Forum Index > Trail Talk > Rec.gov
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Skookum Bill
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Sep 2010
Posts: 33 | TRs | Pics
Skookum Bill
Member
PostWed Feb 01, 2023 9:14 pm 
How do other readers feel after reading this article about Rec.gov? https://www.outdoorproject.com/articles/no-recgov-doesnt-fund-public-lands

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16088 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostThu Feb 02, 2023 12:09 am 
Simply Rec.gov is the outdoor equivalent of Ticketmaster.

"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn

JimmyBob, rossb, Bramble_Scramble, zimmertr, fourteen410
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Cyclopath
Faster than light



Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 7694 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Cyclopath
Faster than light
PostThu Feb 02, 2023 10:42 am 
Public land belongs to everybody by birthright. Lucky, you have to pay some random company to use your own property. There's no good reason for this giveaway.

pula58
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
schifferj
Member
Member


Joined: 07 Mar 2015
Posts: 224 | TRs | Pics
Location: 509
schifferj
Member
PostThu Feb 02, 2023 11:20 am 
Not much in the article that I was not aware of. What I find deplorable about the whole rec.gov system is having to compete for a campsite at an NFS campground in North Idaho SIX months in advance of when you THINK you might want to go. As the article indicated you "hover" over the "Add to Cart" button and try to press milliseconds before 500 other folks to get a site. If you are lucky enough to get one and then six months later you change your plans the cancellation costs you the $8 to get the site in the first place. Then they charge some other lucky individual another $8 to register the site. I won't even address trying to get a permit to The Enchantment Lakes.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
hbb
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Aug 2009
Posts: 402 | TRs | Pics
hbb
Member
PostThu Feb 02, 2023 1:23 pm 
Skookum Bill wrote:
How do other readers feel after reading this article about Rec.gov? https://www.outdoorproject.com/articles/no-recgov-doesnt-fund-public-lands
The article is over 3 years old, and gets linked in just about every thread complaining about reservation fees. It's not getting more compelling with age and repetition, if that's what you are asking.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
uww
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2015
Posts: 317 | TRs | Pics
uww
Member
PostThu Feb 02, 2023 5:26 pm 
Cyclopath wrote:
Lucky, you have to pay some random company to use your own property. There's no good reason for this giveaway.
If the executives from Booz Allen Hamilton were not making such huge salaries, they would probably not attend as many charity galas.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Luc
Member
Member


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 1674 | TRs | Pics
Location: accepting wise-cracks like no other
Luc
Member
PostFri Feb 03, 2023 12:34 am 
I've been hovering over that button, competing with those 500 others every morning for a while now. It's now part of my morning routine.

GNGSTR
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Cyclopath
Faster than light



Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 7694 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Cyclopath
Faster than light
PostFri Feb 03, 2023 7:46 pm 
The website recreation.gov isn't very complicated by today's standards. It would be much less expensive for the Department of the Interior to hire the people and IT infrastructure to provide the same permitting function. It doesn't require any specialized skills or capabilities, there's no benefit for the public in giving this over to Ticketmaster of the Woods.

rossb, zimmertr
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
kiliki
Member
Member


Joined: 07 Apr 2003
Posts: 2310 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
kiliki
Member
PostFri Feb 03, 2023 8:44 pm 
Cyclopath wrote:
The website recreation.gov isn't very complicated by today's standards. It would be much less expensive for the Department of the Interior to hire the people and IT infrastructure to provide the same permitting function. It doesn't require any specialized skills or capabilities, there's no benefit for the public in giving this over to Ticketmaster of the Woods.
There are countless instances like that, where actual employees would do the job better and cheaper than a contractor. But the trend toward smaller government has been going quite a while now, and these contractors make political donations. Maybe we should consider ourselves lucky that while we have a contractor running the reservation site, the NPS still operates the campgrounds. (I can think of instances where the USFS had outsourced this though). Zinke tried to change that--remember when he, after lobbying from the RV industry, said, the federal government shouldn't be in the business of running campgrounds? That's probably something we will deal with again in coming years. In case anyone forgot about that: https://rvlife.com/privatizing-national-park-campgrounds/

kw, rossb, vogtski, Cyclopath
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
vogtski
Member
Member


Joined: 03 Dec 2022
Posts: 47 | TRs | Pics
Location: Waitgate WA
vogtski
Member
PostMon Feb 20, 2023 11:32 am 
Lawsuit against rec.gov seeks class-action status: https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2023/02/lawsuit-alleges-recreationgov-cluttered-junk-fees-seeks-refunds

Diagonally parked in a parallel universe

Anne Elk, kiliki, bccarlso, JimmyBob, Schroder
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
freshstart
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Mar 2022
Posts: 3 | TRs | Pics
freshstart
Member
PostTue Feb 21, 2023 11:09 am 
vogtski's article says wrote:
$1 application fee for all lottery applicants to view fireflies at Great Smoky Mountains National Park
Laugh? Cry? Hard to decide. Layers of insanity - charge a fee to enter a lottery, for a chance to watch fireflies. Better hurry before they realize they are able to squeeze more blood from those stones than just $1. Sadly surprised they haven't set their standard $10 nonrefundable application fee already.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
vogtski
Member
Member


Joined: 03 Dec 2022
Posts: 47 | TRs | Pics
Location: Waitgate WA
vogtski
Member
PostTue Mar 14, 2023 2:07 pm 
Diagonally parked in a parallel universe
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Cyclopath
Faster than light



Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 7694 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Cyclopath
Faster than light
PostTue Mar 14, 2023 4:16 pm 
vogtski wrote:
Unsurprisingly: https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2023/03/booz-allen-seeks-dismissal-recreationgov-lawsuit
Well, this is at least partly right: Plaintiffs’ claims thus attack the conduct of the U.S. Government—specifically, the way in which the federal government manages access to federal lands. Giving this to a private, for profit company instead of just doing it, was a huge mistake on the government's part and we outdoor enthusiasts are paying for it. I like the part where they say they're innocent but can't explain why: "Booz Allen is paid by the government in accordance with the terms of the contract," she wrote, without divulging the financial terms of the contract. Gotta have priorities.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
hbb
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Aug 2009
Posts: 402 | TRs | Pics
hbb
Member
PostWed Mar 15, 2023 1:35 pm 
Cyclopath wrote:
I like the part where they say they're innocent but can't explain why: "Booz Allen is paid by the government in accordance with the terms of the contract," she wrote, without divulging the financial terms of the contract.
Booz Allen is not trying to "say their innocent but can't explain why." The very first exhibit to Booz Allen's motion to dismiss is a complete unredacted copy of the contract: https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189112548238 . Moreover, the contract terms are discussed at length in the memorandum of law supporting its motion to dismiss, which is actually linked in that National Parks Traveler article. I'd quote it here, but it goes on for 5 pages. The author of that National Parks Traveler article could have easily reviewed the contract himself, or at least reviewed the memorandum of law. It's unclear why he elected not to take that step. I know everyone loves to hate on Booz Allen, but facts still matter.

Cyclopath
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Cyclopath
Faster than light



Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 7694 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Cyclopath
Faster than light
PostWed Mar 15, 2023 2:24 pm 
hbb wrote:
I know everyone loves to hate on Booz Allen, but facts still matter.
This was a very poorly presented exchange. The company I work for has PR people on staff to make sure we don't make ourselves look bad in public. This was comically bad. Thank you for the additional info you brought to us. smile.gif

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Trail Talk > Rec.gov
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum