National park concessionaires, deeply concerned over what they see as three decades of stagnant visitation to the National Park System, want Congress to authorize better marketing of the parks, longer "high" seasons in the parks they believe would generate more revenues for infrastructure improvements, and expanded concessionaire opportunities in the parks.
Those items were among a list of nine that Derrick Crandall, counselor of the National Park Hospitality Association, recently presented to a House appropriations subcommittee with responsibility for Interior, Environment and Related Agencies.
"Mr. Chairman and Members, I know you would agree that we need to get Americans back in touch with nature, engaged in physical activities and outdoor recreation, and connected to the magnificent culture, heritage and landscapes that are celebrated by our National Park System," Mr. Crandall said in remarks prepared for his appearance before the subcommittee on March 19.
"We need to reach out to youth to encourage them to share in the wonder and enjoyment of our National Parks and discourage the increasingly sedentary lifestyles that are contributing to our health care crisis. We need to expand park visitation to encourage minorities, disadvantaged communities, new Americans and urban residents to see their national parks for themselves and to build a broader constituency for America’s great outdoors. And, we need to find new and innovative ways to reinvest in the maintenance, restoration, and expansion of critical park infrastructure – much of which was built either by private investment when the national parks were first created, or in conjunction with the work of the Civilian Conservation Corps more than half a century ago."
While visitation to the National Park System reached a record 292.8 million in 2014, an increase of more than 19 million from 2013, NHPA officials say visitation has "actually declined if you discount new units added to the system."
The solution? According to NHPA, a range of initiatives should be implemented, including:
* Extend the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act for two years to allow the Park Service to continue to collect fees for entry into park units and a variety of recreational activities, including backcountry usage, campgrounds, and boat launches;
* "(C)ontinuation and expansion of the Centennial Challenge Program. Encouraging non-profits, corporations and individuals to contribute toward important national park programs and projects...";
* Creation of a "National Park Outreach and Promotion Fund," funded by a transfer of 10 percent of the concessionaire franchise fees to "support NPS outreach and marketing efforts in partnership with states, gateway communities and concessioners;"
* Expanding the seasons at national parks, a move that would lead to increase visitor spending and franchise fees for the Park Service. These revenues, coupled with "investment requirements under new concessions contracts and appropriate use of existing Leasehold Surrender Interest" should be used to improve infrastructure in the park system.
"There has been a loss of rooms, of restaurant capacity, of services and of retail space in national parks over two decades, producing a corresponding decline in overnight stays and in the average length of visitor stays," Mr. Crandall told the subcommittee.
* More national park campgrounds should be managed by concessionaires "to improve visitor services and reduce operating costs";
* Concessionaires should be allowed to qualify for "historic tax credits from investments in structures" in the parks, and;
* Programs such as Youth Conservation Corps utilized in Yellowstone and Shenandoah national parks should be expanded across the system to "undertake construction, reconstruction and maintenance projects," possibly at a savings for the Park Service.
During a conversation with the Traveler last week, Mr. Crandall said the concessionaires don't expect the Park Service to "dramatically" expand road systems in national parks, but would like to see facility improvements and additions and believe it can be done without posing a great competitive threat to lodging and dining options in gateway communities.
"We seem to be headed in just one direction (in the parks): No increase, reduce, reduce," he said. "While that may be appropriate for Yosemite Valley, while that may be appropriate for portions of Yellowstone, I think for the park system overall, that's not a wise tactic.
"... I think what we're really saying, there is still an opportunity to enhance the ability of visitors to enjoy their park experience in a small portion of the footprint of our National Park System, and by doing that, just have a more robust experience when they're in the parks," Mr. Crandall went on.
"We're not talking about adding dramatically to the road system of the national parks because people now by and large see the parks out of their windshields. The last thing I would ever say is that that's justification for building more roads. But I would say that when you look at Yosemite Valley, and you have 1,500 rooms, which is down dramatically from what we used to have, and only 800 of those have bathrooms, I'm not afraid to say at some point we should look at how we upgrade those rooms so that 1,500 rooms have 1,500 bathrooms."
How Congress responds to the concessionaires remains to be seen, but Mr. Crandall plans to continue discussions with the appropriate committee and subcommittee chairs and ranking members.
"I'd say we got an enthusiastic level of support from all of the members of Congress that we talked to," he said in reference to his recent appearance before the subcommittee. "And that includes even people on the minority side. They all agree that they want to continue a successful pattern of providing services for the visitors in the parks through private sector investment in things like lodges."
Stories about:
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
The age of retiring may have a shifting playing field but it is relative. My son, at 41 today, will be allowed full retirement benefits at a later age than I was.
"You always could have health insurance without a job."
Tell that to my daughter who was forced into bankruptcy and lost her small business because she couldn't find AFFORDABLE health insurance due to chronic illness from an on-the-job injury.
Thanks goodness for ACA.
In the meantime, concessionaires are seeking more profits while others are whining about small fees for special services in our parks.
Is any of this supposed to make sense?
Lee - I am all for providing insurance coverage for "prior conditions" if someone was previously insured. What I am not for is someone spending hundreds a month on cable tv and an Iphone and expecting me to pay for their healthcare insurance. Or for someone that was running their own business and failed to adaquatly insure themself and now want us to pay for it. The ACA is a disaster.
Support that accusation
re: concessioners seeking more profits. Here are two possible examples from Mr. Crandall's statement above:
"More national park campgrounds should be managed by concessionaires 'to improve visitor services and reduce operating costs'";
"Concessionaires should be allowed to qualify for 'historic tax credits from investments in structures' in the parks..."
Both of those seem to be efforts to increase the bottom line for these companies. Whether concessioner operated campgrounds would "improve visitor services" is subject to question.
Or lower cost and improve services to the vistior. But then there is nothing inconsistent or wrong with wanting to "improve the bottom line" and lower cost and improve services to the visitor.
Nothing wrong with lowering costs or improving service, if that in fact occurred; you just asked for support of Lee's statement that "concessionaires are seeking more profits," so I provided some.
You are right Jim (and lee), they are seeking more profits. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Nothing wrong with seeking more profits as long as it's done fairly and honestly.
And what is your evidence that isn't the case?
As to your daughter, can you explain why we should be paying when she inadequately insured herself whilerunning her own small business?
ec - Making a profit is of course the legitimate goal of any business. That's especially true for any business that is privately owned, on private property. If customers don't like the price, they can look elsewhere. That said, this thread does offer room for some potentially interesting discussion.
Some believe many concessioner-operated facilities (lodging, meals, etc.) are so expensive that many Americans are priced out of the market, and in many (most?) cases those businesses are operating publicly-owner facilities, located on public land.
As in real estate, it's all about location when it comes to rooms or meals in a national park, so to a great extent, these publicaly-owned but privately-operated lodges and restaurants enjoy a monopoly of sorts. There's no comparable view elsewhere to the one from the Many Glacier Hotel, and that view is provided to the concessioner free of charge by the taxpayer.
Under all the above circumstances, should a lesser profit margin be considered reasonable for concessioners in parks as compared to the profit margin for private facilities on private property? I don't claim to have the answer, but it seems worth discussion.
Profit margin isn't the question. ROA and ROI are the issue and there is no reason they should be lower in parks than in private facilities. Why would anyone invest in a park facility is their ROI is less than in a private facility.
A good discussion! You asked two good questions. I think I gave some valid reasons why lower expected ROA and ROA could be defended in park facilities vs. private facilities. However, as you point out, few if any businesses would want to invest in parks if that were the case.
If concerns about prices in park facilities being too high for too many Americans are valid, and if ROA and ROI are part of the problem, maybe we need to find a new business model for operating those facilities:-) Nope, I am NOT suggesting the NPS should take over operating hotels, restaurants, and gift shops, but what if something like a non-profit NGO was available to operate the hotels in Yosemite or Grand Canyon, or.... ? Just tossing that idea out there for fun :-)
Which I don't believe are
If they provided services comparable to a profit org - fine by me. There are few examples where that is the case
Yes, but you wouldn't listen.
Thanks, Jim, for trying to turn the discussion away from the circular path to nowhere and insert some serious points.
Funny, I went to Youtube to look at pictures of the AT and pushed the wrong start button. Instead of the AT, I found some guy trying to sell a fancy lodge in some place called Breckinridge. Sounded like a used car salesman.
Concession problems inside national parks have been with us since Day One. I'll ask again, how much of it is due to Congressional meddling in park management? The reasons are lost not only in history but in a muddle of Congressionally produced tangleations that been pushed onto those awful bureaucrats who have to somehow make it all work without making anyone unhappy.
In otherwords "no" you can't explain why we should pay for your daughter's failure to plan.
Reminds me of a sign I saw in an auto shop. "Poor planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on our part".
Small businesses don't enjoy the massive government tax breaks and other perks provided to the big boys as rewards from Congress to wealthy and powerful donors. When health insurance costs were simply too high to be affordable, there were no viable alternatives. The "disaster" of ACA is that some people got their noses bent out of shape when it was passed despite their best efforts to derail it. There will be one heck of an explosion if Rafael Cruz and his buddies actually manage to repeal it when Americans realize what they've just lost.
Now let's watch you weave and dodge around this explanation. Any attempt to try to talk sense to a used car salesman is futile.
Actually, ec, I couldn't. I have Lupus and Hashimoto's. No insurance company would touch me. Trust me - I looked everywhere and contacted every company I could find. Since you know of a company that would, please let me know. I will need them if republican wonks manage to nullify the ACA.
Thanks dahkota. Some people live in such a deep fantasy world that they've lost touch with the reality others face every day.
OK, travelers, I'll be easing back into the saddle and hoping for a soft landing. Let's please remember to be civil out there...:)
http://www.lupus.org/resources/health-insurance
In the real world, this wasn't hard to find.
This is beyond just funny -- it's pathetic. The Lupus link includes reforms brought about by ACA! Reforms that were not available just a few years ago when an insurance company could write to a small business owner and say, "The recently passed Health Care Equalization Amendment requires that your premiums must increase." [The work of Kyl of Arizona and Hatch of Utah in a blatant attempt to protect insurance company bottoms lines by pushing older people and those with chronic illness off insurance for profit and onto Medicaid. It was one of nearly 1400 amendments added to a U.S. Navy submarine appropriation bill just minutes before it went to vote in the Senate. It was purchased by huge donations from the insurance industry to campaign funds of both Kyl and Hatch.]
In her case from about $300 per month to over $1300. More than the owner of a brand-new uniform shop could afford. How does a small business owner insure the business when the business is the owner and they don't qualify for Medicaid or other help because they own a business? Following bankruptcy and closing the store, she qualified.
That abomination was one of many made moot by ACA.
This is what I mean when I say that profit making should be honest and fair. It should hold for everyone --- big business, small business, park concessionaire, main street stores and Walmart.
But then, I'm an old fashioned conservative. One who still believes in honesty, fairness, compassion and something called the Original Golden Rule. I also try very hard to not turn a blind eye when a neighbor needs a hand. Greed is just not my thing.
And just when you thought the Koch Brothers were the villains comes this reminder from the Seattle Times this morning. . . Who knows? Is Buffett's next takeover target Xanterra?
http://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/the-mobile-home-trap-ho...
Villains come in all shapes and sizes, Alfred. So does greed. Where is Teddy and his trust-busting Big Stick when we need him?
But it appears that the Times must be one of those terrible liberal papers that seeks to demean those who work hard to succeed while praising the lazy people who fall victim to the schemes the hard workers hatch.
Just as people who fall victim to some park concessionaires are too gullible for their own good even if they can afford big prices for poor service.
Actually, Lee, the Seattle Times is a very conservative paper--at least the ownership is. As for Theodore Roosevelt "missing in action," I have often felt that way myself. He showed the robber barons how to make even more money by breaking up the inefficiencies of their monopoly holdings. Imagine the mobile homes Warren Buffett could sell if he charged only market interest rates. At least, it will be interesting to see what he says tomorrow morning on CNBC. And he had better not say I didn't know about it. That excuse is reserved for Hillary Clinton.
Now, how do we connect this back to parks? The founding fathers and mothers of the national park system realized that the parks needed to be regulated, too. Since the parks would generally be single operators, government needed to make some rules. The system isn't perfect, but it sure beats the used car lots we are reading about in The Seattle Times today.
Since Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway has been mentioned: http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/
a reminder that much of Buffett's weath is being donated
to the Gates Foundation and to his children's Foundations.
We would prefer Xanterra to be owned by Buffett's Berkshire
than by Philip Anschutz who has donated to Univ. Colorado
Medical Campus.
Of course it does. It would be a pretty lousy site if it didn't. But note you used the word "includes". It is not limited to reforms brought about by ACA. In other words, there were other insurance options available before ACA was enacted.
You are kidding, right? I am an independent contractor, self employed, no medicare, medicaid or company insurance. I buy my own insurance. Since ACA was enacted my rates have more than doubled with higher deductibles and fewer doctors.
As I said before, I do believe there should be a provision for pre-existing conditions - as long as you had pre-existing insurance.
Tell that to all the people whose insurance was cancelled when they became ill. Tell that to all the people who were denied insurance when they lost insurance due to a job change. Tell that to all the people who are now insured who didn't have a chance before.
All those stories about rates and deductibles doubling may well be fantasies -- either that or the people making those claims need to start looking for other insurance companies. Or perhaps they are just getting a taste of the medicine others were forced to swallow in the past.
ACA is one of the very best things to have happened in this country in a long, long time.
What you say, Lee, and thanks for saying it. It takes heart and courage to open up on the personal stuff. Unfortunately, there are those who take any self exposure as a rhetorical opportunity - like exposing tender neck flesh in a swordfight by pulling back your armor. Those who would go for blood on a personal issue in an online discussion are beneath respect.
After 20 years as a professional nurse and a prior ten years of donating my skills for free I easily qualify as an expert witness on the sad state of comingled medical needs, medical resources, and mercenary opportunism. Fighting to get my patients the care they need and deserve finally burned me out at age 65. Both personally and as an EMS veteran, you know what I'm referring to.
Don't worry about the shameless, like little barky dogs nipping at your heels. Making a nest egg off of the comingled banking and insurance companies at the expense of your fellow co-citizens divests you of credibility as a human being. Ayn Rand died a discredited crank on Social Security, and is a lousy role model, let alone pin--up model.
ACA is indeed one of the very best things to have happened in this country in a long, long time, and if that frosts the bippy of those whose vested interests it threatens so be it. Pay them the same mind you would pay a little barky toothless dog.
Well since two out three of those things didn't happen before ACA I won't have much telling to do but I do believe there should be a remedy for those that had insurance, became ill, and then lost their insurance. ACA kind of does that, but doesn't require having insurance before the illness- a major fallacy . Further ACA has massive other shortcomings. If you think ACA will lead to better healthcare in the future, you are the one living the fantasy. But then the ACA is just part of your great entitlement mentality.
Since the comments on this post no longer are pertinent to the post, we're going to close it down. You can continue your discussion via email.
Pages