Suburbia in our National Park Campgrounds

Is suburbia really what we want for our national park campgrounds? The “Made in America” Outdoor Recreation Advisory Committee thinks so. Recommendations in their final report to the Department of the Interior call for “improvements” such as food trucks, Amazon deliveries and glamping.

I know that there are plenty of NPS campgrounds that are already practically suburbia. Campers are packed into tiny spaces like travelers flying economy, with no room to stretch their legs and no privacy.  I’ve endured those campsites a time or two. A food truck probably wouldn’t make much difference in some of those places. There’s nothing wild left anyway.

But there are others – secluded “primitive” campgrounds where your neighbor is not breathing down your neck. Campgrounds where you can hear owls hoot or coyotes sing, and can still see the stars instead of the lights from your neighbor’s RV. I’ve stayed in some of those campgrounds, too, and loved them.

That is what has me so worried. This report targets those poor, primitive national park campgrounds that are so very, very far away from gateway communities. Campgrounds that can still give a visitor an experience they won’t find at home. It says right in the document  “especially in park units with low levels of visitor services that now limit public use.”

It’s all a roundabout way of selling off our public lands to the highest bidder. No one could say that this committee was fair and unbiased, or that it did not have a very obvious agenda – the great god profit. Just look at who the people on this committee are and who they represent.

The Committee

• Bill Yeargin, President and CEO, Correct Craft – They make motorboats.
• Derrick Crandall, President of the American Recreation Coalition – This is a Washington lobbying group promoting the interests of the motorized recreation industry – snowmobile manufacturers, boat & engine dealers, the motorcycle industry and RV parks and campgrounds are some of their clients.
• Ben Bulis, President and CEO, American Fly Fishing Trade Association – they make fishing gear.
• Bruce Fears, President, ARAMARK Harrison Lodging – Park concessionaires.
• Brad Franklin, Government Relations Manager, Yamaha Motor Corporation USA – they make motorcycles and ATVs.
• Antonio Gonzalez, Head of Operations, Erwin Hymer Group North America – a camper van manufacturer that went into receivership in July due to “certain financial irregularities” .
• Jeremy Jacobs, Co-CEO, Delaware North – another park concessionaire
• Chris Maloof, Former Senior Vice President, Product Management,  Rogue Wave – Listed as a representative of camping, recreational and/or all-terrain vehicles interests on the committee.
• Phil Morlock, Vice President, Government Affairs and Advocacy, Shimano North America Holding, Inc./Shimano Canada Ltd. – They make bike and fishing gear.
• John Morris, Founder and CEO, Bass Pro Shops – Outdoor retailer
• Patrick Pacious, President and CEO, Choice Hotels International, Inc. – Hotel business
• Jim Rogers, Former Chairman and CEO, KOA (Kampgrounds of America) – These guys are the kings of RV campgrounds. They are the largest privately owned campground business in the world.
• K.C. Walsh, Executive Chairman and majority owner, Simms Fishing Products – They make fishing gear.
• Linda Craghead, Director, Facilities Division, Kansas State University – Ms. Craghead is the token committee member who does NOT represent a private business. In her former roles with the Kansas State Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism, she earned a reputation as an exceptional marketer for the state’s parks and tourism opportunities.

  

Who is NOT on the committee

This is not a balanced roster. Many important stakeholder groups have no voice. Some of these stakeholders include non-profit organizations already involved in service projects for the parks, whose members are frequent visitors to national park campgrounds, from the Boy Scouts to the Sierra Club. It does not include in its long list of outdoor recreation manufacturers any of the businesses who service a clientele endeavoring to leave a lighter footprint on the land, such as REI or the Outdoor Industry Association This committee is a gang of good old boys and motorheads pushing their personal agendas, and our parks could be the losers.

The “studies” quoted as the source for their consensus on modernization were actually conducted by KOA. This is not exactly a fair and unbiased source. In fact, it represents a conflict of interest.

Undermining the National Environmental Policy Act

Usually, when a national park proposes to undertake a major project, such as building a new campground or substantially changing an existing one, they have to give the public time to weigh in. They hold meetings locally. They open the project to public comment so that all stakeholders have a voice.

Every national park is unique, and so is every campground location. What works in one park may be all wrong for another.

The committee would like to subvert this process. Recommendation #3 states “Multiple operational models for campgrounds can be identified and communicated to park units, along with information that would expedite any NEPA-related reviews. Key to this would be “categorical permissions,” covering key campground components …”

On the Fast Track

They’ve also put these projects on the fast track. Their document states “The lessons learned with near-immediate operational changes in national parks can be then replicated for other Interior bureaus …”

How near-immediate? Recommendation #2 – “A Secretarial challenge can be established and implemented by December 1st, 2019. “That’s pretty damn near immediate.

Food trucks are only the beginning. In last year’s letter to the Secretary of the Interior, the committee strongly urged a more open attitude towards motorized vehicles and drones, without even a nod to the possible infringement on other visitors’ right to privacy or a natural soundscape. They don’t seem to realize that people go to national parks to commune with nature, not their neighbors or their neighbors’ toys.

Any good suggestions?

I don’t disagree with all of the committee’s conclusions. More group campground sites for extended family groups? That’s an excellent idea and will help the NPS build a more diverse audience. Showers in the campgrounds? I enjoy this in some state parks I’ve visited. In a few locations it would be a great idea. However, many of our National Parks in the arid West really don’t have the water to spare and should be teaching people to conserve, not consume, scarce resources.

Another recommendation by the committee leaves me with mixed feelings. They propose blackout periods at peak times for seniors taking advantage of the half-price camping offered with their Golden Age passes.

I understand that this makes economic sense. But blackout periods for seniors and raising campground prices for “improvements”, that many campers would prefer to do without, marginalizes people with lower incomes, including many seniors.

Personally, it kind of chaps my hide, because I become eligible for half-price camping in two weeks. I’ve been looking forward to it, and as soon as I can get it, they want to take it away. Guess I’m a day late and a dollar short as usual…

What does the NPS think?

What does the NPS think of this report? No word yet. But there are guiding statements that should influence the Park Service point of view. One of the strategic goals listed as an NPS priority in the NPS Deferred Maintenance 101 presentation is “eliminate non-essential development in parks in order to emphasize the parks’ natural and cultural significance.”

And of course there’s that statement the whole NPS mission is built on, the founding statement in the 1916 Organic Act – “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations”.

I sincerely hope the National Park Service will keep its mandate in mind when they consider the suggestions made by this blatantly special interest dominated advisory committee.