside exhibits, roads, overlook sites, visitors’ centers, scenic drives, or toilet facilities, nor shall there be any such charge solely for the use of picnic tables: Provided, That in no event shall there be a charge for the use of any campground not having a majority of the following: tent or trailer spaces, picnic tables, drinking water, access road, refuse containers, toilet facilities, personal collection of the fee by an employee or agent of the Federal agency operating the facility, reasonable visitor protection, and simple devices for containing a campfire (where campfires are permitted). For the purposes of this subsection, the term ‘‘specialized outdoor recreation sites’’ includes, but is not limited to, campgrounds, swimming sites, boat launch facilities, and managed parking lots. Any Golden Age Passport permittee, or permittee under paragraph (5) of subsection (a) of this section, shall be entitled upon presentation of such permit to utilize such special recreation facilities at a rate of 50 per centum of the established use fee

 

[takesiteasy]

Below is the text right out of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. There must be some new modifying legislation because it specifically states that the Golden Age pass is $10.

I also would like to point out that in 1966 the National Parks bicentennial was a huge deal and the government spent millions to upgrade the infrastructure before the big day. In fact a lot of the existing infrastructure still being used to this day came from that spending package. There wasn't any push by the government for the centennial...

...

Here's some info on the fee change which happened in 2017: https://www.nps.gov/planyourvisit/senior-pass-changes.htm

I'm also not in favor of privatizing the parks. I am in favor of providing sufficient operating funding to maintain the parks properly. There is plenty of money in the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to do it, except Congress keeps stealing the money for other purposes. Here is some information about LWCF if you are interested: https://www.lwcfcoalition.com/about-lwcf

 

[RicoV]

I'm reminded of a fave tune of mine from way back: 'Young Man Blues' by Mose Allison, made famous by The Who in the mid '60s . . .

" But you know, nowadays, it's the old man, he's got all the money
And a young man ain't got nothin' in the world these days, I say, ain't got nothin', got sweet nothin' "

It seems there could be several perspectives to consider . . .

Rico.

 

[PaulT]

+1 even though I certainly appreciate the discount. If one has planned wisely for retirement, one should have larger resources as a seasoned citizen than in earlier stages of life.

And on principle, I want the user of government services to bear the cost of government services.
Charitable organizations should be free to spend their money as they see fit, but money taken from citizens by force should be to the benefit of all citizens.

Like rando, I don't want to see crony capitalists control park usage, management, and development. I have no problem with selected functions being provided by for-profit entities as they can often do so at lower cost and better service.

Paul

 

[rando]

Unfortunately (but maybe unsurprisingly) this is the definition of crony capitalism. Below are the members of the 'Outdoor Recreation Advisory Committee' that suggested these changes. Notice that the committee is entirely made up representatives from the industries that serve to benefit from increased privatization of the parks, and who stand to profit less from Geezers using the parks. The outcome of this 'study' was entirely predetermined, which was the norm during the ZInke era at DOI.

Source: https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1892/made-in-america-rac.htm

 

[Missing Link]

I know that what I am going to say is anecdotal and not particularly insightful but the day I turned 62, I drove to the front gate at Sequoia NP to purchase my "geezer pass." I paid my $10.00 and commented about what a good deal it was. The park employee that I was dealing with said, "Sir, you've paid taxes all of your life and you've earned this privilege . . . . . congratulations." Again, I realize that there is a whole lot more to it than that, but it sure made me feel good!

 

[ski3pin]

We are so blessed with the incredible natural landscapes within our Nation's border. We are also one of the few nations with large tracts of open public lands we can wander through, visit, and enjoy. I fear when these treasures are exploited for private financial gain.

The erosion of benefits related to interagency passes is an short sighted "cure" for issues when as Missing Link says, "There is a whole lot more to it than that."

 

[ski3pin]

It jumps out at me that that this committee put together to help with policy is shockingly almost all private industry. How is the public represented in these discussions?

My perspective is based on personal experience - I served six years (two three year terms, appointed by the Chief of the Forest Service and then appointed to a second term by the Secretary of Agriculture) on a Federal Recreation Resource Advisory Committee set up by the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004. The Committee was mandated to have broad representation from local governments, private sector, and public recreation users. It was my honor to represent Winter Non-Motorized users. When I see the make up of the above committee, I am stunned.

No matter where we may stand with political views, we all should be concerned with one sided representation.

 

[rando]

To clarify, all we have at the moment are recommendations from this committee. There is no word on if the National Park Service will adopt all, none or some of these recommendations.

This committee was obviously stacked in favor of industry, and specific industries at that, so their recommendations are not too surprising.

The worrying aspect of this is that the NPS has already adopted one of the prior recommendations that came out of this committee - allowing e-bikes within the parks and they adopted this without any pubic input. While that may be a slightly less contentious recommendation, let us hope that this is not a sign of the current NPS/DOI leadership will adopt these other suggestions without further more balanced input.

 

[Casa Escarlata Robles Too]

I know that what I am going to say is anecdotal and not particularly insightful but the day I turned 62, I drove to the front gate at Sequoia NP to purchase my "geezer pass." I paid my $10.00 and commented about what a good deal it was. The park employee that I was dealing with said, "Sir, you've paid taxes all of your life and you've earned this privilege . . . . . congratulations." Again, I realize that there is a whole lot more to it than that, but it sure made me feel good!

Yes it IMO one of the "perks" of seniorism here in the USA. ( I've had my geezer card since Oct 2005)
I don't feel bad about the $10 fee I paid for the pass.
I also use my "saved" money on fees to donate to nonprofit groups that support our parks and eco systems.
It's sad to see any "privatization" for our national treasures.
Frank

 

[Smokecreek1]

So what's new guys? This is how things works these days, management by the one percent, and I fear it will only get worse. I just started that new revolutionary war trilogy by Rick Atkinson with book 1, "The British Are Coming." Why did I bring this up in this up in this thread-what was one of the main reasons why we broke from GB and is one of the supposed main foundations of our country "No taxation without representation." A philosophy that is apparently sadly lacking in how our Public Lands are now to be managed. Remember to vote.

Smoke

 

[kmcintyre]

Come on. Can they really do that? I mean they sold you a product with benefits and now they want to change them on you? Kind of sounds like a 'bait and switch' tactic! Lame. They raised the fee (which is fine) but now to reduce the services?

 

[Happyjax]

Time to start writing to our representatives..... They don't read WTW.....

 

[Casa Escarlata Robles Too]

Time to start writing to our representatives..... They don't read WTW.....

VOTE EARLY AND OFTEN
Frank