Recreation.gov Fees

[Big Sky Guy]

While I don’t agree that the site and Apps usability is as bad as the author makes it sound (I actually find it good), I had no idea the processing fee was not going to the land management agency where I book but rather a private contractor. Up until now my frugality was all that frustrated me with the fee booking in advance but always viewed it as paying $8 as a donation to USFS or whomever to guarantee a site is available vs. rolling the dice and doing FCFS (if available). Maybe most of you already knew this and in the only one feeling a little duped but figured I’d share. Would be curious to know how much annual fees these lands are “missing out” on each year. I realize there would be legitimate costs to running the site so not like it’s all profit but $8 is steep IMO and adds up quick on a national level. Have to think/wonder putting these fees into government agencies could come close to some of the recent cuts or at least be a small mitigation?

Being Forced to Use Rec.gov Just to Go Camping Is Psychological Warfare

Millions of campers and hikers around the U.S. are using recreation.gov to book their next vacation—and by the time they’re done dealing with its confusing navigation, broken interface, and inflated fees, most will need one.

www.outsideonline.com

 

[X13]

Have to think/wonder putting these fees into government agencies could come close to some of the recent cuts or at least be a small mitigation?

As I am generally only utilizing recreation.gov a few times a year, it's a non-issue to me. I would rather deal with whatever website and pay fees than be FCFS that I cant plan around or rely on.

I think that the costs associated with developing a functional site in-house and all the infrastructure, maintenance, servers, staffing, salaries, benefits, pensions, etc. that would come with it would be a big hurdle for already underfunded and understaffed agencies.I think there's a reason this stuff usually gets farmed out by the state and feds. The idea that we "could be using that money to buy boots for rangers" is kind of ridiculous.

 

[44hunter45]

My big rub with Rec.gov is that the glamping sites I would want to take my wife booked up for the whole season the day they open up. It's like trying to get an Idaho NR license and tag.

 

[Rack Daniels]

The contractors that maintain these properties are likely not govt workers. It would make sense these contract workers get what sounds like a commission based income through rentals.

Just a guess?

 

[Rack Daniels]

they book up to 6 months in advance, so for our wedding we had to watch it 6 months to the day before our hopeful dates. It seems some of the hard to reach ones stay relatively available especially toward late October and early November… need a snowmobile to get to the one we had our wedding at come that time of year. Plum spot though! Lol

 

[Big Sky Guy]

As I am generally only utilizing recreation.gov a few times a year, it's a non-issue to me. I would rather deal with whatever website and pay fees than be FCFS that I cant plan around or rely on.

I think that the costs associated with developing a functional site in-house and all the infrastructure, maintenance, servers, staffing, salaries, benefits, pensions, etc. that would come with it would be a big hurdle for already underfunded and understaffed agencies.I think there's a reason this stuff usually gets farmed out by the state and feds. The idea that we "could be using that money to buy boots for rangers" is kind of ridiculous.

Same here for use.

I guess in my mind I just presume government agencies work together (especially since the site spans multiple land management agencies) so there would already be a team capable of doing this and wasn’t picturing a ranger behind a desk fumbling putting together the site or having to spend millions to hire a team to do so. Probably pretty naive/optimistic of me though.

 

[44hunter45]

Same here for use.

I guess in my mind I just presume government agencies work together (especially since the site spans multiple land management agencies) so there would already be a team capable of doing this and wasn’t picturing a ranger behind a desk fumbling putting together the site or having to spend millions to hire a team to do so. Probably pretty naive/optimistic of me though.

I have had a USFS rec worker (are there any of those left?) visit me at a USFS cabin. They said they don't monitor the bookings. He was just doing scheduled visits to their rec sites.
I showed him my booking info and he could not have cared less.

 

[SAJ-99]

There was a lawsuit on this started a couple of years ago. It shows how fuzzy that line is when .gov contracts stuff out and lets the contractor determine the fees.

Here is an article.

https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2023/02/update-lawsuit-alleges-recreationgov-cluttered-junk-fees-seeks-refunds?page=1

 

[44hunter45]

There was a lawsuit on this started a couple of years ago. It shows how fuzzy that line is when .gov contracts stuff out and lets the contractor determine the fees.

Here is an article.

https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2023/02/update-lawsuit-alleges-recreationgov-cluttered-junk-fees-seeks-refunds?page=1

Thanks for posting. That's a good read.

 

[SAJ-99]

Thanks for posting. That's a good read.

I would think if people had to pay $50 for a bonus/preference point for a state but learned that only $20 went to the state game and fish and the other $30 went to the operator of the website, they might be a little more upset than what has been expressed on rec.gov.

 

[44hunter45]

I would think if people had to pay $50 for a bonus/preference point for a state but learned that only $20 went to the state game and fish and the other $30 went to the operator of the website, they might be a little more upset than what has been expressed on rec.gov.

This.

A lot of USFS sites I use by myself or with my sons are remote and there is rarely anyone there. It can be galling to have paid the fees to reserve something when there is no use pressure. I've booked remote cabins on my iPhone the day of use. Cool, but you are standing on the cabin porch already and know no one else wants it that day.

I don't mind paying that use fee to USFS, but the booking fee charges are gravy for the contractor.

 

[Oak]

I would think if people had to pay $50 for a bonus/preference point for a state but learned that only $20 went to the state game and fish and the other $30 went to the operator of the website, they might be a little more upset than what has been expressed on rec.gov.

Part of that PP fee is going to the company running the licensing system. It's just rolled into the cost of doing business. License vendors get a cut as well. If a NR walks into a CO Walmart and purchases an OTC elk license this fall, Walmart will get $28.86 for selling that license.

 

[sapperJ24]

The contractors that maintain these properties are likely not govt workers. It would make sense these contract workers get what sounds like a commission based income through rentals.

Just a guess?

Can't speak for all locations and contracts may vary across jurisdictions. Locally, however, the Forest Service maintains the rental cabins available through recreation.gov and sure the FS gets most of that money, but rec.gov also gets a take for hosting the booking platform. Campgrounds available for rent via rec.gov are managed (they provide the host and collect fee) by a concessionaire while maintenance is provided by the FS. Again, the FS gets a cut (10% or so).

 

[88man]

Part of that PP fee is going to the company running the licensing system. It's just rolled into the cost of doing business. License vendors get a cut as well. If a NR walks into a CO Walmart and purchases an OTC elk license this fall, Walmart will get $28.86 for selling that license.

Sounds like alot. Do the selling agents have to pay the state a fee to sell licenses? Equipment fee?

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

Sounds like alot. Do the selling agents have to pay the state a fee to sell licenses? Equipment fee?

Here is Wyo Statute for license sales agents. Looks like $50 annual fee. They get $2.00 on each license and $0.50 on each stamp.

§ 23-1-701. Selling agents; administration of oaths; licenses, permits and game tags.​

(a) The commission with the advice of the director shall appoint agents to sell game, bird and fish licenses. Any vendor engaged in the commercial sale of sporting goods and equipment who holds a valid sales tax license issued by the department of revenue under W.S. 39-15-106 may apply to the commission and shall be appointed as an agent to sell game, bird and fish licenses, permits and stamps. At the end of each year, the commission shall renew the appointment of agents who had combined game, bird and fish license, permit and stamp sales during that year of not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). Renewal of the appointment of agents selling fish licenses only or agents serving remote locations shall not be subject to the one thousand dollar ($1,000.00) minimum sales requirement. The commission shall provide bonding for agents for the purpose of selling game, bird and fish licenses, permits and stamps. Bonding shall be provided upon receipt of a nonrefundable annual fee of fifty dollars ($50.00). The fees shall be deposited in a bond pool fund except in any month when the bond pool fund contains one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) or more the fees shall be deposited in the game and fish fund. The fee shall be paid to the commission before December 1 preceding the year for which the bond shall be in effect. Newly appointed agents shall pay the same fee immediately upon appointment by the commission to receive bonding for the remainder of the calendar year in which the agent was appointed. All claims against an agent’s bond shall be paid from the bond pool account.
(b) Each license selling agent shall charge a fee as provided in this subsection for each license, permit or stamp he sells or distributes pursuant to this act. The fee shall not be charged if this act specifies that the issuance shall be without fee or fails to establish a fee for the issuance of the license, permit or stamp. Each license, permit or stamp sold or distributed under this act shall display the total amount only of all fees and other charges required under this act or otherwise provided by law. Each selling agent shall retain two dollars ($2.00) for each license and fifty cents ($.50) for each stamp or permit he sells. For failure to comply with this section, selling agents shall not be entitled to retain the amounts specified in this subsection and shall be liable on their bond. No employee of the commission shall receive any commission on licenses, stamps or permits sold, but the department shall charge the additional fee specified in this subsection, or otherwise provided by law, for each license, stamp or permit sold by commission employees. The fee charged under this subsection shall be in addition to the amount otherwise established by this act for the license, permit or stamp and shall be as follows:
(i) Two dollars ($2.00) for each license, except that this additional fee shall not be charged for licenses under W.S. 23-1-705(e) or (k), 23-2-101(j)(xi), (xvi), (xvii), (xx), (xxi), (xxxii), (xxxiii), (xliv) or (xlv), 23-2-201(d)(iii) or (iv) or (f) or 23-2-301(c)(xiii);
(ii) Fifty cents ($.50) for each stamp;
(iii) Fifty cents ($.50) for each permit, except that this additional fee shall not be charged for permits under W.S. 23-1-302(m).

 

[Oak]

Sounds like alot. Do the selling agents have to pay the state a fee to sell licenses? Equipment fee?

Colorado license agent regulations begin on page 25 (pdf page 27), including commission rates.

 

[schmalts]

Makes one wonder if the booking agent website is owned by a politician or relative of one.

 

[SAJ-99]

Part of that PP fee is going to the company running the licensing system. It's just rolled into the cost of doing business. License vendors get a cut as well. If a NR walks into a CO Walmart and purchases an OTC elk license this fall, Walmart will get $28.86 for selling that license.

I guess my main point was I find it interesting how we can compartmentalize some things to justify them. If we dig too deep, it starts to break down.
If the fee is set in statute, which it typically is, then there is not much to debate. Electors elect and politicians make the laws. If the fee is able to be determined by the contractor, it is different. I guess the argument is "Yeah, Capitalism!" But also, if it is set as a %, that seems bad as well. The service provided and its transactional cost to provide it seems the same for every license. Does the CO seller sell R tags too? I see a $0.25 cent difference in one-day fishing.
Again, I guess the point is it is a rabbit hole. I really didn't want to go down it.

 

[Oak]

I guess my main point was I find it interesting how we can compartmentalize some things to justify them. If we dig too deep, it starts to break down.
If the fee is set in statute, which it typically is, then there is not much to debate. Electors elect and politicians make the laws. If the fee is able to be determined by the contractor, it is different. I guess the argument is "Yeah, Capitalism!" But also, if it is set as a %, that seems bad as well. The service provided and its transactional cost to provide it seems the same for every license. Does the CO seller sell R tags too? I see a $0.25 cent difference in one-day fishing.
Again, I guess the point is it is a rabbit hole. I really didn't want to go down it.

Yes, all the fees are in the document I linked. It's a percentage, so vendor commission changes annually when license fees are adjusted to CPI.

 

[SAJ-99]

Yes, all the fees are in the document I linked. It's a percentage, so vendor commission changes annually when license fees are adjusted to CPI.

Received this email from NM today. I didn't dig any to get the full picture but their fees appear completely different than CO. The NM approach more aligns with mine view that the vendor should get a fee for the service of selling the license and not a percentage of price of the license sold. Quite a bit of variability in the revenue from the two approaches, I'm sure.