Shelf Road - Official BLM fee increase proposal

Hey everyone,

I just wanted to make sure it was public that BLM has officially released a draft business plan for Royal Gorge Field Office Campgrounds (Shelf Road) and are requesting comments before June 18, 2023.  After reviewing the draft proposal, you may email the Outdoor Recreation Planner for the relevant BLM Field office, jlenard@blm.gov with the subject line:
“campground business plan comment”.

BLM Draft Proposal: https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2023-05/Draft%20RGFO%20Campgrounds%20Business%20Plan.pdf

Brief summary: increase to nearly 3 times current camping fees along with a couple other new fees.

This seems perfectly reasonable. In the proposal they show charging less than $20/night for regular sites fails to meet operating costs. Pricing campsites at Shelf in line with places like turtle rock and 18 road makes sense to me in terms of volume.  It’s a bummer, but the use of outdoor destinations in Colorado have grown tremendously in recent years and the number and cost of fee sites like shelf have to reflect that.

Jared Fehr wrote:

This seems perfectly reasonable. In the proposal they show charging less than $20/night for regular sites fails to meet operating costs. Pricing campsites at Shelf in line with places like turtle rock and 18 road makes sense to me in terms of volume.  It’s a bummer, but the use of outdoor destinations in Colorado have grown tremendously in recent years and the number and cost of fee sites like shelf have to reflect that.

There are currently no camping fees for Turtle Rock and 18 Road is 6 hours away and over twice as big as the Bank/Sand gulch campsites combined meaning there would be more than double the operating costs assuming campsite count is correlated to operating costs.  The price increase at Shelf Road campsites including the transaction fee would be the same as peak season campsite fees at the Rocky Mountain National Park.  I'm assuming the National parks have better government funding than BLM though so that is something to consider, but it still seems rather steep in my opinion considering it is public land.

Spencer Harper wrote:

  I'm assuming the National parks have better government funding than BLM though 

It's reported that RMMP needs $75 million+ in infrastructure repairs, the number is $12 billion Park System-wide. It's apples and oranges I know, but I guess define, "better" government funding. 

https://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/2017/12/15/analysis-entry-fee-hike-could-hurt-rocky-mountain-national-park/949525001/

Perhaps like the NP, BLM needs Congress to OK a funding increase via passing a budget that includes just that, but good luck given current events.

People aren't going to camp any less at Shelf with price increases, and if they do, it's less maintainence to the local land managers, so it's a win-win for them. The losers are the poors. But that's OK, since you need to be making a good 6 figures to live in Colorado anyways.

Long Ranger wrote:

The losers are the poors. But that's OK, since you need to be making a good 6 figures to live in Colorado anyways.

I hope you understand how pejorative this sounds, especially coming from someone in Boulder.  The local community of Cañon City that calls Shelf Road our back yard are "the poors" you are referring to.

Spencer, I apologize if I come off as callus against you and anyone from or living in Cañon City. If one could believe, I am one of "the poors" it seems I speak so pejoratively about, despite my geographic location and it's well-deserved reputation. I am literally, "sold my rack to pay rent so that I can attempt to pay my taxes next month" no count. Peace.  

Long Ranger wrote:

Spencer, I apologize if I come off as callus against you and anyone from or living in Cañon City. If one could believe, I am one of "the poors" it seems I speak so pejoratively about, despite my geographic location and it's well-deserved reputation. I am literally, "sold my rack to pay rent so that I can attempt to pay my taxes next month" no count. Peace.  

It's all good man, sorry to hear about your rack.  I'm taking this more seriously since it's so close to home and affecting my community, but your perspective is totally valid as well.  I was just hoping a change like this wasn't dismissed without at least a discussion and appreciate your input.

I completely understand Spencer. You and your community have far more to gain/lose from the administrative decisions of Shelf than do I (just another visitor). What reads to you as dismissal is really just a big sigh re: access (and that's a very complicated issue). 

Racks come and go, (Coffee is forever!)

It's $40 a night to stay at the econolodge in town and not have to freeze your ass off.

Add in the $7 rec.gov fee and I think paying an extra $13 for the room starts feeling a lot more worth it... Plus you get to hang out with the crazies in the morning at breakfast

Jared Fehr wrote:

This seems perfectly reasonable. In the proposal they show charging less than $20/night for regular sites fails to meet operating costs. Pricing campsites at Shelf in line with places like turtle rock and 18 road makes sense to me in terms of volume.  It’s a bummer, but the use of outdoor destinations in Colorado have grown tremendously in recent years and the number and cost of fee sites like shelf have to reflect that.

I strongly disagree.  It's more than a "bummer".  

First of all, the BLM is NOT a business.  "meeting operating costs" isn't justification for a tax-payer supported operation which exists (supposedly) for the benefit of the People.   

Perhaps you can afford to pay $54 for a weekend but camping has become an elitist activity. National Parks are an elitist destination, too ($35/day?!). And how much money goes to a private company via Recreation.gov and other businesses like it?

National Parks, National Forest and BLM land should be accessible to everyone for a nominal cost.   This rampant increase of camping fees that has happened over the last few years should NOT be accepted without protest to your congressional representatives.   Comment to the BLM?  Sure, but copy your Congressman and Senator.   Participate in your democracy.  Fight for it.  Don't just roll-over saying "bummer".

There’s a class action lawsuit against rec.gov regarding these types of issues. It should be illegal for them to collect any fees until the lawsuit is settled 

Jared Fehr wrote:

This seems perfectly reasonable. In the proposal they show charging less than $20/night for regular sites fails to meet operating costs. Pricing campsites at Shelf in line with places like turtle rock and 18 road makes sense to me in terms of volume.  It’s a bummer, but the use of outdoor destinations in Colorado have grown tremendously in recent years and the number and cost of fee sites like shelf have to reflect that.

agreed. im OK paying more provided the majority of my $ goes towards upkeep of the area. 

John Byrnes wrote:

I strongly disagree.  It's more than a "bummer".  

First of all, the BLM is NOT a business.  "meeting operating costs" isn't justification for a tax-payer supported operation which exists (supposedly) for the benefit of the People.   

Yes it is a justification.   The alternative is we all pay more in taxes.  

Also the BLM is not taxpayer supported.  It's taxpayer supplemented.

Seems kind of steep, for a parking spot, fire ring, and a vault toilet. 

Travis Bieber wrote:

Seems kind of steep, for a parking spot, fire ring, and a vault toilet. 

 If I recall the campground serves over 100,000 people a year.  That's a lot of maintenance.   

curt86iroc wrote:

agreed. im OK paying more provided the majority of my $ goes towards upkeep of the area. 

That’s the proverbial rub though. The money is not being used for upkeep. It’s all going to BAH

Chad Miller wrote:

 If I recall the campground serves over 100,000 people a year.  That's a lot of maintenance.   

I think someone is miss managing some funds. No doubt the increase in fees are going to fund the agency (BLM) and not to actually maintain the campground 

Travis Bieber wrote:

I think someone is miss managing some funds. No doubt the increase in fees are going to fund the agency (BLM) and not to actually maintain the campground 

Again, it’s not going to the BLM, it’s going to BAH, a private corporation 

Edit: the proof will be in the class action lawsuit, which alleges that BAH illegally collects junk fees 

Travis Bieber wrote:

I think someone is miss managing some funds. No doubt the increase in fees are going to fund the agency (BLM) and not to actually maintain the campground 

Do you have anything to back up your assumption of mis management of funds?

As for Ben’s claim that all of the price increase is going to BAH - is there any proof of this?  

Chad Miller wrote:

 If I recall the campground serves over 100,000 people a year.  That's a lot of maintenance.   

Cite your sources, sir. Can’t have folks throwing out random facts without proof….

Ben B wrote:

That’s the proverbial rub though. The money is not being used for upkeep. It’s all going to BAH

According to the proposal in the OP, it’s very clear where the funds are and are not going…and the majority are going towards upkeep. The proposal clearly discloses an additional reservation fee may be imposed if recreation.gov is used.

I don’t necessarily agree with a private org collecting fees for online reservations on public lands, but saying it’s all going to BAH is a gross exaggeration.