[hikeaz]

December 2, 2009
For immediate release
Contact: Kitty Benzar 970-259-4616 wsnofee@gmail.com http://www.WesternSlopeNoFee.org

Forest Service To Eliminate Senior and Disabled Camping Discounts

DURANGO, CO - The U.S. Forest Service has announced it plans to eliminate the 50% discount at National Forest campgrounds that has traditionally been available to holders of lifetime Senior and Access (permanent disability) passes. The change will apply at campgrounds operated by private concessioners, which represent 50% of National Forest camping capacity and 82% of reservable campsites.(Hmm.... I wonder who is pushing for this?)

In a notice in the December 1st Federal Register, the agency outlined a new policy that would replace the half-price rule that has been in place since the mid-'60s with a 10% discount. The policy would also require Senior and Access passholders to pay a fee at National Forest day-use sites that are currently covered in full by their passes.

Seniors 62 and older pay a one-time $10 fee for their lifetime pass. Lifetime passes for the permanently disabled are free. Together, Senior and Access passes represent more than 78% of all pass sales.

Under current policy, concessioners are required to honor Senior and Access passes for campground fees under the same terms as if the Forest Service operated the facility directly, meaning that a 50% discount must be offered. Most highly-developed campgrounds are now concessioner-run.

As the concessioner program has expanded over the past thirty years, it has moved away from a small mom-and-pop business model to one dominated by a few large corporations. According to the published notice, those firms brought five specific complaints to the Forest Service: 1) the REA does not require the 50% discount, only Forest Service policy does; 2) the discount is too steep; 3) the 50% discount is non-negotiable and can't be used as a "marketing tool to encourage off-peak use"; 4) as the baby-boomer generation ages, too many people are becoming eligible for the discount; and 5) prices to other campers must be increased to cover the discounts given to lifetime passholders. (So, don't bid on the concession contract - this is the tail wagging the dog)

The bottom line is, it's hurting their bottom lines.

The move is possible only because of changes in the laws that authorize recreation fees on public lands. Until 2005 such fees were governed by the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. That law established the Golden Age and Golden Access passes, entitling the holder to lifetime free entry to National Parks and giving a 50% discount on federal camping fees. In 2005 a new law called the Recreation Enhancement Act (REA) took effect, replacing the previous authority. Under REA, lifetime passes are still offered but the 50% camping discount is no longer required. The Forest Service had, until now, continued the discount as a matter of policy and had required concessioners to do so as a condition of their operating permits. (Thank that Regula guy from Ohio and all the other REA supporters for this change)

The REA specifies that pre-existing holders of Golden Age and Golden Access passes can continue to use them in accordance with the terms they were issued under "to the extent practicable." That means they should be grandfathered-in for the 50% discount as long as the pass is not lost or stolen. But when the new REA-authorized Senior and Access passes became available in 2007, Golden passholders were encouraged to exchange their old paper pass for one of the new plastic ones, and according to the Forest Service many did. Now the Forest Service is claiming that keeping track of different discounts for Golden passholders than REA passholders is "not practicable." (This is rich)

"The Forest Service is not showing good faith by changing the terms of the passes after the fact," said Western Slope No-Fee Coalition President Kitty Benzar. "They encouraged people to turn in their Golden passes, which guaranteed a 50% camping discount, in exchange for an REA pass which does not, without telling them that they were giving up an important benefit. If they can't find a practical way to distinguish between the two types of passes, the only fair thing to do is to continue to offer the 50% discount to both groups."

Day-use sites managed by concessioners will also be affected. Under the new policy, holders of the annual America the Beautiful Pass would be entitled to free entry, but Senior and Access lifetime passholders would get only a 10% discount. This changes current policy which calls for all three passes to be honored equally at day-use fee sites.

The change is the latest in a long series of policy decisions that have transformed recreation on public lands from a public benefit into a market commodity.

"Until 1997, when the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program was implemented, it was government policy that public lands were to be available equally to all Americans, with modest fees only for a few highly developed sites and for entrance to National Parks," said Benzar. "They were one of the benefits we enjoyed as citizens and all supported with our tax dollars. Since then there has been a systematic policy shift. Public lands are now expected to pay their own way in access fees."

She pointed out that under previous policy, offering lifetime passes and substantial discounts to seniors and the disabled was a way of honoring their contributions to our nation and ensuring them access to the benefits of outdoor recreation. "I guess that's out the window now," she said. "No more special honors, no more special breaks. Pay up or stay home now applies to everyone."

Benzar encouraged those who oppose the change to submit comments to the Forest Service and also to contact their congressional delegations. The Forest Service is accepting comments until February 1, 2010 at http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/ ... 6480a60f36.

Congressional contact information can be found at http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov.

[big_load]

Maybe they should push for the elimination of private concessionaires. It disgusts me that access to public lands is determined by the ability of private entitities to make a profit.

[Grasshopper]

...under previous policy, offering lifetime passes and substantial discounts to seniors and the disabled was a way of honoring their contributions to our nation and ensuring them access to the benefits of outdoor recreation. "I guess that's out the window now," she said. "No more special honors, no more special breaks. Pay up or stay home now applies to everyone."

The change is the latest in a long series of policy decisions that have transformed recreation on public lands from a public benefit into a market commodity.

It's very it has come to this and it is also going to be a nightmare and a very frustrating new policy to understand with all the different senior card options now in use. All I really wanted for my 62nd B-day was my F/S senior card so I could now have my "earned" free access to our National Parks and a 50% discount in F/S campsites like Lockett Meadow in Flagstaff, AZ. When I drove to the Mesa, AZ Ranger Station on my B-day in 2006 to purchase this lifetime pass for $10.00, I was very surprised after arriving home and reading the fine print on the back of the card to find that I did not have the 50% discount as did some of my hiking/camping friends who had purchased their card prior to Jan'05. I guess the next thing they will try and take away from us will be the senior discount card no longer available to purchase due to these cards, as Kurt says "hurting their bottom lines". Also, this F/S comment below made by the large corporation concessioners as one of their (the concessioners) reasons for the F/S to change the policy again really chaps my butt..

as the baby-boomer generation ages, too many people are becoming eligible for the discount;

Kurt, thanks for posting and for the comments links attached to you message.

[big_load]

and a very frustrating new policy to understand with all the different senior card options now in use

A workable rule of thumb is that whatever card you have is good everywhere but the places you try to use it.

[hikeaz]

This is another illustration of the myriad disasters that lurk within the 'Fee Demo' web. It ain't gonna get better unless we fight our south-facing ends off.

[azbackpackr]

I dunno. I have mixed feelings about this. I just don't see why some fat cat driving a $350,000 motorhome, complete with dishwasher, washer-dryer, flat screen TV, Wifi, and wet bar, towing a trailer full of ATVs, should get 50% off of anything at all...ever!

I don't camp in campgrounds, usually, especially the fancy ones, so I am just not going to get too excited about this, personally. I think most retired baby boomers can well afford things that some of us working class types can only dream of. I have a lot of backpacking and hiking pals in Tucson, all retired, who can afford trips to Europe and motorhomes and houses in Oro Valley, and golf club memberships and ecotours to Belize, etc., etc.

So sorry... I am not going to go wah, wah, wah, just cuz they have to pay a bit more to go camping! Sheesh!

I'll be 62 in about 5.5 years, and I'll still be poor, most likely. But, I usually don't camp in campgrounds, so it's not much of an issue for me. And all you backpackers, do you really camp in campgrounds all that much? Especially the fancy ones with the showers and hookups, and fat cats in motorhomes??

[citizenbfk]

As most posts so far agree, this lifetime pass (and many Forest Service policies) is -- #1) Confusing, -- #2)Near worthless.

[SuperstitionGuy]

As most posts so far agree, this lifetime pass (and many Forest Service policies) is -- #1) Confusing, -- #2)Near worthless.

Like the government that proposed it!

[azbackpackr]

Dang, I thought my post would start a rousing debate and a lot more mudslinging, since I was sort of bored when I typed it!

[Rob del Desierto]

I dunno. I have mixed feelings about this. I just don't see why some fat cat driving a $350,000 motorhome, complete with dishwasher, washer-dryer, flat screen TV, Wifi, and wet bar, towing a trailer full of ATVs, should get 50% off of anything at all...ever!

I don't camp in campgrounds, usually, especially the fancy ones, so I am just not going to get too excited about this, personally. I think most retired baby boomers can well afford things that some of us working class types can only dream of. I have a lot of backpacking and hiking pals in Tucson, all retired, who can afford trips to Europe and motorhomes and houses in Oro Valley, and golf club memberships and ecotours to Belize, etc., etc.

So sorry... I am not going to go wah, wah, wah, just cuz they have to pay a bit more to go camping! Sheesh!

I'll be 62 in about 5.5 years, and I'll still be poor, most likely. But, I usually don't camp in campgrounds, so it's not much of an issue for me. And all you backpackers, do you really camp in campgrounds all that much? Especially the fancy ones with the showers and hookups, and fat cats in motorhomes??

Ok, you wanted some contradiction here? Here's my short rebuttal.
All of what you said makes sense and is true, but...but even if they are super-rich, if they are Americans, and it is their land too. If they are the only ones who can afford to access our public lands, where does that leave us that are poor/poorer? If we can't afford to visit the lands that we already have paid for and owned? I think it just sets a bad precedent.

[azbackpackr]

Well, make the price the same for everyone. Make the FS have a contract with the concessionaires that has a cap on how much can be charged to camp in a full-service campground, and have the cap be a reasonable amount that young families with little kids can afford, and seniors who are truly on small fixed incomes can also afford.

For me, the one thing I am mad about is the FS keeps trying to slowly do away with at-large camping. In California and some other states they have done away with a lot of it. Of course, at-large camping is not allowed in National Parks, except for backpackers, in some cases. Which is why I have never liked National Parks very much. Too many rules, fees, and too tame.

[dysfunction]

well, that's largely because they were simply being ruined prior to the draconian rule era.

can't say I blame the reaction, but IMO it's largely a knee-jerk one. I still prefer being past the wilderness signs.

[azbackpackr]

Well, you are right, especially re Tuolumne Meadows.

I just wanted to start a debate, anyway!

[Jim Lyding]

I'm ambivalent about at-large camping. On the face of it I think it should be allowed. However, after my trip to Knoll Lake last Memorial Day I can see why it needs to be controlled. The campground was about 75% full, and there were LOTS of at-large camping. There were 3-4 dozen at-large camps between Woods Canyon Lake and the turnoff from FR 300 to Knoll Lake. The road from FR 300 to Knoll Lake had at least 3 dozen at-large camps. That seems fine until one considers all of the unofficial access points (you must camp within 300 yards of the road or something like that) going from the road to the camps, how much wood had to have been gathered for fires (many forests in our fine state need to have wood cleaned up, but the forest needs some wood to be recycled back into the ecosystem), and the lack of control. Lots of gunfire and late-night ATV'ing as well. Of course in that area a huge part of the problem is that it's in Coconino County, and there isn't a lot of county law enforcement in that area because it's in the extreme southeast corner of that county. FTR one is not allowed to shoot cans @ 3 a.m. inside any campground in this state, or keep your neighbors up all night by staging drunken ATV races.

[big_load]

keep your neighbors up all night by staging drunken ATV races.

I'm surprised at the general tendency to survive such things.

[nobert15]

So we went from the campgrounds are charging too much to dispersed camping needs to be controlled???

The camping isn't a problem, it's the people. Maybe if the laws already in place were enforced we wouldn't have to create even more laws to protect us from ourselves. I haven't stayed at an official campground in years and I'd be devastated if dispersed camping was restricted!

[dysfunction]

In response to nobert15:
You'll never change the people.. and there isn't enough money for enforcement. No one wants to fund National Parks fully.. let alone forests.

[joe bartels]

So we went from the campgrounds are charging too much to dispersed camping needs to be controlled?

...almost switched over to scary militia types

[Jim Lyding]

Pretty soon this thread will morph into a discussion about nude hiking or the best Mexican food restaurants in Globe.

[Jim Lyding]

I believe that the folks I've run across from this site (in-person and online) are NOT the problem. We're not gunning our ATVs and shooting cans/bottles @ 3 a.m., but there are a lot of hammerheads who do. There are a lot of issues here:
*Knoll Lake is in the extreme southeastern corner of Coconino County, and there isn't much of a law enforcement presence there. I'm using Knoll Lake as an example, but I'm sure that my ideas apply all over this state. The nearest county presence is based in Blue Ridge, and I'm sure that the deputies there have more than enough to keep them busy on any weekend much less a holiday weekend.
*Coconino may be the biggest county in the entire country (it stretches from 4 Corners to way west of Williams and Fredonia to Forest Lakes), yet the bulk of the population (i.e. tax base) is in Flagstaff and Sedona. I doubt there's a lot of funding to send patrols into the hinterlands so it's easy for miscreants to do whatever the heck they want.
*Any sheriff's deputy who was around Knoll Lake over the Memorial Day weekend would have easily used up his yearly allotment of citations for everything from unauthorized shooting to dinguses driving their ATVs, Polarises, and Rangers with beers in their hands. That deputy would probably also have needed at least 2 paddy-wagons.
*Consider other areas of our fine state. What percentage of resources would a county sheriff have to devote to sending a regular patrol up the Swift Highway? Into the Chiricahuas? The remote areas of the North Rim? Unless there's a large population center nearby there are bound to be people breaking the law with impunity. Look @ the Tonto National Forest: there's a huge percentage of law enforcement devoted to Saguaro Lake, and huge swaths of territory where one can do anything from grow large plantations of marijuana to engage in squatting (illegally living in the forest as-opposed-to the other thing).