# 67% increase in Recreation.gov fees for lottery



## MountainmanPete (Jun 7, 2014)

I’m not saying anything bad until after feb 15


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

Yeah, I noticed that too. Seems like $10 is the base application fee for all the lotteries I applied for. 

At the risk of sounding political here, we live in an era of tax cuts, defunding public services, complaining about the insufficiency of those public services, and then privatizing what were once public services paid for by our tax dollars. As long as people in power are telling you we can cut taxes and the cuts will "pay for themselves with increased economic activity (they're not)" or that they'll just "trim fat from wasteful government spending," get used to increased use fees for everything. And with Rec.gov being a private service (see above), we've got to foot the bill for some Rec.gov CEO's golden parachute and stockholder dividends somehow...


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

Andy hit the nail on the head. If our govt won't centrally tax and fund resources, they'll get the funding other ways. In the grand scheme of things, it is pretty minor for what we get. Heck, I even got over the local campground fee increase to $14 a night, even for early season when it is not fully open. So what if we end up paying $200 or so a season to camp? I wish it were free, but the time has long past for me to be a dirt bag freeloader.


----------



## Di (Apr 26, 2006)

Word, Andy. The increase is bad enough, but unlike camping fees, I am actually NOT getting anything in return other than the chance to play a lottery. I really don't think it is costing them 66% more to process it this year than last considering it's all computerized. Budgets for employees and the landscapes they manage keep getting cut and we the people pay for more profiteering by private corporations.


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

Don't mind the increase, as long as it is mostly going towards managing public lands, not to stoked if it is mostly going to Rec.gov, that would be a HUGE jump in price.
Anyone know WHO gets the funds from that increase?
The more expensive the IT contractor, the less of my money is left over for supporting public lands.


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

Didn't Rec.gov just get their contract renewed? Or is that change happening in 2019? That is probably why we had one big increase, new contract, and because it has been the same for a long time (ever?).


----------



## Will Amette (Jan 28, 2017)

So, does anyone else remember a number of discussions this past spring about the guy who hired a Russian programmer to write code that would take advantage in a weakness in the recreation.gov system where it would constantly ping the system looking for cancellations? There was much discussion around gaming the system.

The end result was that recreation.gov made some changes in how they handled giving out cancellations. They also announced that the fee would have to increase to $10 to run the new code. Everything I remember discussed here after the change was that it was a great improvement. 

Anyway, that's why the fee went up. 

<opinion> 
Seems a little steep to me for a one-time program fix. And we sure do have a short memory on MB! I think it's a shame they couldn't do what GC does and have follow up lotteries where applicants in the main lottery can play with no additional fee. 
</opinion>


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Yeah, someone mentioned here in May of last year that fees were rising on rec.gov

I believe the fees are actually just for the contractor, not the government. I don't think the government makes any money off of lotteries and applications run through rec.gov as they no longer administer them. I believe the government only receives user fees for actual reservations, whether they are first-come-first-serve or successful lottery applications.


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

Will Amette said:


> So, does anyone else remember a number of discussions this past spring about the guy who hired a Russian programmer to write code that would take advantage in a weakness in the recreation.gov system where it would constantly ping the system looking for cancellations? There was much discussion around gaming the system.
> 
> The end result was that recreation.gov made some changes in how they handled giving out cancellations. They also announced that the fee would have to increase to $10 to run the new code. Everything I remember discussed here after the change was that it was a great improvement.
> 
> ...


Good point, and I agree with your opinion. I will admit to not having a great memory myself too, unfortunately. To many things to remember.

I like the way the Grand Canyon Lottery is handled. I think GCNP is doing a better job of that portion, then Rec.gov 
You can even change your dates before the lottery is run.


----------



## okieboater (Oct 19, 2004)

I do not know the history of who and why recreation dot gov was set up. Any one know this?

The government has programmers on the payroll and I wonder why they did not do the programming for a relatively simple system to accept inputs, use some sort of approved way to allocate permits etc. I would think this program would basically apply to river permits and camp ground reservations. 

I know from a lifetime of programming systems that the big cost of any system is the initial programming and installation. Unless the original programmers missed the mark big time, maintenance should be a lot cheaper.

Meaning it does not make sense to me for a increase of the magnitude posted. 

The government is supposed to get the best deal for us taxpayers. Questionable on whomever did the deal for recreation dot gov. Where are the auditors who should be looking at performance and contracts.


----------



## okieboater (Oct 19, 2004)

*Looks like President Obama has his fingerprints on Rec.Gov redo*



Andy H. said:


> Yeah, I noticed that too. Seems like $10 is the base application fee for all the lotteries I applied for.
> 
> At the risk of sounding political here, we live in an era of tax cuts, defunding public services, complaining about the insufficiency of those public services, and then privatizing what were once public services paid for by our tax dollars. As long as people in power are telling you we can cut taxes and the cuts will "pay for themselves with increased economic activity (they're not)" or that they'll just "trim fat from wasteful government spending," get used to increased use fees for everything. And with Rec.gov being a private service (see above), we've got to foot the bill for some Rec.gov CEO's golden parachute and stockholder dividends somehow...


*Obama Administration Announces New Design, Expanded Content for Recreation.Gov as Part of Initiative to Boost Tourism, Strengthen Economy*





https://www.usda.gov/media/press-re...tration-announces-new-design-expanded-content


----------



## markhusbands (Aug 17, 2015)

okieboater said:


> I do not know the history of who and why recreation dot gov was set up. Any one know this?
> 
> The government has programmers on the payroll and I wonder why they did not do the programming for a relatively simple system to accept inputs, use some sort of approved way to allocate permits etc. I would think this program would basically apply to river permits and camp ground reservations.
> 
> ...


While I don't know the details of rec.gov or why their fees are set where they are - a product of negotiation within the FAR and subject to FOIA, no doubt - I will say that the government has a TINY number of programmers relative to the number of internal and external systems that are used. The governing principle in many matters, whether or not you agree, is to keep "inherently governmental functions" in government, and shift other functions to the private sector. A reservation system is on the no-brainer side, and really isn't drawing from funding sources that would be used for resources management or visitor services.


----------



## Willie 1.5 (Jul 9, 2013)

As near as I can tell recreation.gov got started in 2003 as ReserveAmerica because of the NRRS. In 2007 recreation.gov morphed into existence. Obama was simply promting tourism and this was one avenue.
Recreation.gov -- nice try, needs work — High Country News
https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/news/release.htm?id=443
ReserveAmerica Awarded the National Recreation Reservation Service (NRRS™) Contract | IAC


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

okieboater said:


> *Obama Administration Announces New Design, Expanded Content for Recreation.Gov as Part of Initiative to Boost Tourism, Strengthen Economy*
> https://www.usda.gov/media/press-re...tration-announces-new-design-expanded-content


The article referenced is from 2012. Wasn't the redesign and price hike in the last year? I'm curious when it was handed off to a private contractor. Likely under Obama but still curious, there's nothing about whether it was operated in 2012 by the government or privately in the article.

That said, the trend of cutting taxes, defunding services, complaining the government is incompetent, and privatizing the services so cronies of the political class get big contracts has been going on for a long time. The prime example is the privatization of our military after Sec. of Defense Dick Cheney laid the groundwork under Bush I and carried it out with gusto under Bush II.

Just sayin'

-AH


----------



## Willie 1.5 (Jul 9, 2013)

The genesis of Recreation.gov is in this legislation, the E-Government Act of 2002. The particulars from there are buried in GWB archives'


----------



## co_bjread (Oct 26, 2004)

I am not in a position to dig up old threads, but I am pretty sure there was one not long ago where buzzards were thinking a fee increase on the lottery would be a good thing. That conversation was centered more on how many permits are won and not used or cancelled, and were making it more difficukt for boaters to draw the coveted permits. The system was favoring those that could pick up a permit and get on the river in short order. Hence, as I recall, there was some favor expressed to increase lottery fees so folks would have more skin in the game, and not waste the valuable permits that do get drawn. Am I miss-remembering, or do we now want it both ways?

I am not sure where I sit on the argument, just adding to the sentiment that we suffer from memory loss.

Sent from my GT-P5113 using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------



## okieboater (Oct 19, 2004)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/specialreports/solyndra-scandal/


I totally agree that big government attempts to privatize just about anything with their donor buddies ends up costing us tax payers a lot of money. Bush one and two did their part but so did other presidents Solyndra comes to mind as one good example as well, ole Dick Cheney was not alone. 

Hopefully rec dot gov will provide better service with the extra income from this rate hike.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

co_bjread said:


> I am not in a position to dig up old threads, but I am pretty sure there was one not long ago where buzzards were thinking a fee increase on the lottery would be a good thing. That conversation was centered more on how many permits are won and not used or cancelled, and were making it more difficukt for boaters to draw the coveted permits. The system was favoring those that could pick up a permit and get on the river in short order. Hence, as I recall, there was some favor expressed to increase lottery fees so folks would have more skin in the game, and not waste the valuable permits that do get drawn. Am I miss-remembering, or do we now want it both ways?
> 
> I am not sure where I sit on the argument, just adding to the sentiment that we suffer from memory loss.
> 
> Sent from my GT-P5113 using Mountain Buzz mobile app


Yes, some have mentioned increasing fees in an attempt to reduce the number of cancellations. I believe that was directed at user fees though, not application fees but I could be wrong.

And yes, recreation.gov was forced into existence by law. 

As a heads up, the current Deputy Solicitor of the Department of the Interior (just released a controversial opinion on Incidental Take) was an architect of failed Bush era plan of "privatization of National Park Service jobs." Plans to privatize public resources and agency services will likely be a big trend in the next 3-7 years. 

Back to rec.gov.....I think changing fee structures is heavily regulated and happens in intermittent hiccups hence the larger jumps. But that is extrapolating from the few details I have.


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

When we were at Boundary last July, Donna was there with a bunch of people from the new contractor. Apparently rec.gov is just the front, because it is owned by the gov, but the work underneath it is what is contracted out. So we never see the change on the front end. They reportedly had a big task with reworking the cancellations.

Hopefully more people were discouraged with the fee increase and didn't put in apps, yeah!


----------



## Wadeinthewater (Mar 22, 2009)

lhowemt said:


> Hopefully more people were discouraged with the fee increase and didn't put in apps, yeah!


A junkie will pay just about anything to get a fix.


----------



## 50119 (Jan 17, 2016)

I was a benefactor of the re-work of the cancellation process to hopefully eliminate the bot's that were capturing cancellations as soon as they happened 24 hours/day on the Four Rivers Lottery. July 3rd launch on the Middle Fork with friend, wife & daughter and my daughter was a glorious occasion and perfect trip. My 1st trip down MF and I was TL. Well worth the time/effort/cost for a system re-work - in my book.


----------



## NativeDiver (Jun 7, 2017)

mattman said:


> Don't mind the increase, as long as it is mostly going towards managing public lands, not to stoked if it is mostly going to Rec.gov, that would be a HUGE jump in price.
> Anyone know WHO gets the funds from that increase?
> The more expensive the IT contractor, the less of my money is left over for supporting public lands.



Maybe they will spray the poison ivy now!?


----------

