Officials at Shenandoah National Park have extended a pilot program which requires all hikers on the Old Rag Mountain Trail to obtain a timed-entry reservation through Rec.gov. But do the daily numbers of hikers on this trail justify this restrictive system?

I last hiked Old Rag Mountain on a dreamy Sunday afternoon back in August of 2019. I found the trail to be absolutely delightful, with a fair degree of scrambling, and a even greater degree of fun!

This trail is probably one of the most enjoyable routes on the entire east coast. Old Rag can accurately be described as a true adventure hike, which requires the use of both arms and legs in order to shimmy between narrow rock crevices and up short sections of rocky outcrops, many of which may strike fear into those with a tendency to shy away from heights and exposure.

Skies were mostly sunny, with occasional puffy clouds, and the temperature was a perfect 80 degrees. Crowds, although advertised to be heavy by rangers at the visitor center, were light and cheery, and not once did I find myself waiting in a queue for passage through any of the trail’s tighter sections, such as the “Squeeze”, or the “Chute”.

---

---

Even the summit area, which is often decried for crowded conditions, seemed spacious and accommodating. While I would estimate there to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-40 people up there, it seemed entirely reasonable that everyone could find their own little section of rock to sprawl out in the sun, and enjoy what is likely the best view in the State of Virginia.

Reports from Shenandoah officials however, often describe the trail as crowded, with lines of people stalled in various sections of the trail, as they wait for slower folk to maneuver through the maze of large boulders. Stories of dangerous conditions, the trampling of vegetation, along with a lack of parking spaces led park officials to analyze trail usage in 2019, and to propose a ticketed access program the following year.

---

---

The results of the 2019 study are presented in a manner that seems to suggest that the public users of this trail support restrictive measures, in order to “reduce environmental impacts”, “protect visitor safety” or to “protect Congressionally-designated Wilderness values”.

So, lets examine the methods by which the park arrived at justification for the permit system.

---

2019 OLD RAG VISITOR USE STUDY

The time period chosen for the study, termed the “sampling period”, occurred in October of 2019, during the peak foliage season in the park, which was noted in the study as a popular period for hiking Old Rag. Thanks to this study, and the recently released 2022 study, we now know that October’s leaf changing season is by far the busiest time of year on Old Rag, but let’s get into what that means a bit later.

When the park implemented the Timed-Entry Pilot Program on Old Rag in March of 2022, they capped the number of daily hikers at 800 per day. If we examine the chart below, we’ll see that in the 31 days of examination in 2019, the number of hikers on Old Rag only exceeded that number 8 times, some 25% of the days in question, again, during the park’s busiest season.

---

---

When the park moved toward the pilot program, they elected to cap the number of hikers on Old Rag at 800 per day. If the park already knew that the trail only saw 8 days during this period that exceeded their established safe number, why would they implement a program that restricted access during a 9 month period that totaled 275 days? We’ll look into that later too…

---

Sampling Size of Survey

Five hundred and six hikers were asked to take part in the survey, 405 of whom agreed, while some 20%, or 101 of those questioned, refused to participate in the survey.

It would be interesting to know what responses those who refused to answer would have given, as they may well have been quite skeptical of the park’s intent with such surveys. You may recall the old “I’m from the government and I’m here to help” mantra of past generations, and the tendency of some folks to scurry away in haste from such seemingly well-meaning government agents.

---

Peak v. Non-Peak Days & Location

The study divides the trail usage into peak and non-peak days, with weekends and holidays comprising peak days, and common weekdays as non-peak. Obviously, the peak days experienced higher usage numbers, and consequently, higher degrees of congestion.

Also pertinent to our examination is the location of the congestion on Old Rag. The study calls attention to three separate areas of concern: The parking lot, the rock scramble, and the summit.

According to the report, some 34% of those surveyed felt crowded in the parking lot on peak days, while only 6% felt similarly on weekdays. This seems somewhat consistent from my experience in August of the same year, as the parking lot was the busiest area I encountered that day. It usually is for some reason.

Nevertheless, the parking lot had plenty of remaining spaces, as there are nearly 300 spaces available among three lots at the trailhead.

---

---

The rock scramble held the most congestion on peak days, with 58% of survey participants indicating that they felt crowded on peak days, while only 15% reported such on non-peak days. And finally, 27% of the summit folk felt cramped on peak days, while a mere 11% claimed that they were too close to other summit revelers on non-peak days.

Peak days likely drew responses from visitors that were more in favor of restricted access, as nearly 70% of users reported having to wait in a queue to pass through the “Squeeze” or the “Chute”.

By contrast, non-peak days naturally led to the opposite percentage, with only 30% of hikers indicating that they waiting in a queue on weekdays. Of respondents on who queued up on peak days, 73% reported waiting more than 5 minutes, while 36% waited more than 10 minutes. Those who were forced to queue up on non-peak days however, most often waited for less than 5 minutes.

---

The Summit Experience

Another area of concern for park officials is the Old Rag Summit. This area is somewhat expansive, with several areas accessible to nimble hikers who wish to relax and enjoy the view upon reaching the summit.

Numerous vistas are available atop Old Rag, which lie separated by huge boulders and vegetation. On the day I visited in 2019, there were somewhere around 30 people on the summit, all separated into small groups in their own little areas. This seemed to be fine, as those who wished to have a more private area could probably find such a site by wandering toward the west, where the views extended out toward Skyline Drive and the ridge of the Shenandoah Mountains.

---

---

Rather than to ask about the conditions on the summit during their individual hike, the 2019 survey asked participants to study a series of photographs that showed differing numbers of hikers on the summit, and to decide what they considered to “feel crowded”. Why not just ask about current conditions on the summit on the day of the participant’s hike? Well, you’ll have to ask the NPS.

---

The Fear Factor

In an apparent effort to capitalize on the fear factor associated with an adventurous section such as the Squeeze or the Chute, the survey asked participants to relay their concerns for safety on the Old Rag trail. Some 41% indicated that they were concerned with “slipping and having a bad fall”, and some 25% suggested that they were worried about “being injured while hiking the trail”.

Unbelievable… Let’s recall that 75% of these respondents were under the age of 45! What has happened to the physical condition of humanity? This trail is just not that difficult… I digress.

---

---

Incredibly, a stunning 10% of survey participants somehow worried about getting lost on the Old Rag trail. Now if this trail was as busy as the NPS would have us believe, it would be a highway… & how would one get lost on a highway? I digress, again.

Observations by those on the survey were interesting. Some 43% reported observing litter on the trail, but the survey apparently did not inquire as to whether those observing litter along the trail picked it up. Wise hikers always leave the trail better than they found it, just sayin..

In a rare comic note to the survey, 38% of respondents reported that they encountered individuals who they believed were unprepared for the hike, although the majority of hikers surveyed, 92%, felt that they themselves felt prepared for the adventure. Somebody’s got an ego on the trail…

---

---

Somehow, 26% of people reported seeing graffiti on the route, which I certainly did not see, aside from the constant blue blazes and arrows that are painted every so many feet along the route.

---

The True Goal of the NPS

Finally, the survey gets to the apparent goal of the National Park Service: To restrict access to the Old Rag Mountain, feigning public support for public land access restrictions by posing a survey during the busiest two weeks of the year.

According to the results of the survey, 46% of respondents indicated that they support stationing more rangers along the trail, in an effort to reinforce safety, trail etiquette, and Leave No Trace principles.

But this did not happen. Instead, the pilot program conveniently skipped this option, and ran with option number two, which limited hikers through a reserve in advance permit system, which 40% of survey participants felt was justified due to their experience on this trail, again, during the two busiest weekends of the year.

It should be noted also, that the park ignored another idea equally supported by 40% of respondents, to provide a first come-first served permit system.

So, our examination of this section of the survey gets right down to the goods. The park chose to give the keys to Old Rag, to a private, for-profit multibillion dollar corporation, rather than to provide more rangers for safety, some of which could certainly be volunteers. Nor did the park seem intrigued by the option of first come, first served permits, which seem to be a thing of the past… So much for the early bird theory in this world of online profits.

Oh, and by the way… 40% is not a majority. That number leaves 60% of 2019 participants, during the busiest two weeks of the year, who indicated that they did not support any implementation of regulations. But the NPS likely already had a plan…

---

2022 Pilot Program Report

Since we have the luxury of hindsight concerning the implementation of this program, we’ll take into account the information provided in the most recent Pilot Program Report from 2022. This report was released in January of 2023, and details the reported numbers from the program’s initial rollout.

Amazingly, the numbers of hikers heading for Old Rag takes a drastic turn upward during the fall months, the time during which the initial survey was conducted. It is highly likely that park officials already knew that this time of year would provide the greatest “shock factor” for the number of hikers on the mountain, and would thus provide the greatest degree of support for a restrictive entry program.

This program ran for 275 days in 2022, and during these dates, the numbers of hikers on Old Rag is quite surprising. Never do these levels suggest that this trail is being “loved to death”.

---

---

Quite the opposite, the study shows that most days on the trail are relatively tranquil, with an average number of hikers somewhere around 364.57 hikers per day, during the park’s busy fall season. Even the weekend averages don’t come anywhere near the number of 800 per day, with an average of 607.5 hikers on peak days, during the busiest season.

Of those 275 days, the trail only saw the maximum number of hikers on a total of 20 days, 19 of which were weekend days. Fourteen such days were in the fall, and six were in the spring, with the summer months seeing a mere trickle of hikers on Old Rag.

---

Park Junkie Verdict

So, let me be clear. In my opinion, these studies seriously undermine the NPS claim that restricting access to Old Rag is an attempt to preserve the environment, protect park resources or provide a safe and enjoyable visitor experience.

There is little that can be said to promote such a claim, as the numbers simply speak for themselves. There is simply no justification for a 9 month period of restricted access to this hike, and if there even was an argument for restricting access on the busiest of weekend days, there exists no study by which these officials can justify restricting access on weekdays.

This is a clear money grab…

So… It appears my nature loving friends, that John Muir was right when he surmised nearly a century and half ago, that “nothing dollarable is safe”. In the game of public land access, the restriction of public access to trails and public spaces is indeed dollarable, and is certainly not safe from the greedy hands of corporate barons.

---

Good For Hikers? Or Good for Booz Allen?

This 2023 report shows that this system is probably working, if nothing else, to provide income for Rec.gov, the proceeds of which go directly to multibillion dollar government contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. From March 1 through November 31 2022, some 95,444 hikers paid a $1 fee in order to make their way to the summit of Old Rag.

Booz Allen keeps all of that, by the way.

Now, I know… This is not a lot of money in today’s world. Alas, the effects of inflation has rendered this amount of funding an almost laughable amount in most modern cosmopolitan locations. Understandably, many folks can’t even conceive a life in which their income is less than the once-coveted six figure category.

But this is simply one of a rapidly growing number of income sources falling into the hands of our friends at Booz Allen, who now control more than 4,200 such public land locations and trails. The company understands quite clearly that this $1 figure on each permit is rather small, but eventually yields substantial profits.

A recent Wall Street Journal article that examines the arrangement between the National Park Service and Rec.gov reports that the corporate giant’s president and CEO fully appreciates the business model at play in the public land management game.

“One thing I learned in B-school, for all that money, it’s a small number times a big number is a big number,” Booz Allen president and chief executive Horacio Rozanski reported in 2019, which was ironically the same year NPS officials at Shenandoah started down the treacherous road that would just three years later, provide a small $1 fee to Rozanski’s corporation, for every single hiker on a small boulder-strewn mountain in western Virginia.

Montana Congressman Ryan Zinke, former Secretary of Interior under Donald Trump, announced yesterday that his office was calling for a federal investigation into the contract between Rec.gov and the National Park Service

The cat had to come out of the bag at some point. Despite the fact that the National Park Service and multibillion dollar defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton tried to shield their nefarious financial arrangement from the public eye, the information is now flowing. Much like those first drops of water long ago ran over soft sandstone where we today witness the great chasm of the Grand Canyon, these drops of information may lead to the rapid erosion of the national park reservation scheme.

---

Rec.gov in the News… Finally

Just last week, both National Geographic and the Wall Street Journal ran stories about the National Park Reservation system. The WSJ article took direct aim at Booz Allen, detailing the amount of money collected through their reservation portal, showing that their compensation has far outpaced their original reported estimates, despite the fact that the per-transaction amounts paid to Booz Allen were redacted in invoices obtained by the WSJ.

---

---

Although the revenue generated by the current arrangement may seem eye-popping to many public land users, it all seems to be the result of a savvy business model to Booz Allen president and chief executive Horacio Rozanski. “One thing I learned in B-school, for all that money, it’s a small number times a big number is a big number”, he revealed at a 2019 Citi Global Technology Conference.

These comments make clear that the corporation is intent on pursuing contracts that may only remit a small dollar amount per transaction, but which over time, result in a much more lucrative total. Rozanski went on to point to the “per-transaction” model, as a method by which the company maximizes profit, as compared to a “by-the-hour” payment model, describing the previous as “much more effective and productive”.

It seems that “effective” and “productive” can be measured by different means. Public land users who are getting juiced for tens of millions per year, while often not even landing their desired permit, hardly consider the system either “effective” or “productive”. In fact, it’s safe to estimate that many such users consider this “effective and productive” model to be nothing more than a “total scam”.

This seems to be the view of one outspoken critic of the Rec.gov system, and he appears to be ready to pounce on the opportunity to do something about it.

---

Enter Ryan Zinke

It is unknown when this issue first came to the attention of Montana Congressman Ryan Zinke, who served as Trump’s first Secretary of Interior from March of 2017 through January of 2019, but according to his Twitter page, he sure doesn’t seem to like the arrangement, referring to it as a “total scam”.

While it is true that Booz Allen’s operation of Rec.gov kicked off during Zinke’s tenure as Interior Secretary, it may be unlikely that he had extensive knowledge of the inner workings of the contract, as it was awarded to Booz Allen in May of 2016, during the late stages of the Obama administration.

The initial implementation of Booz Allen’s Rec.gov was slow, and it only gained a full head of steam during the Covid years, as many public land agencies used the opportunity to move their park entrance systems to a platform that was in accordance with the “social distancing” norms of the pandemic.

While this may not completely vindicate Zinke, it does give him an ability to throw stones at the corporate takeover of public land access, and he is doing just that.

---

Zinke Seeks Federal Investigation into “Total Scam”

The aforementioned National Geographic article focused more on the difficulty of obtaining an entrance permit to national parks and public lands, and not once did the piece mention Booz Allen, or its management of the system. Most publications seem to avoid that seemingly uncomfortable, perhaps, sacred union.

Nevertheless, it did mention the ‘total scam” tweet by Zinke, and highlighted the Congressman’s failure to obtain the highly-sought-after reservation to his own state’s Glacier National Park. The article went on to report that permits to the Crown of the Continent’s North Fork area sold out within 10 minutes, while those for the Going to the Sun Road were gone within 30 minutes.

Twitter replies to Zinke’s Total Scam Tweet often chided the former Navy Seal, reminding him that he may have once had a say in how this system operates. How much this influenced his choice to move on the issue is unclear, but he seems poised to move.

On Wednesday, April 11th, Zinke’s office issued a press release which called on the National Park Service to open an investigation into their contract with Booz Allen. The Congressman requested a host of details regarding the process by which this contract was originally constructed, and further requested that Glacier National Park officials abandon the vehicle reservation system that is planned for the summer of 2023.

---

What Zinke Wants

Zinke wrote: “In light of the recent WSJ report, and the fact that the Glacier National Park reservation system is housed on recreation.gov, I am calling for a full investigation of both the Booz-Allen contract (dating back to the original contract and subsequent renewals), and the decision-making process to implement the Glacier Park reservation system… I am also calling on you to abandon the Glacier National Park reservation system until a full investigation has been completed and the findings reported to my office.”

Additionally, Congressman Zinke asked for a treasure trove of documents. Park Junkie predicts that if any of these are ever delivered, they will likely be fully redacted:

1 – All documents including emails, internal memos, statements of opposition from local entities and tribes, text messages, etc. related to the decision-making, analysis, implementation and expansion of the Glacier National Park vehicle reservation system dating back to 2019 (emails organized either by conversation or chronologically)  

2 – Any documents related to the NPS relationship with Booz-Allen as it concerns recreation.gov and/or ticketing and reservations

3 – Documents relating to costs, invoices and payments made by NPS to Booz-Allen for the Recreation.gov contract

4 – Communications between NPS and Booz-Allen related to this contract

5 – Any emails, text messages and documents related to fulfilling this request

Wow… Just imagine if this sort of information ever did see the light of day. As I indicated above, if any of these documents ever are released to anyone, they’ll likely be fully redacted. Trade secrets, you’ll understand…

Nevertheless, it appears that the ball is rolling. What this means for the future of the reservation scam on public lands is currently unclear. It sure is getting interesting though, and Park Junkie is as excited as ever to see what the future holds, because it appears all of you folk in the gallery may be getting some real action soon.

Stay tuned, and I’ll see you on down the trail!

Cheers, Todd C

Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and John Barrasso (R-WY) introduced America’s Outdoor Recreation Act of 2023 (AORA) on March 16th, a sweeping bill that consolidates several smaller pieces of outdoor legislation. The bill has bipartisan support and could significantly transform federal public lands policy.

AORA merges essential elements of earlier bills that previously stalled in Congress: the Simplifying Outdoor Access for Recreation (SOAR) Act, the Outdoor Recreation Act, and the Recreation Not Red Tape Act. Title IV of the AORA also includes language from Senator Barrasso’s previously introduced FILM Act, which will allow for YouTube and TikTok creators to once again, film content on public lands.

Back-and-forth legal rulings in the ongoing case of independent filmmaker Gordon Price, led federal land management agencies to issue reasonable interim filming restrictions in February of 2022, only to reverse course and re-implement far more restrictive filming permit requirements in October of 2022.

The most recent National Park Service permit guidelines explicitly call out YouTube and Tiktok filmmakers, who were previously termed “low impact” creators, among those who must obtain filming permits.

This legislation attempts to remove what Senator Barrasso himself termed an “unconstitutional permitting scheme”, and if passed, will allow monetized content creators to once again, film on public lands when their production involves less than 6 individuals.

---

---

Further, AORA seeks to reauthorize the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA), an act that allows federal land management agencies to charge fees for permits and recreational pursuits on federal land. Language in this bill proposes finalizing this act, which previously required periodic Congressional renewal.

FLREA is the method by which the controversial Rec.gov public land reservation system has gained traction. Many national parks are now requiring reservations to gain access to their park’s interior, and according to a recently filed lawsuit in a Virginia Federal Court, this arrangement brings a financial windfall of tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars to a multi-billion dollar, for-profit company named Booz Allen Hamilton, based in northern Virginia.

---

---

Nevertheless, the bill enjoys broad support among outdoor advocacy groups such as the Outdoor Alliance, which has created a letter submission portal on its website to make it easier for anyone to voice their opinions on the bill. The bill had previously been introduced by Manchin in 2021, but a version of it did not receive a vote in May 2022.

The bill is wide-sweeping, and concerns a great deal more than filming requirements on federal land and the FLREA. It seeks to establish a system of long-distance biking trails on public lands, enhance protective measures in climbing areas, and to increase the number of shooting ranges on public lands.

According to the Outdoor Recreation Roundtable Association, the legislation would meet the growing demand for outdoor access, preserve public lands and waters for future use, improve experiences and access for all, promote conservation efforts, mitigate the impacts of increasing visitation, and continue to grow the outdoor recreation economy, which is worth $862 billion in annual economic output and accounts for 1.9% of the GDP and 4.5 million American jobs.

AORA’s key initiatives, as summarized by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, include directing the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service to establish a pilot program for public-private partnership agreements to modernize campgrounds on federal land, ensuring outdoor recreation is considered alongside other uses of federal land, and supporting local businesses adjacent to recreation areas.

Additionally, it aims to improve access to public lands, designate more shooting ranges, modernize recreation sites with broadband internet infrastructure, and identify opportunities to extend the public’s access to federal lands during shoulder seasons.

The bill has broad support from state outdoor recreation offices, organizations, and brands, and the Outdoor Recreation Roundtable Association noted that the legislation would not permit unplanned recreation that could damage natural resources, add to taxpayer costs, contribute to degradation of resources, amend the Wilderness Act or any other conservation law, or cut off access for any user group.

April will bring a vote on the proposed legislation in the Energy and Natural Resource Committee, where it is expected to pass. At that point, it will move toward a full Senate vote, and if it enjoys support there, it’s on to the House of Representatives, where it could be further modified.

We’ll keep you posted on the bill’s progress.

Hey friends, I have received some requests for a shortened format on these letters, because many Senate contact pages have a size restriction. So here are the basics, all boiled down. Please copy and paste into an email format.

However, if you’re sending a traditional letter, please use the longer letter. If you’re calling your Senator and want to use these letters as a reference, I would probably use the longer as well. It is still posted below.

For those who want a Google Doc: Shortened Letter to Senator – Google Doc

Thanks for All You Do to Preserve Our Access & Free Speech on Our Public Lands!

---

Problem: Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act 

Ostensibly passed as a method by which agencies could collect fees in order to fund improvements to public land facilities such as picnic tables, restrooms, fire rings, etc. 

However, this act is actually used as a method by which monies gathered through online reservation systems are funneled to a multi-billion dollar corporation. 

A class action lawsuit filed February 11th in the State of Virginia, (Wilson v. Booz Allen Hamilton) reveals that these fees annually provide tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars to this corporation. 

Neither the NPS or the Rec.gov website provide any indication that these fees are not being used in the parks. There is no information on any public lands webpage or on Rec.gov itself, that informs the public that the reservation fees associated with Rec.gov are ultimately received by a for-profit company.

These are funds that the majority of Americans believe are being used to improve park facilities. Most assume that if they are using a “.gov” url, the funds are for the parks.

The number of national parks that currently require reservations to enter their gates has exploded in the past 3 years, with Glacier, Rocky Mountain, Arches National Parks requiring reservations simply to enter the park. Access to a rapidly increasing number of parks & wilderness areas can now only be attained through this online reservation system.

Current Action Being Taken:

The renewal of the FLREA is presently under consideration in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Current language in America’s Outdoor Recreation Act of 2023 seeks to make permanent the permissive provisions in the FLREA that allow third party contractors to profit from restrictive admission policies.

This arrangement is the subject of question in the above mentioned case of Wilson v. Booz Allen Hamilton. As the outcome of this case is obviously unknown, I would hope that all U.S. Senators and Representatives would support adding language to the FLREA that would restrict the collection of third party “junk fees” associated with the entrance to, and use of public lands.

These lands belong to all Americans, and the current reservation fee arrangement only serves to erode public trust in a once-beloved federal agency such as the National Park Service. 

What You Can Do:

Review the Title II of America’s Outdoor Recreation Act of 2023. 

A – Please suggest and support the addition of language that eliminates the ability of third party corporations to collect “junk fees” in association with online reservation systems.

B – Suggest that the ENR tighten the provisions of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act to prevent public monies from being removed from the parks. The National Parks have reported a maintenance backlog of more than $12 billion dollars, yet they are funneling hundreds of millions out to a for-profit corporation for tasks that they could simply eliminate, or at the least, manage themselves. 

C – Suggest that the ENR implement language that requires federal land management agencies to show cause for administering restrictive entrance programs. 

D – In cases where restrictive entrance programs are warranted, suggest that the ENR require parks to attempt non-discriminatory methods, such as alternating license plate entrance days. Reservation systems effectively eliminate the possibility of entrance for many people who may not have credit cards or internet access. 

E – Suggest that the ENR require parks to manage reservation systems themselves. Public Parks have managed campgrounds, tours and backcountry permits for decades and such facilities have benefited greatly by having local management that is “on the ground”, and have realized greater financial reward by keeping the funds from their own locations. 

---

Problem: Free Speech Rights Suspended on Public Lands

Officials within the NPS (& other federal land management agencies) have added language to federal commercial filming restrictions in national parks and public lands that require the securement of costly permits, even in productions that they themselves (NPS) describe as “low impact”.

Outtake from NPS website:

NPS – Commercial Film Permit – Section 3 – “Does commercial filming by individuals or small groups require a permit” 

In recently revised regulations, the NPS has included “individuals or small groups that don’t use much equipment, but generate revenue by posting footage on websites, such as YouTube and TikTok”, within the confines of their commercial filming definition. 

However, the regulations go on to say: “The primary focus of the NPS, however, is on commercial filming that has the potential to impact park resources and visitors beyond what occurs from normal visitor use of park areas. Examples of this type of filming are productions that use substantial equipment such as sets and lighting, productions with crews that exceed 5 people, and filming in closed areas, wilderness areas, or in locations that would create conflicts with other visitors or harm sensitive resources.”

These restrictions represent a clear violation of the First Amendment guarantee of Free Speech and Free Press. Further, the language of NPS commercial film regulations presents a “chilling effect” on the small content creator, whose presence on the natural landscape is no more “impactful” than the average hiker. 

Current Action is Being Taken:

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is now considering legislation that will address this situation. 

The current version of America’s Outdoor Recreation Act of 2023 contains language in Title IV that will prohibit permit requirements on public land for small content creators who film for YouTube or other commercial enterprises. 

However, much of the language is currently unclear, and public understanding of the regulations would benefit from the addition of more specific definitions.

Much of the regulations revolve around the number of people “involved” in the making of such films, the amount of visitation the subject area receives, and the location on which the film is recorded. 

What You Can Do:

Amend filming restrictions in Title IV of America’s Outdoor Recreation Act of 2023. 

A -Please consider language which would more accurately define the word “involve” in the determination of the number of people associated with the filming activity. Many times, a content creator may be filming a cave tour, a rafting trip down the Grand Canyon, or even a ranger-led hike. 

The members of that party may not be “involved” in his filming of that journey, but could possibly appear in the frame of the video. This gray area could be used to prosecute filmmakers who are in no way associated with the nameless people who may appear in the finished product.

B – Please attempt to better define “(D) “(i) conduct the filming in a localized area that receives a high volume of visitation;” 

What does the term “localized” mean? And what exactly is a “high volume of visitation”? Is this simply left to a ranger to decide?

C – Please support the addition of language that would include an ability to film with non-impacting handheld devices on wilderness lands. Designated wilderness lands include the summits of countless mountains, and the depths of countless canyons, upon which and in which the American public has a right to record their memories.  

The Wilderness Act of 1964 designated 54 areas as wilderness, and today that number has grown to some 803 areas, & counting. Together, this means that more than 111,000,000 acres of the most scenic land on the planet, are off limits to someone who wants to pull out an iPhone and take a video of this spectacular scenery.

D – Add language that explicitly prohibits any possibility that the de minimus and commercial permitting process be handed over to Recreation.gov, where additional fees will be incurred, at the expense of the park, and the American taxpayer. 

Hey friends, thanks for your efforts in preserving public access to public lands, and for supporting First Amendment rights to Free Speech on public land.

We need to send letters to the members of the Energy & Natural Resource Committee, and to each of our respective Senators as well. We really need to flood these folks with mail. Over 300,000,000 people visited one of our 426 National Parks last year, and if 1% of 1% of those people would send a letter, we’d be looking like a pretty powerful grassroots lobby.

So, what are you waiting for? This is quick & painless. Take action today to preserve your free speech rights and access to your public lands. Together, we can preserve these lands for the “benefit and enjoyment of the people”.

Below is a letter that you can copy and paste, then email to your Senator. Please feel free to edit this letter to your own liking. You can tell your own story, or just copy, paste and send.

I would add your Senator’s name to the top, and don’t forget to add your name and address at the bottom, so they’ll know you’re a resident of their state. And if you’re sending the letter to the ENR, still put your address down there, as this helps support the legitimacy of your effort.

Need to find your Senators? You have two: Contact Your Senator

If you can, please send a letter to each member of the Energy and Natural Resource Committee.

Here is a list of members: Energy & Natural Resource Committee Members

Thank you again. Future generations will appreciate the quick & painless action you took today.

LETTER TO YOUR SENATOR:

---

Dear Senator,

My intention is to discuss two equally important issues that currently threaten public enjoyment of national parks and public lands. 

I further hope to secure your support, and assistance, in an effort to provide a legislative remedy to a rapidly advancing assault on the American public’s ability to enjoy public lands. 

Unfortunately, the National Park Service & other federal land management agencies have recently began to restrict:

1. Public Access to National Parks & Public Lands, and 

2. The Free Speech rights of the citizenry to record their adventures on these lands with iPhones and small hand-held devices. 

1. Public Land Access:

Please add Restrictive Language to Title II of the America’s Outdoor Recreation Act.

Title II deals with the permanent renewal of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, which if left unchanged will continue to allow a multi-billion dollar corporation to siphon monies from public lands. 

The number of national parks that currently require reservations to enter their gates has exploded in the past 3 years, and access to many wilderness areas can now only be attained through a burdensome online reservation system, which is operated by a for-profit corporate entity. 

Using the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) as legal cover, this arrangement annually hands tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars in reservation fees, administration fees, and lottery fees to a multi-billion dollar government consultant/contractor named Booz Allen Hamilton through the Rec.gov portal. 

Every-day public land users are left to compete for admission through costly, time-consuming online battles and lotteries for permits and reservations to their public parks. Most of these public land users assume that since they’re using a .gov domain, the fees associated with these reservations are used by the parks for the betterment of public facilities, which could not be further from the truth.

This arrangement is the subject of a recently filed class-action lawsuit against Booz Allen Hamilton, but I would hope that all U.S. Senators and Representatives would support adding language to the FLREA that would restrict the collection of third party “junk fees” associated with the entrance to, and use of, public lands.

The renewal of the FLREA is underway in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The provisions of this act are currently under review in Title ll of the aforementioned America’s Outdoor Recreation Act. The current proposal seeks to make the FLREA permanent. If the language of this act is left unchanged, the FLREA will continue to allow this nefarious arrangement.

It is my goal to bring this egregious violation of public trust to your attention. I further hope to acquire your support in the effort to provide such language additions to the FLREA that would eliminate the ability of third party contractors to extract funds from our public land agencies. 

The current arrangement appears to promote a potential conflict of interest between the private sector’s pursuit of profits, and the public land management agencies’ duty to preserve public access to public lands. This does nothing but erode public trust in once-beloved agencies such as the National Park Service.

What You Can Do

Please suggest and support the addition of language that eliminates the ability of third party corporations to collect “junk fees” in association with public access to public lands. These lands belong to all Americans, and the current arrangement is completely inconsistent with the original mission of pioneers such as John Muir, Frederick Law Olmsted and Stephen Mather, the first director of the National Park Service. 

We simply must not allow public access to our lands of heritage to become subject to the financial wizardry of a group of entrenched bureaucrats and corporate barons. Time is of the essence. Our nation desperately needs your assistance in ensuring that our world-famous parks remain a shining example to the peoples of this globe. 

We are indeed a gifted nation, and fortunate to the extent that wise souls came before us with a mind to preserve these special places. Let us not allow these sacred temples of nature to become the proverbial piggy bank for a multi-billion dollar corporation. 

Together, we can demonstrate to the citizens of the world, that national parks are, and  indeed must forever be, preserved “for the benefit and enjoyment of the people”.

2. Free Speech Restriction:

Please amend filming restrictions in Title IV of America’s Outdoor Recreation Act 

Title IV involves Free Speech restrictions implemented by the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Forest Service. 

Officials within these departments have added language to federal commercial filming restrictions in national parks and public lands that require the securement of costly permits, even in productions that they themselves (NPS) describe as “low impact“.

NPS – Commercial Film Permit – See Section 3 – “Does commercial filming by individuals or small groups require a permit” 

In recently revised regulations, the NPS has included “individuals or small groups that don’t use much equipment, but generate revenue by posting footage on websites, such as YouTube and TikTok”, within the confines of their commercial filming definition. 

However, the regulations go on to say: “The primary focus of the NPS, however, is on commercial filming that has the potential to impact park resources and visitors beyond what occurs from normal visitor use of park areas. Examples of this type of filming are productions that use substantial equipment such as sets and lighting, productions with crews that exceed 5 people, and filming in closed areas, wilderness areas, or in locations that would create conflicts with other visitors or harm sensitive resources.”

This places the individual with an iPhone in a precarious legal position. The NPS has told a small content creator, whose presence represents no more a threat to a park’s natural resources or public enjoyment than the average hiker, that their filming activities are illegal, but that the NPS might not elect to prosecute them.

Unfortunately, these vague restrictions effectively place a “chilling effect” on the actions of every-day citizens who may have a monetized YouTube channel, yet want to post their outdoor adventures on various social media platforms. This punishes citizens who by chance, may have a monetized channel and want to publish a beautiful video from a one of our nation’s treasured national parks. 

Commercial Film Permits in national parks have been common for more than two decades and were developed with consideration to large Hollywood film productions, such as Star Wars or Forest Gump. However, the legal discussions that led to such permits took place in an era prior to the technological revolution that now puts a capable video recording device (an iPhone) in the hands of the population at large. 

Today, many “content creators” film their adventures in national parks and public lands and post them to various social media platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok. The ability of the citizenry to film with something so simple as an iPhone could not be fathomed at the inception of the decision to apply commercial permit requirements to public lands. 

A recent case (Price v Garland) regarding this issue has received some attention, and is currently being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, although it is currently unknown as to whether the Court will agree to hear the case. 

This film permit process is burdensome, prohibitively expensive, and is a slap in the face to the millions of creators who produce such content for a viewing public, many of whom now lack the financial or physical ability to visit such lands on their own.

While there is a possibility that the Supreme Court will correct what many consider to be a violation of an absolute right to free speech, there are other means by which we can ensure that the public’s right to free speech on public lands is not left to the arbitrary wishes of the NPS.

Language is currently under consideration in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and it is my understanding that the Committee would like to have as much input and support as possible in the near future concerning this measure, as the language for the bill is soon to be finalized.

I would encourage you to consider the ramifications of the suppression of free speech that exist within these commercial filming requirements, and what they mean as a technologically advancing society moves forward through the 21st century. 

The ability to film with a handheld device, and to broadcast it to the world in a matter of seconds, is revolutionary. This moment is akin to the time of Johannes Gutenberg and the development of movable type. Our public land management agencies are in danger of gravely restricting the distribution of information in a newly evolving digital landscape. A landscape of which, it appears, they have absolutely no understanding. 

What You Can Do

While the proposed language of Title IV is a vast improvement over the current unconstitutional commercial film restrictions maintained by public land management agencies, there are a few changes which would drastically improve the scope of this act.

A -Please consider language which would more accurately define the word “involve” in the determination of the number of people associated with the filming activity. Many times, a content creator may be filming a cave tour, a rafting trip down the Grand Canyon, or even a ranger-led hike. 

The members of that party may not be “involved” in his filming of that journey, but could possibly appear in the frame of the video. This gray area could be used to prosecute filmmakers who are in no way associated with the nameless people who may appear in the finished product.

B – Please support the addition of language that would include an ability to film with non-impacting handheld devices on wilderness lands. Designated wilderness lands include the summits of countless mountains, and the depths of countless canyons, upon which and in which the American public has a right to record their memories.  

The Wilderness Act of 1964 designated 54 areas as wilderness, and today that number has grown to some 803 areas, & counting. Together, this means that more than 111,000,000 acres of the most scenic land on the planet, is off limits to someone who wants to pull out an iPhone and take a video of this spectacular scenery.

C – Please attempt to better define: 

“(2) “(A)(i) “involves fewer than 6 individuals;” – What does “involves” mean? If a random stranger walks through a frame, does this film “involve” them? 

“(3) “(F)(i) “involves a group of not fewer than 6 individuals and not more than 8 individuals;” – Once again, define: “involve”?

“(4) “(A) “involves more than 8 individuals;” – .Once again, define: “involve”?

“(5) “(D) “(i) “conduct the filming in a localized area that receives a high volume of visitation;”  – What does the term “localized” mean? And what exactly is a “high volume of visitation”?  Is this simply left to a ranger to decide?

D – Add language that explicitly removes the possibility that the de minimus and commercial permitting process be handed over to Recreation.gov, where additional fees will be incurred at the expense of public land users. 

Thank You

I thank you in advance for your choice to stand consistent with the Constitution’s First Amendment guarantee of Free Speech, and your support for the American public’s right to unencumbered access to public lands, which were, after all, set aside for the “benefit and enjoyment of the people”. 

Public land management decisions across this nation affect hundreds of millions of Americans each year. Our parks and public lands comprise more than 28% of the landmass of America & received nearly 300,000,000 visitors in 2022. 

Hopefully, with your help, we can keep these sacred lands free of restrictive & bureaucratic entrance regulations, while providing the citizens of this great nation the Free Speech rights that are guaranteed by our great nation’s founding documents. 

Thank you again, 

Sincerely, 

YOUR NAME & ADDRESS

Well friends, sometimes the universe just delivers some good news. This news came as a sort of “Yes, Park Junkie… there is a God” kinda moment…

Court filings in a Virginia Federal Court show that a class action lawsuit has been filed against multi-billion dollar corporate giant Booz Allen Hamilton, the government contractor responsible for the ever-so-lovely public land reservation portal, Rec.gov. 

---

---

That’s right, Booz Allen is facing a lawsuit that alleges it is cluttered with unauthorized and possibly illegal “junk fees” that potentially generate hundreds of millions of dollars for BAH. 

---

Wilson v. Booz Allen Hamilton

The lawsuit was brought by seven outdoor enthusiasts who are seeking to have the matter certified as a class-action suit, covering all individuals in the United States who were charged a Junk Fee on the Recreation.gov website and/or App. 

Plaintiffs’ attorney, Wesley M. Griffith, said they are not challenging the use fees that go towards funding access to federal lands, but the transactional junk fees, which as he notes, are “paid 100 cents on the dollar” to Booz Allen.

The Rec.gov website and app provide a slickly designed platform for users to reserve campsites, float rivers, hike, cut down Christmas trees, and hell, damn near anything you can imagine short of naked fire dancing in the backcountry in the National Park System and other federal lands. 

Actually, do they have naked fire dancing permits…? Perhaps I shouldn’t have deleted my account after all… Anyway…

The complaint alleges that Booz Allen’s fees are akin to the infamous fees Ticketmaster affixes on entertainment ticket purchases, which have in recent years surfaced in car rental agreements and hotel stays. 

The Biden administration has dubbed such add-on charges as “junk fees”, and has suggested that they are serious about cracking down on companies who issue such unpleasant surprises to unsuspecting customers. No word from the White House on the matter of Booz Allen & Rec.gov yet.

---

---

When asked whether it was looking into the Recreation.gov fee structure, the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau referred the question to the National Park Service, who oversees the Recreation.gov program. The NPS suggested that such answers may be found over at the U.S. Forest Service, who reportedly wasn’t keen on answering questions either. 

While the lawsuit seeks to recover hundreds of millions of dollars in fees for those who use Recreation.gov, Booz Allen says the “allegations are grossly inaccurate and reflect a fundamental lack of understanding of Booz Allen’s work supporting the government.”

“Work supporting the government”? Sounds more like work supporting the corporate shareholders… which is, by the way, the goal of any corporation. It has to be. Actually, that’s the law. 

---

How’d This Happen?

Way back in 2016, during the celebratory revelry surrounding the 100th anniversary of the National Park Service, Booz Allen signed a five-year contract with the U.S. Forest Service to manage the Recreation.gov portal for the federal government’s land management agencies, including the National Park Service. 

According to Rick DeLappe, a program manager and apparent liaison between the NPS and BAH, contract extensions are based on performance, and awarded on a five year basis.

---

---

Booz Allen boasts of its “partnership” with the government: “Instead of a traditional cost structure, the unique contractual agreement is a transaction-based fee model that lets the government and Booz Allen share in risk, reward, results, and impacts.  This is a true public-private partnership – it uses no government money,”

Although the folks at BAH claim that there is no government money involved in this arrangement, there is the issue of a $182 million contract that was signed by the Obama administration back in the good ‘ol days of 2016, before the onslaught of reservation requirements, Covid park closures and traffic cameras in the Great Smoky Mountains. 

Oh, and Park Junkies certainly should be aware that in 2021, the Forest Service requested an additional $120 million for an “interagency funded contract” to support “reservations for all recreation facilities on public lands that allow reservations”. 

Where did this $120 million go? Well Dude, we just don’t know…

Because the U.S. Forest Service isn’t talking. 

---

The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act

The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act authorizes five agencies – National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Forest Service – to collect specific fees for on-site improvements.

As we’ve discussed in previous writings, this act was ostensibly passed to allow federal land management agencies to charge fees for the use of certain public lands in order to facilitate the improvement of infrastructure on park lands. 

---

---

Unfortunately, the FLREA became the back door, through which the monster of Rec.gov quickly gobbled up campgrounds, trails, rivers, backcountry campsites and national park entrances as if it were playing a Parker Brothers game with a name that rhymes with Monopoly. 

Oh, well maybe it was Monopoly…

---

Kotab v. Bureau of Land Management

Key to the plaintiff’s case is whether the fees are allowed under the FLREA, which specifically lists fees that can be collected at National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation sites and denotes how they are to be spent.

In the 2022 case of Kotab v. BLM, a Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey, a U.S. District Judge in Nevada, ruled that a “processing fee” charged by Recreation.gov to access the Red Rock Canyon, was improperly administered because the public hadn’t been given an opportunity to review and comment on the fees when they were proposed, as required under FLREA. 

You see, the FLREA allows fees, but most access fees must be publicly announced in advance, and the land management areas must offer the public a “comment period” during which concerned citizens can provide their thoughts on the matter. 

The BLM failed to offer this comment period in Red Rock Canyon, and Kotab went after them. He won… But it didn’t matter…

As Matt Stoller reveals in his November article “Why is Booz Allen Renting Us Back Our National Parks”, despite the ruling, the BLM and Booz simply assembled a phony advisory council which “reviews” public input, then simply does whatever they like… & apparently, they like charging fees. 

---

Privatization of Public Lands

It will indeed by interesting to watch this case roll forward, as it is not yet clear what the outcome of the lawsuit will be or how it will impact the future of Recreation.gov. But it does open the door to many questions about the future of public land management. 

Many, including Park Junkie himself, suspect that the implementation of these reservation systems is simply a step in the move toward the privatization of the access to public lands. And if access to the lands is privatized, then the land itself may just as well be privatized. 

---

---

Critics, such as I, argue that outsourcing the management of these resources to private companies can lead to a number of problems, including reduced public access, increased fees, and conflicts of interest, not to mention the erosion of public trust in once revered agencies, such as the National Park Service. 

One of the main arguments in favor of privatization is that it can help to reduce costs and improve efficiency. However, this may come at the expense of public oversight and accountability, and ultimately, as is clearly demonstrated in this case, public access itself! 

When private companies are given control over public land access, they will inherently be more interested in maximizing profits than in protecting the environment or ensuring unencumbered public access. In fact, with corporate profits at the core of the corporate mission statement, there is simply no way around this unfortunate fact.

Another concern is that private companies may be more susceptible to conflicts of interest. For example, if a company is responsible for both managing and profiting from a public resource, it will likely be tempted to prioritize its own financial interests over the interests of the public.

In this case, the influence of Booz Allen on Washington bureaucrats will likely come into question, which will undoubtedly be entertaining. Some in the viewing gallery will undoubtedly be of the opinion that Booz Allen used its Washington heavyweight status as a means by which it acquired this contract. 

---

---

Further, we mustn’t ignore the possibly that this multi-billion dollar corporation (95% of their business is reported to be held in government contracts) is influencing numerous public land management agencies to adopt the Rec.gov reservation system, in an attempt to multiply corporate profits. 

As Park Junkie has reported in past episodes, there are simply no explanations for why certain parks, such as the little-visited Congaree National Park, would adopt this reservation system, as they have been losing money on the arrangement, by their own admission. 

---

Role of Government Contractors

Government contractors play a significant role in the management of public lands. These companies are responsible for everything from maintenance and repair to visitor services and recreation management. There is certainly a place for private enterprise within the confines of public lands. Indeed, it is unlikely that you really want a Park Ranger mixing your margarita, stirring your dirty martini or recommending a proper vintage cabernet to accompany your filet mignon. 

However, the use of government contractors has been a source of controversy in recent years. Critics argue that these companies may not have the same level of accountability and transparency as government agencies, and that they may be more focused on profits than on public service. Some may contest this assertion, but they’d probably be a corporate attorney or lobbyist. 

In the case of Recreation.gov, Booz Allen Hamilton is responsible for managing the website and mobile app that allow visitors to reserve campsites, float rivers, and access backcountry areas on federal lands. 

It seems entirely likely, that the folks over at BAH, who obviously have the ear of anyone in Washington’s alphabet agencies, can easily influence the decision of federal land management officials to move their reservation systems to Rec.gov.  

While the company says that it is operating under a “true public-private partnership” that uses no government money, the lawsuit alleges that it is generating hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue through unauthorized fees, and seeks to return those fees to Americans who have been scammed by this arrangement. 

However, it must be admitted that no one yet appears to have intimate knowledge of the true amount of money collected by BAH from its public land reservation side-hustle. No one who’s talking anyway…

---

Park Junkie YouTube Videos on The Subject

Watch Park Junkie break down the legal complaint

Who is Rec.gov?

---

Park Junkie National Park Guides

Arches

Glacier

Rocky Mountain

Acadia

---

I don’t specifically recall my first interaction with Rec.gov, but I’m sure that it sucked.

Odds are, “my first” was probably a lottery application to visit The Wave, nearly a decade ago. This iconic sandstone feature, located in northern Arizona’s 112,500-acre Vermilion Cliffs National Monument, somehow gained notoriety among outdoorsy folk well before the emergence of Instagram. I remember applying for this permit, paying my application fee, and getting absolutely nothing in return.

I would post a nice photo of The Wave at this point in the article, but to this very day… I’ve still never been there.

My Wave story is far from unique. According to the Bureau of Land Management, which manages the Wave, some 200,000 people applied for 7,300 possible permits in 2018 alone. That means 192,700 applicants were unsuccessful, and those folks don’t get a refund on their $9 application fee, although I think the fee may have been $6 back then.

---

---

Oh well, at least that money goes to the park, right? Those lottery fees likely finance new picnic tables, restroom facilities, or they address massive maintenance backlogs?

Nope, not a chance… All that lottery fee money stays with Rec.gov my friend, every red cent of it…

But wait, isn’t Rec.gov a government website? Isn’t that site administered by the National Park Service, or the the BLM? Department of Interior, or the Forest Service? Department of Agriculture? Someone? Anyone? Bueller…? Bueller…? Bueller…?

Crickets…

---

Rec.gov is Everywhere… & Nowhere

Any modern-day public land visitor who ventures into the backcountry of his or her local park has likely found the need to utilize the Rec.gov system to secure their chosen adventure, especially if it requires an overnight stay or has limited visitation regulations, which for some reason, are increasingly common these days.

In fact, many of our nation’s most popular national parks, such as Rocky Mountain, Glacier, Yosemite, Arches and Acadia, now require reservations to enter their most popular areas, which can only be attained through Rec.gov.

A quick visit to the Recreation.gov website’s “About” section reveals that their system is widely used, and the numbers are staggering. The page encourages guests to “Bring Home a Story”, lists an array of alluring outdoor activities, and includes a number of impressive statistics and affiliated government agencies. The content and design of the page effectively convey a feeling of competence and security, all while advertising pure adventure.

---

---

According to their figures, Rec.gov controls access to more than 113,000 recreation sites in some 4,200 locations. These range from Florida’s Everglades to Maine’s Acadia National Park and from California’s Joshua Tree, to Alaska’s Denali National Park. They report in excess of 21 million users, who access lands managed by everyone from the National Park Service and the National Forest Service, to the Bureau of Engraving & Printing, the National Archives and the Tennessee Valley Authority.

Wow… These guys definitely have their hand in the outdoor adventure game, and apparently, a few other games as well. I mean, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing? Really?

Anyway, it seems Rec.gov is right in the middle of the thicket there in the nation’s capitol. But for some reason, their website doesn’t really give much information about their structure, it just lists 13 separate federal government agencies as “Our Partners”.

---

So Who IS Rec.gov?

If one is easily pacified, the questions may simply end there. These guys appear to be partners of the federal government, perhaps some kind of quasi-government organization.

But somehow, the “partner” term just doesn’t seem to align with any form of government organization I recall learning about in my social studies classes, or my political science classes, or through life in general. So the question remains: Who is Rec.gov?

Ten minutes on the interwebs provided an answer, as the information is not difficult to find. Turns out, Rec.gov is not a construct of the federal government, or a newly formed alphabet agency tasked with serving the nefarious wishes of runaway Executive branch. Nor is it a government agency created to manage public land visits. Not quite. It is a private entity, owned by a company that remains relatively removed from the public eye, although they certainly raised quite a few eyebrows about a decade ago.

Rec.gov, it turns out, is the recently-adopted, yet likely beloved, stepchild of a massive corporation named Booz Allen Hamilton, which holds a bevy of government contracts, many of which appear to be connected to national defense and data collection.

The Booz Allen “About” Page, does little to really describe what exactly they do, but does promise that they “bring bold thinking and a desire to be the best in our work in consulting, analytics, digital solutions, engineering, and cyber, and with industries ranging from defense to health to energy to international development“.

While many readers may not immediately recognize the corporate name, Booz Allen Hamilton, they will likely recall the company’s most famous employee: Edward Snowden.

---

---

Now, Edward Snowden doesn’t have anything at all to do with national parks, but neither does Kevin Bacon…. or does he?

Politically aware news junkies who remember the hyper-active nature of the national security state in the decade following the September 11 attacks of 2001, may recall that Snowden worked for Booz Allen as a IT guy, handling a number of highly classified documents.

Of course, Snowden elected to, well… “declassify” that information, and that’s probably the only reason the majority of common folk ever heard of the company I now refer to as “The Booz”.

---

Spies Like Us… “The Booz”

At the time of Snowden’s leak in June of 2013, the surveillance-state-philosophy concerning personal data was to collect, collect, collect, and when asked about such activities in public, or in front of the Senate, deny, deny, deny.

Snowden’s leaked documents revealed that federal alphabet agencies were indeed, collecting a trove of information in the form of phone records and emails of American citizens. This fact had been previously denied in Senate hearings by National Security Administration Director James Clapper, who it turns out was a former executive at… non other than Booz Allen Hamilton.

Here’s General Clapper’s classic response to the question of whether the NSA collects any type of data on millions of American citizens. You may recall the main point of interest at 6:40. Keep in mind, this hearing was prior to Snowden’s release of classified documents that proved otherwise.

---

---

You really can’t make this shit up… & it doesn’t stop there. The list of Booz execs who reside in the confines of Washington’s “revolving door” are many in number.

Mike McConnell was a former Booz exec when he took a position as the Director of National Intelligence for George W. Bush, and returned to the Booz after his term as DNI. A top cybersecurity aide to McConnell while he was DNI, Melissa Hathaway, is also a former Booz executive, as are former Central Intelligence Agency director James Woolsey and deputy director Joan Dempsey.

The list of heavyweights goes on & on… The Wikipedia list of this company’s associates is a who’s who of the post 9/11 surveillance state, with representatives from the NSA, CIA and Department of Homeland Security constituting the majority of the list.

Today, the Booz employs nearly 30,000 people in 80 offices worldwide, more than half of whom have “classified” security clearances, while a smaller number is reported to have “top secret” clearance, according to Bloomberg News’ 2013 article “Booz Allen, the World’s Most Profitable Spy Organization”.

---

Why is The Booz involved in National Parks?

It’s only natural to wonder how a top-level cyber-spy company finds their way into a public land permit and reservation scheme. But a quick point will easily explain this:

Quite simply, it’s easy money for a company with a level of technological expertise such as that of The Booz, and perhaps more importantly, they have the political connections necessary to land such a contract.

Payments for their defense related contracts likely range well into the billions of dollars, and thus the public land permit scheme may seem small by comparison, but constructing an online reservation system is just not a lot of work for such a cyber-savvy company. These guys aren’t exactly amateurs.

---

---

Combine the relative ease of task with the fact that this company has connections throughout the top levels of the federal government, and they become the perfect fit to design an online management system for public lands that receive more than 300,000,000 guests annually. As Drake Bennett and Michael Riley wrote in their aforementioned Bloomberg article:

“The firm (The Booz) has long kept a low profile—with the federal government as practically its sole client, there’s no need for publicity. It does little, if any, lobbying. Its ability to win contracts is ensured by the roster of intelligence community heavyweights who work there.”

So it’s easy to see how The Booz gets this contract. They can do the job and they don’t even need to lobby anyone, as they already know everyone in Washington.

They ARE Washington…

---

The Birth of Rec.gov

The idea for moving outdoor reservations to an online form began innocently enough in an Ontario garage back in the early 2000s. Originally, a Canadian duo started a company called ParkNet, which according to NPS envoy to Rec.gov, Rick DeLappe, soon thereafter became Reserve America. Eventually, the small company was sold, and ran through a series of owners, including TicketMaster, the Interactive Corp and the Active Network.

These were tough times for the online reservation game, and many outdoor folk who had interactions with the new platforms came away frustrated, or even downright angry. The systems were glitchy, reservations were lost, web browsers crashed and it seemed everyone was complaining about the inefficiencies of the reservation booking industry.

By 2015, federal government land-management agencies were looking for a solution. The parks and public lands were steadily growing in visitation, but the process for reserving and booking permits via the internet was stuck in past decades of internet protocol.

---

---

The search for a new “partner” in the booking game ended with the decision to accept a bid from The Booz, who was awarded a ten year, $182 million contract, which began in 2017. In addition to that money, Rec.gov collects 100% of the reservation fees, and the lottery fees associated with the specific reservation selected.

Further, as Lindsay DeFrates reported in her 2019 article “No, Rec.gov Doesn’t Fund Public Lands, Rec.gov gets to set their own rate for reservation and lottery fees. The local land management agency is only owed the permit fee, and as she reports, sometimes, they don’t even receive those.

In her examination of the ticketing system for Sequoia National Park’s Mount Whitney, the highest point in the Lower 48, she found that Rec.gov is making somewhere in the range of $100,000 per lottery for a ticket to the top. And this, as she notes, is just one location out of more than 113,000.

So it’s kinda big money, and seems to be a worthwhile side-hustle, even for the world’s most profitable spy agency.

---

Business is Booming for Rec.gov

The statistics advertised on The Booz’s website are slightly more telling than those found on Rec.gov’s. According to this page, the company facilitated more than 9 million online transactions, for more than 45 million users. The Rec.gov app received more than 1.5 million downloads and more than 4.25 million campground reservations were attained through their services. Overall, the system handled more than 87 million sessions, and there were more than 1 million contact center calls.

---

---

In what many consider a disturbing trend, parks and public land agencies are increasingly moving even more obscure locations into the Rec.gov model.

This year, 2022, has witnessed an attempt by Lassen Volcanic National Park to move all of its backcountry reservations to the online platform, going so far as to remove trailside kiosks, which previously allowed spur of the moment hikers to obtain a free backcountry permit at the trailhead. Under this proposal, a fee of $11 per-trip would be implemented, with $6 going to Rec.gov, and $5 to Lassen Volcanic.

---

---

Grand Canyon National Park has as of July 2022, locked down the entire north rim along the, scenic, yet desolate reaches of the Arizona Strip. The park’s remote Toroweap Overlook, located at the end of a rugged dirt road some 60 miles in length, now requires online reservations.

In an act of absolute disregard for public access, park officials simply applied this draconian permit system to the entire strip, including within its scope incredibly hard to reach places such as Kanab Point. I’ve been roaming these areas for decades, and have rarely encountered anyone on weekdays at Toroweap, and only recall ever seeing one other party at Kanab Point.

Each year, the structure of Rec.gov adds new and exciting locations, and new activities to the ever-expanding list of possibilities. These days, you can use the online system to obtain permits to hike, bike, paddle, hunt and fish, to list just a few possibilities. Hell, you can now even get a permit to cut down a Christmas Tree.

However, its a sure bet that The Booz won’t be leaving a present under your tree.

---

Rec.gov gets Money from In-Person Permits Too

In the case of Yellowstone National Park, all backcountry permits are now routed through Rec.gov, even those that are obtained in person from a ranger on site. I realized this in the summer of 2022, when, hoping to avoid Rec.gov, I entered the Bridge Bay Marina Ranger Station, and requested a permit to camp overnight at Heart Lake, in the park’s southern region.

The ranger showed me the available sites, and I chose one. He then asked for my email, which I didn’t really think about, and charged me $15. When he handed me the permit, I noticed the itemized pricing, which conveyed that the permit fee was $5, and the “reservation fee” was $10. Intrigued, I asked the ranger about the reservation fee, as I did not have a reservation. I was a walk-in, looking for a walk-in permit.

“Oh, that’s because we have to use Rec.gov to make all backcountry reservations” the ranger kindly responded. “That’s just how they want us to do it now. We have to.”

---

---

So, in the case of the world’s first national park, any backcountry permit must be issued through Rec.gov, despite the fact that you may be standing in northwestern Wyoming, in front of a ranger who has the permit book in his hand. Such a transaction gives a company located in the leafy confines of McLean, Virginia $10, while giving the backcountry system at Yellowstone $5.

And the public wonders how the national parks are struggling with a $12 billion maintenance backlog…

---

The Public is Learning About Rec.gov

Over the course of the past few months, as I learned the details of this setup, I’ve talked to hundreds of friends and acquaintances who frequent their national parks and public lands. I am always curious to find if any of them have knowledge of this system. Low and behold, I must report that public knowledge of this Faustian bargain is basically nil.

Out of the hundreds of conversations regarding the Rec.gov arrangement, only ONE of my friends had any substantial knowledge of the private nature of the public land permit and reservation system. Only ONE. And he is a bit of a inquisitive soul, so he sort of investigates things because he just can’t help himself.

However, the story of such manipulation of public land trust is slowly coming to the surface. Just a couple weeks back, well-known finance writer Matt Stoller published a telling piece on his Substack account entitled, “Why is Booz Allen Renting Us Back Our Own National Parks”. Stoller is Director of Research at the American Economic Liberties Project, and a great deal of his work centers on the relationship between the private and public sectors of American finance.

His article focuses largely on the administrative “junk fee” add ons that are the basis for the business model at play in the Rec.gov arrangement with public land agencies. Stoller argues that this is a “scam”, and this author certainly agrees with him. His article goes on to point out the potentially promising news that this arrangement is not permanent, at least not yet.

---

The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act

The entire Rec.gov permit and reservation system is built upon the basis of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004, which effectively authorized the federal government to charge fees for activities and access to public land. This bill contains language which has proven both beneficial and harmful to The Booz.

First, the FLREA provides a roadmap for the implementation of fees on public lands within the control of federal agencies. The act authorizes such fees, in a motion to give permanent authority to public land agencies to charge fees for the use of said lands. This is the gateway used by The Booz to gain a source of income derived from the public’s desire to use its own land.

---

---

Secondly however, the same law requires that the public be notified of any proposed fee increases, and that the subject of such a fee increase be addressed through a pubic notice-and-comment period. This led to a small problem for The Booz in 2020, when hiker Thomas Kotab sued the Bureau of Land Management for the $2 processing fee charged to access Nevada’s Red Rock Canyon Conservation Area.

The BLM had failed to provide for a public comment period, and U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Nevada, Jennifer A. Dorsey, found that while Congress had indeed authorized the charging of fees for the purpose of preserving and utilizing Federal lands, it had not authorized administrative fees implemented by third parties. Judge Dorsey sided with Kotab and the BLM and Rec.gov quietly resorted to accepting the comment period.

As Stoller notes however, this is merely a procedural step, and the committees that make fee implementation decisions are not bound by public comment. They merely must accept it. They go on to make their own decisions, often ignoring the actual comments received by engaged citizens.

---

Calling All Concerned Public Land Users

As concerned public land users, it is incumbent upon us to begin the laborious process of learning about how this system is organized, and how we can obtain some level of meaningful impact upon the decisions that affect our federal lands.

Obviously, it behooves the park-going-public to engage in discussions with such land agencies, and this can be achieved through the public comment process. Up till now, not many publications seem to focus upon the administrative moves of the National Park Service, or the BLM. This needs to change.

While it is a point of Stoller’s piece, that these agencies may simply ignore the public’s submitted comments, it is likewise understandable that often, these comments are relatively few in number.

But what if there were tens of thousands of comments? And what if those people were actually paying attention to the matter at hand? Perhaps this would lead to a different outcome. Too often, decisions affecting public lands are simply made without any real public notice, simply because no one is requesting their input. And why would they?

Also, it is worth mentioning that Stoller’s report also reveals that the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act is up for a Congressional renewal vote in October of 2023. That means that there is a looming opportunity right in front of public land lovers. With a fair amount of public outcry, Congressional members may be inclined to demand changes to the FLREA, and could easily tighten the reigns on runaway fees, such as those charged by The Booz.

A slightly quicker means also exists by which these corporate barons could be reeled in. The White House unveiled the “President’s Initiative on Junk Fees” in late October of 2022. In a move ostensibly made to reduce the negative impact of junk fees on the lives of Americans, the Biden administration reports that it is seeking to lessen the prevalence of such fees in the private sector through actions by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

This could easily be modified to include the Federal land agencies that allow Rec.gov to administer such fees on public lands. Poof… Problem solved…

Well, maybe not solved, but at least it’s an improvement.

---

Do We Really Need Reservations Anyway?

All of this is very intriguing, and the methods by which federal agencies and corporations move to constrict our lives are ever-evolving in our modern world. Sure, we could clamp down on the confluence of public/private enterprise and perhaps arrive at a workable solution to the permit and reservation fee scheme.

But one has to wonder, do we really need all of these public land reservations? Weren’t our public lands just fine 25 years ago, when no one had ever heard of a reservation to access a national park?

Critics of an open park policy will rant and rave about how busy the parks are, and in some instances, they may have a fair point. But the move to restrict access to the lesser known areas of more remote areas is an obvious money grab, and has no other benefit to anyone.

Our nation’s park-going-public needs to have a conversation, and not just blindly leave such decisions up to the desk jockeys at the National Park Service and the other public land agencies. Do we need these reservations? Do they negatively impact some people more than others? Are there alternatives to the reservation system? Do such systems need to be implemented year-round, or on weekdays? Do we want private enterprise involved in the processing of such programs? What do we want?

Even though there may be those among our ranks who favor a reservation system, because they think it will preserve the natural features of their beloved lands, a conversation must begin. And while some folk may defend the reservation system, it’s hard to imagine any public land user with a knowledge of how this system currently works, defending such a public/private business model.

---

Thanks for Reading National Park Observer

As you can see, we have a lot to discuss in future publications of the National Park Observer, so I certainly hope you’ll consider subscribing, and commenting on what you feel should be done to address the issues facing our public lands as we move toward a new year.

See ya on down the trail…

---

Congaree National Park

South Carolina’s Congaree National Park is not a crowded park. Its gates are open wide, free of polluted lanes backed up of traffic. Its parking lots offer a wide array of empty spots, assuring that your shiny metal coffin is unlikely to sustain a scratch from a careless minivan that parks too close.

And from my experience, there is no shortage of campsites available to an adventure bound traveler who cruises into the park in an unplanned fit of spontaneous South Carolina wanderlust.

---

---

This is a swamp after all, albeit a very pretty swamp, as far as swamps go. Its groves of banyan trees comprise the largest old-growth forest east of the Mississippi River, and its loblolly pines are the tallest trees in South Carolina. Its streams often lie as still & silent as the dead of night, yet somehow glow clear and glassy.

This park definitely has mood… But still, not many travelers dream of a relaxing vacation in a swamp.

I have 3 trips to Congaree under my belt, and have camped in the park each of these times, the last being in the summer of 2019. I pulled into the park, grabbed a campsite at the Longleaf Campground, paid my fee at a dropbox, and headed into the park to hike a quick boardwalk loop that runs out through the park’s massive banyan trees to Weston Lake.

I don’t recall specifically, but I don’t remember anyone else being in the campground on this visit, although someone may have been at another distant campsite. It was so uncrowded however, that I really didn’t even notice.

Nevertheless, NPS officials at Congaree have found it necessary to resort to a reservation system in order for visitors to secure a campsite at both the Longleaf Campground, and the more remote Bluff Campground, which doesn’t even provide vehicle access. Yep, walk-in camping only at Bluff my friends… But you’ll need a reservation for campsites way out there, and the fee is going up.

---

Congaree Raising Campground Fees

In a press release dated December 1, 2022, Congaree announced that the fees for these quiet campgrounds will be increasing. As of January 1, 2023, the walk-in sites at Bluff are doubling, from the current $5 per night to $10. The rates at Longleaf, where I have always stayed, without neighbors mind you, are raising from $10 to $15, and the group site will move to $25 from $20. Why you may ask?…

---

---

In what appears to be a rare lapse of hush-lippedness surrounding the actual financial arrangement between the NPS and Rec.gov, the press release details that the NPS pays what are termed “contractor line item costs” (CLINs) to Rec.gov. These CLINs are fees that the park service pays its recently befriended corporate partner in order to absolve itself of the burdensome task of collecting the those pesky campground fees in the form of cash envelopes.

According to the release, these CLINs currently cost Congaree $6-8 per campground reservation, and are subtracted from the total camping fee. A quick examination of these numbers reveals that the park is actually losing money on the Bluff Campground reservations at the current rate. If Rec.gov charges $6-8 per reservation, and the park is charging $5 for a nightly reservation, we find a shortfall of $1-3 per transaction. Thus, the fees must be increased…

---

Does Congaree need a Reservation System?

This begs a few questions: Was the financial administration of a campground too laborious a task for the NPS to handle? Is this park just too busy to properly manage its overflowing campgrounds? Does Congaree actually need a reservation system?

These all seem unlikely scenarios.

---

---

The National Park Service has been providing campgrounds and collecting camping fees for nearly a century, and it would seem they should have a handle on this business model, perhaps even be turning a profit by now. The success of industry giant KOA clearly demonstrates that there is a hefty amount of money to be made with campgrounds, and they have to buy and pay taxes for the land upon which their campgrounds are situated, while the parks have no debt on their land, and further, pay no taxes.

A quick look at the visitation numbers from Congaree suggests that it is not “too busy” to deal with the financial administration of its campgrounds. In 2021, the park received 215,181 visitors. As national park visitation numbers go, this is not exactly a busy park, and we can assume that a small fraction of those would likely desire a campsite in a swamp. Again, I’ve camped there on three separate occasions over the past decade, and don’t recall seeing a soul.

Of course, given such nominal visitation statistics, we must run on the assumption that the park is not heavily staffed. In fact, given today’s staffing complications on a national scale, we can assume that they are likely understaffed. This is a common claim of the parks, which probably has a fair level of validity.

Nevertheless, we’re not looking at a complicated method here. Many campgrounds have found the means by which to remain viable for decades by simply providing a metal deposit tube that securely holds campground fees deposited by campers upon arrival at their chosen site, on a first-come, first-served basis.

---

---

Historically, many campgrounds with a decent amount of traffic place seasonal campground hosts on site, who stay in the their own RV. This is usually a volunteer position that costs the park nothing, aside from the power and water used by the volunteer host. Even at a quiet campgrounds such as those at Congaree, this seems financially viable.

So in review of these questions, it seems highly unlikely that this a park really in need of a such a seemingly Faustian service.

---

Rec.gov is Everywhere these Days

If a modern-day traveler visits many national parks, they are certainly bound to encounter the need to utilize the Rec.gov system. This company is everywhere now.

Wanna enter Rocky Mountain National Park during the summer season? How bout a trip into John Muir’s sacred Yosemite Valley? Glacier’s Going to the Sun Road? Or a morning trip up Acadia’s Cadillac Mountain? Well, you’ll need a reservation to do any of these activities… & if you’ve likely guessed where you’ll obtain that. Yep, Rec.gov.

“Oh, but Park Junkie, our parks are just too busy!” you say… “We need this reservation system to keep the numbers down!” you say… ” We are loving our precious parks to death!” you say…

---

---

Well, I’m going to argue that we’re loving our “parking lots” to death, but that’s a subject for another story (stay tuned). Nevertheless, let’s toss a few other examples on the table:

Out-of-the-way areas of unknown parks such as Lassen Volcanic National Park are now using Rec.gov to distribute reservations for backcountry camping access. What was just a year ago a simple kiosk form at the trailside, without a fee at all, is now a reservation only system ran through Rec.gov. I’ve had some fabulous hikes in Lassen, as late as 2019, & I didn’t see a soul in the backcountry, even in “popular” areas such as Devil’s Kitchen, and the Cinder Cone. Just so we’re clear, nothing in Lassen can be accurately described as “popular”.

How about the case of Voyageurs National Park in Minnesota? You been up there? I didn’t think so. Not many have… You wanna go canoe camping in this remote park’s scenic northern woods?

Well, don’t just cruise into the Ash Creek Visitor Center hoping to score a permit, as I did in in the summer of 2017. You’ll need a reservation, & you can already guess where you get that. Luckily, this visitor center does have an old computer & printer, where you can sign on to Rec.gov and obtain your permit. I returned in 2019 for another solo kayak trip out to Kettle Falls, but I was an old pro by then and had already made my deal with the devil to access my public land.

Areas such as Grand Canyon National Park’s remote Toroweap location, which lies at the end of a three-mile, high-clearance 4×4 trail, which lies at the end of a sixty-mile dirt road, that crosses the desolate reaches of the God-forsaken Arizona Strip, now requires a reservation to enter. Of course, that goes through Rec.gov.

---

---

Now, if you’re one of the unfortunate souls who makes their way out to the Toroweap gate without a reservation, you’ll be turned around by a friendly ranger at a quiet little remote ranger station, who will kindly inform you that you’ll need a permit. Oh, and he’ll also inform you that the nearest cellular service by which you can obtain that permit, is a sixty-mile drive back up the lonely dirt road you just came down.

Grand Canyon National Park, it turns out, has simply locked down the entire northern area of the park on the Arizona Strip. Remote sections of this 1.2 million acre national treasure, such as Kanab Point, Twin Point and Kelly Point, now require a permit to access.

These areas are far more remote than Toroweap, with single lane, miles-long 4×4 trails the only method of access. There is NO ONE out there. There are no masses of IG influencers or YouTubers falling off of ledges, climbing on hoodoos or swinging golf clubs out there… There is NO ONE out there. Period.

Yet you’ll now need to pay Rec.gov for the privilege of visiting these little-known scenic vistas, which are public land, by the way.

---

So why did Congaree move to the Reservation System?

Well, since you asked, I’ll give you my opinion. This is all fairly simple. Lobbyists from Rec.gov are continually pressuring upper-ranking officials from the Department of Interior and the National Park Service, as well as the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Agriculture’s National Forest Service, to implement more reservation systems across the board, in order to “preserve the public land and to enhance the visitor experience“, of course.

Why else would this system be expanding at its current rate? It’s a corporate money grab, plain & simple.

---

---

To a leery observer, it may seem that the National Parks are quickly becoming the Rec.Gov Parks. This is a scary scenario my friends. It appears that what we are witnessing is the privatization of the entrance process to our most treasured lands. I believe Fredrick Law Olmsted, John Muir, Stephen Mather & Theodore Roosevelt, all hard-fought proponents of public land and unfettered public access to those lands, are rolling over in their graves with anger as you read these very words.

This was not easy to see in the early years of Rec.gov, a mere decade, or even five years ago. Unless you wandered around the parks endlessly, you likely never really had to deal with the task of paying a private corporation to access your land.

It was resentfully understandable that we may need to address overcrowding concerns in Rocky Mountain, or Yosemite Valley, so the Rec.gov system was sort of begrudgingly accepted.

Today however, the beast is out of the bag. These corporate barons have taken the reservation expansion too far, too fast. When the public sees areas that are in no need of regulations, such as those listed above, being swept into the realm of reservation requirements, head scratching ensues. For me, it became the simple journalistic pursuit of “follow the money”.

---

Who owns Rec.gov?

So I did. I asked myself, who is making money from this? Is it the park? Who owns this Rec.gov thing? A quick bit of research revealed that I’m not the only one curious about this, but unfortunately, there aren’t many out here making it known. A few have thankfully.

Just last week, a cat named Matt Stoller released a telling story on this public/private corporate lovefest over on his Substack account. His tale is telling, demonstrating that Booz Allen Hamilton is making an unfathomable amount of money through its recent partnership with the parks and public lands in America.

It should be pointed out that much of the park-going public seems to believe this money is going to the parks, as they’ve never been told differently…. It’s not.

As Stoller revealed in his November 29 piece, “Why is Booz Allen Renting Us Back Our Own National Parks?” the Booz is making more than $100,000 per lottery from hikers applying to acquire a permit with a 33% success rate on California’s Mount Whitney alone. Such lotteries are not limited to the tallest peak in the lower 48.

This monster controls access to more than 4,200 facilities and 113,000 actual sites sprinkled from the tropical Florida Everglades to the tundra of Alaska’s Denali National Park, and one begins to realize that these are not small earnings for the Booz. In fact, I recently learned that you can even use Rec.gov to cut down a Christmas Tree in Wyoming now. Santa will not give any “good” points for that one.

Now if you’re not familiar with the Booz, let’s just remind you of who they are. Cause it’s highly likely you’ve heard of them in the past, and if you haven’t heard of them, you’ve definitely heard of their most famous employee…

Wanna know who? Well, I need some way to keep you coming back… So we’ll hold off on that for a minute. I’ll be releasing a story on that in the coming week or so. I’m tired of all this drama at the moment however, so I’m going for a walk in the woods…

I’ll catch y’all on down the trail…. Cheers

---

---

Relevant Links

NPS – Congaree National Park – Campground Fee Increase Press Release

Park Junkie’s National Park Newscast

Park Junkie Store

Park Junkie National Park Guides

---

---

I generally hold a fairly positive outlook on the world, despite the fact that we live under an increasingly restrictive and claustrophobic social structure. I attribute my jovial demeanor to the fact that I often find refuge from this hectic world in the most remote and beautiful areas that the United States has to offer: Our National Parks and Public Lands.

Unfortunately, I must admit that my refuge is shrinking… It’s shrinking fast!

And with the recent filming regulations handed down by the National Park Service, also shrinking is the public’s collective ability to tell meaningful stories from these treasured lands…

---

---

John Muir’s Written Stories from Public Lands

John Muir once wrote that “Thousands of tired, nerve-shaken, over-civilized people are beginning to find out that going to the mountains is going home; that wilderness is a necessity”

If this was the case in the 1860s, when Muir first entered the Yosemite Valley, one can only imagine what the world needs today. If tired, nerve-shaken, over-civilized people numbered in the thousands during Muir’s time, they must number in the tens or hundreds of millions in 2022.

---

---

Inspired individuals such as Mr. Muir, have always sought to share their experiences in the wonderlands of our public wilderness. In his day, such folk would pen stories of their time in the wilderness, such as the “unknown nobody’s” detailed accounts of encounters with the various plants and trees situated along streams in the Yosemite high country.

As time passed, the spoken word became written, then recorded. Soon thereafter, words were joined with photographic images, eventually to be combined into the wonder of motion picture, which would soon enjoy the addition of audio to provide what we know today as modern film.

---

Modern Story Tellers Use Technology

Today, many evangelists of the natural arena create films set in our world’s most fantastic locations and detail their journeys through our national parks. The task of recording such stories is painstakingly endured by the filmmaker, often in hopes that those who view their content will one day do just as Muir did: drop everything and just head out into the mountains to “learn the news”. This is why I create online content.

I began to develop my vision for the Park Junkie Project back in 2016, during the 100th anniversary of our National Park System, which was a banner year for the parks and the idea of preserving public lands “for the benefit and enjoyment of the people”. I was already a lifelong visitor to these sacred shrines of unparalleled natural grandeur, having been to more than 50 national parks at that point.

As I searched for online content that detailed the adventures hidden within the remote regions of our beloved parks, I found the internet lacking in useful information. So my task began. I set out to build the most complete online guide to the national parks that could be found on the web.

I first assumed that the task would only take me a few months. I began to construct my website, filling it with scenic photographs and writings that would provide all the information which a would-be traveler could want in order to embark on the trip of a lifetime. Turns out… it’s taking me a helluva lot longer than a few months. I’m still working on this task six years later.

---

---

As the months became years however, technology developed. The modern mobile cellular device became a supercomputer, which included in its array of features, a camera that only a Hollywood filmmaker would have had access to a mere twenty years prior. With this tool in my hand, I slowly began to find myself choosing to press the record button more often that the shutter button. Video was just seemed to provide a more a complete product of storytelling.

My first attempts at filming my journeys in our national parks were comically frustrating. I can admit the comedic aspect to these attempts now, but in the beginning, my failures were certainly not something I found humorous. My on camera speech was an absolute disaster of word salads and shot exposures were constantly beyond any hope of “in-post” repair.

Anyone who observed the early ramblings of Park Junkie would certainly not suspect that any form of substance was likely to evolve from the primordial soup that was my early film productions… few of which were published by the way.

Fast forward six years. I now have three separate iPhones, one of which is dedicated to a drone, which I rarely fly, since they are prohibited in National Park lands, and one, a cracked older model, for filming more rugged scenes where it may fall and become damaged. My main phone is reserved for simply filming in hand on trail and setting on a tripod for passerby shots as I hike through the frame.

I have since abandoned all of my old SLR cameras, audio equipment and all of that bulky nonsense that I hated carrying anyway. I now shoot exclusively with a small, simple phone. I love it.

---

Why I Film on Public Lands

I thoroughly enjoy producing short videos of my adventures in the world’s most stunning landscapes. I make national park films with the desire that my content will encourage others to take to the hills in search of adventure, which I believe fuels the human soul like no other activity or pastime. I am of the opinion that time in nature combined with the physical and mental challenges encountered when traveling in such sacred earthly palaces make us better humans, both physically and spiritually.

I am also motivated by the realization that many in my viewing audience are simply watching my films because they have a special relationship with these lands. Perhaps they once enjoyed sunny afternoons in a particular park, or on a featured trail, with a loved one who is not with them anymore.

It is likely that some of my viewers simply cannot visit a particular remote location at this point in their life due to physical limitation or age, but they simply wish to relive their experience in that park through a film that takes them there, if only in their mind.

It may be that a viewer has a fond memory of a life-changing event or revelation that occurred when they visited that now sacred place. Emotional and spiritual overloads can easily happen in these lands… the power emitted by the earth in many wilderness temples is simply overwhelming. A simple mountain scene in these lands can drop a man to his knees in the middle of a trail, and somehow send tears streaming down his face in the light of a full moon. I’ve had it happen.

---

---

I am honored to be a vessel by which my viewers virtually tour these lands. I can only hope that my journeys into the grand wilderness of our parks and public lands provide the experience that my audience deserves, and I strive to cut no corner in the construction of my product. I wish to provide the best film possible for my viewers, and I do this every single time I venture into the hills with my camera.

Part of the Park Junkie mission in creating content on our federal lands is to simply convey the story of a particular park to my audience, so that they can remain continually informed of events during a disaster or emergency in a park. This desire guided my journalistic course during the catastrophic floods in Yellowstone National Park during the summer of 2022.

Information from the park was difficult to attain in the outside world, but as many have told me since, the reports that I dispatched via YouTube was the only real form of information that many could find. The Park Service personnel in Yellowstone certainly had their hands full with the disaster mitigation efforts underway on the ground, and I do indeed commend the Yellowstone NPS for their rather effective evacuation and re-opening process, as I’m sure there were a tidal wave of crisis-level responsibilities added to already strapped staff.

Complete news reports to the public from the park were, understandably, not their first concern. Thus, Park Junkie began to provide reports from the park, and the journalistic side of the channel began.

---

National Park Commercial Film Permit

Unfortunately, the National Park Service now wishes to silence filmmakers such as myself. For some reason, this federal agency is working diligently to cancel small story-telling creators and to suspend any ability of such creators to publish content filmed on public lands.

The Park Service has long had a commercial filming restriction in parks and on public lands at large. Any filmmaker involved in a film-for-profit production has been required to obtain a filming permit for decades. The reasons for this are fairly obvious. Most film productions have traditionally included a massive amount of gear and equipment, along with a number of gaffers, actors, directors and props that would fill a small town. The negative impact on the park and the visitor experience from such a complex process would likely be substantial.

---

---

Thus, the parks required the permit, in order to pay extra staff to oversee the production and to lessen the impact such a massive set would have on visitors and the environment. This made sense, and it is unlikely that anyone really considered the fees associated with such undertakings offensive or unreasonable.

As humankind moved into the twenty-first century however, the advance of civilization brought with it the technological developments detailed above, and social networks such as YouTube, which enable the immediate dissemination of content to an online audience the world over. This enabled individual filmmakers to produce content “on-the-fly” without mounds of equipment or crews. Now the process of filming didn’t need to impart a negative impact on the land or the visitor experience.

National Park Service however policy, did not advance with technology. The commercial filming regulations that were put in place during the time of eight-track cassettes remained in place throughout this period of rapid technological advancement, which led to conflicts in the modern world.

---

Gordon Price & Crawford Road

Enter Gordon Price, a filmmaker from Yorktown, Virginia, who released a film called Crawford Road in 2018. Several scenes from his film were set in Colonial National Historic Park, which is managed by the National Park Service and is thus subject to public land commercial film permit requirements. Following the release of his film, park service officials paid a visit to Mr. Price, and issued him a citation for failing to procure a commercial filming permit.

Price was initially inclined to pay the fine, but upon consultation with legal counsel, decided to pursue a defense under the protection of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech.

The National Park Service was known to back down from such conflicts, presumably due to the fact that their own legal counsel likely knew that the requirement stood on shaky legal ground. Indeed, in this case, the NPS decided not to pursue the matter with Mr. Price, and dropped the matter.

---

Mr. Price Sues the National Park Service

Mr. Price however, was not so willing to walk away. He filed suit against the NPS on the grounds that the government agency had violated his rights to free speech. The case went to court, and in February of 2021, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia declared the NPS regulation unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated free speech protections.

All looked good at that point, as the NPS placed an interim guidance for filming in parks on their Office of Communications webpage. This update removed the permit requirement for “low-impact” filming, while maintaining such requirements for “other filming activities” which may cause “potential impacts to resources and the visitor experience”.

This could have been the end of it, and the park service could have let it be. It was clear that “low-impact” filmmakers were not harming the environment or the park visitor experience, and that the rules were written in a by-gone era. Nevertheless, the NPS upper brass bureaucrats quietly went about appealing their case for restrictions on free speech to a higher court.

---

NPS Wins on Appeal

As we all know, the wheels of justice are slow. It took a year and a half for the case to make its way to a decision. On August 23, 2022 the ruling came down in the appeals case, now filed as Price v. Garland. What formerly seemed like a solid win for the rights of the people, became another feather in the hat of big government. The court reversed the lower district court’s ruling and dealt a blow straight to the chin for advocates of free speech.

---

---

In a 2 to 1 decision, the higher court’s Judge Douglas Ginsberg penned an opinion that many in the legal community will likely find perplexing. He reasoned that although some portions of the national park system are public forums, where open public discourse would be protected, a public forum analysis does not apply to filmmaking, because “a filmmaker does not seek to communicate with others at the location in which he or she films, the filmmaker does not use the location as a forum”.

Having arrived at this conclusion, two justices out of three declined to apply the classic “public forum” analysis, and further held that filmmaking “is not itself a communicative activity, it is merely a step in the creation of speech that will be communicated at some other time, usually in some other location”.

Thus, the free speech protections of the First Amendment did not apply to Mr. Price. The court held that the NPS regulations on free speech were indeed, constitutional.

---

Judge David Tatel Dissents

While two misguided judges found that the rights of free speech did not apply to filming on public lands, one did. Judge David Tatel penned a scathing dissent, in which he wrote that “By stripping public forum protection from filming, my colleagues – for the very first time – disaggregate speech creation and dissemination, thus degrading First Amendment protection for filming, photography, and other activities essential to free expression in today’s world”.

Judge Tatel went on to explain, “My colleagues reimagine the public forum to protect the stumping politician but not the silent photographer, to shield the shouting protester but not the note-taking reporter”, he wrote. “These distinctions find no basis in First Amendment jurisprudence. It makes no more sense to exclude certain types of speech from public forums than it does to police which squirrels may enter a conservation easement.”

The dissenting justice went on to explain that the public forum analysis should depend on the forum, not on the type of expressive activity that takes place within the forum. He added, “By stripping filming of the protections afforded to expression in public forums, the court puts us in direct conflict with other circuits and leaves important expressive activities unprotected in places where the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech should be at its apex.”

I’m not exactly a legal scholar… and I don’t recommend you take legal advice from me on important matters, but I’m inclined to agree with Judge Tatel.

In this decision, the court has effectively made a distinction based on where one’s audience is located during the speech. Essentially, this court is saying that since a filmmakers audience is not present at the location of the filming, there exists no right to free speech.

Welcome to the new America kids… Now shut up and do as you’re told…

---

Why did the NPS Appeal the Decision?

Many would be inclined to ask the question, “why would the park service want to restrict the free speech of YouTube creators?”, and this is a valid inquiry. Truth is, there’s likely a complex set of surrounding issues at hand, and I’m not really sure what the end game is here for the park service. If I were to speculate, I’d have to be quite conspiratorial in my judgment, and I’d be inclined to suggest that the reasons go far beyond the NPS. But we’ll save those conversations for another time.

---

New Commercial Film Permits

Following the ruling, the NPS left the interim regulations in place, but it didn’t take long for their wretched attorneys to come up with a new set of guidelines which this time explicitly mentioned producers on YouTube and TikTok.

Strangely, the newly announced rules mentioned in the very next line, that the “primary focus of the NPS, however, is on commercial filming that has the potential to impact park resources and visitors”.

Basically, if one were to read between the lines, the park service is saying that it’s technically illegal for low-impact YouTubers and Tiktokers to film in national parks without a permit, but they’ll just look the other way, unless those filmmakers use substantial equipment, such as sets and lighting.

In this case, we’re left with an arbitrary set of rules, that may, or may not be applied at the discretion of a park ranger. This raises a plethora of valid concerns.

What if that park ranger does not like your content? What if that park ranger just doesn’t like the clothes you wear? The hairstyle you wear? The nose ring in your nose? Those tattoos on your arm? Or on your face? What if that ranger just doesn’t like your race? Your gender? Your religious affiliation? What if that ranger just doesn’t like YOU?

So yeah, the National Park Service just canceled free speech for YouTubers and Tiktokers.

---

What the New Permits Require

So the question may be on your mind: “Well Park Junkie, what is the hassle in obtaining a permit? Why are you so opposed to this permit?”

Well, aside from the absolute violations of free speech and freedom of the press that I see written upon the face of these tyrannical regulations, we can focus on the fact that they are a burdensome pain in the ass for anyone who wants to subject him or herself to dealing with another form of government bureaucracy.

First of all, the application process is horrendous. An application must be filed, by mail, with an application fee (non-refundable, of course) which ranges anywhere between $100 and $200, depending on the park in which it is filed. The application does not guarantee a permit.

Many locations have a set time period during which the filming must take place, and those vary from site to site. Some locations, such as Independence Hall require that the filming take place during hours when there are no guests on location, so the filmmaker would need to be there after closing. This of course, would necessitate the payment of park staff to be on hand during such time, which the filmmaker will need to pay.

Filming is restricted to confined areas in many parks, and furthermore, as I understand it currently, there can be no filming at all in Wilderness Areas, which comprises the largest sections of nearly all national parks. If you can’t film in the Wilderness Areas, what the hell are you really going to film in a national park anyway?

The applications require that filmmakers list their social security numbers, tax id numbers, license plate numbers, and a list of information that would make you think you’re applying for a mortgage on a seven figure home. I imagine that the new patron scandal saint Samuel Bankman Fried didn’t even do this much paperwork when he filed with the SEC to start FTX… I digress…

Continuing on the paperwork front, the list of questions continues: What areas do you intend to film? When? How? With whom? What kind of underwear will you be wearing? Etc…

Also of concern, and probably the most atrocious requirement on the list is the need to obtain a $1,000,000 insurance policy that names the NPS as a beneficiary in the event that the filmmaker destroys or damages park property or resources.

Now if you know anything about federal government expenditures, you’ll understand that it wouldn’t take much damage to a handrail to eat up that 7 figure policy, so you can bet your ass that an insurance company is going to juice the filmmaker good for that policy.

This list could go on, but I think you get the point. At least you should.

---

Where Do We Go From Here?

Following the ruling, I stepped back for some time, and contemplated the future of the Park Junkie Project. Consideration of the appalling assault on the freedoms guaranteed by our nation’s constitution aside, how could the park service even justify their stance in becoming such an overbearing beast in our nation’s march toward tyranny? These are sacred grounds after all!

Would John Muir, Frederick Law Olmsted, Stephen Mather or Theodore Roosevelt arrive at the conclusion that individuals should not be allowed to film freely in their nation’s most scenic and revered lands? No, certainly not! These men are rolling over in their graves right now! The long fight for the preservation of public lands means nothing if a nation’s citizens do not hold the right to freely enjoy their lands, and many enjoy such lands by making films that celebrate these lands.

Many more, who indeed may never find the necessary funding, time or physical ability to visit these lands, enjoy them through the productions of filmmakers like me. Filmmakers who are now told that they cannot film on these lands without securing a permit from our Federal Masters. Thus, many among our population will be refused the right and ability to click on a thumbnail and watch a film that showcases the geologic and historic wonders of more than 425 units of the national park service.

These lands are our nation’s treasures, America’s Best Idea in the words of writer and historian Wallace Stegner. (Although this term is now attributed to Ken Burns, its origins lie with Stegner, who said the parks are “the best idea America ever had.”). Are we now to just accept that we cannot share footage from these lands? That somehow, we should just abdicate the mission of telling the stories of these lands? Just leave that up to National Geographic, they are the professionals after all. What can we YouTubers and Tiktokers possibly bring to the table that Nat Geo can’t?

I’ll tell you what we can bring to the table that Nat Geo can’t. Authenticity.

We bring real people on the scene. Real everyday, hard-working, men and women from every possible background and from every possible avenue of life. People with truth. People with spirit. People with grit. People with a story to tell. People with a future…

We don’t bring people with 7 figure insurance policies… We don’t bring corporate entities with multi-level marketing programs… We don’t bring the same old story you’ve been told for the past 50 years by big Hollywood light, camera, action assholes… We don’t bring Ivy League degrees or press badges from CNN or FOX news… We don’t bring obnoxious elites with an agenda laid out by the oligarchy… and we certainly don’t bring permits for free speech.

We don’t need those. We have the constitution of the United States and its First Amendment, which applies to each and every one of us… & that’s the only permit we need.

---

---

National Park Service Cancels Free Speech for YouTubers

---

relavent links

NPPA Article on Price v Barr (now Price v. Garland)

Park Junkie YouTube – Commercial Film Permit Discussion

RV Miles YouTube – Commercial Film Permit Discussion

NPS – Filming Policies

---

I’m not quite sure why, but I always seem to forget just how cool Keyhole Canyon really is. It’s one of Zion’s narrowest canyons. It’s short & sweet and this spectacular slot is literally a stone’s throw from the road. So why do I always overlook it when considering a short day outing in Utah’s first national park?

Perhaps it’s just too convenient, or at least it once was… Maybe I’m stuck in the past, in a time when a run through the narrow walls of the Keyhole could be accomplished without logging onto a computer. With the hassle of navigating the modern reservation and permit system, I have largely forgotten this place.

Luckily, some of my friends don’t forget about it… & occasionally, they invite me to run through it with them… & each time I run that canyon, I remember the good ole days…

Back when it seemed we were the only people running canyons in Zion National Park.

---

---

---

---

Guide to Zion

• Zion
• Activities
• Visiting
• Facts
• Map
• Geology
• History

---

---

I’ve been running the Keyhole for more than 20 years. Back in the early 2000s, before the masses began to descend upon the park in search of the perfect IG image, I would often run this thing in tandem with Pine Creek Canyon before work, which began at the early hour of 4pm.

During those years, I lived in my van (way before anybody thought it was cool), sharing a small stretch of riverside sand and cottonwood trees with a group of dirtbag rock climbers and drifters from all over the world. Our home was called Mosquito Cove, although I never once recall being bitten by mosquito. This hedonistic haven was located down by the Virgin River, about 5 miles outside the gates of Zion National Park.

---

---

We were an active bunch for the most part, and our days were usually filled with adventures in the park. That’s why we were there after all. Mornings typically began with a trip to the only coffee purveyor within 50 miles, the Mean Bean Coffee Shop, right there in the middle of downtown Springdale, a small gateway town at the entrance of Zion Canyon.

Today, this site is home to the popular and modernistic Deep Creek Coffee Shop, but back then, a tiny little one-room coffee shop sat on a quiet gravel side street. A tiny little burger shack was located across the street (Oscars), a tiny little family-run grocery store on the other side of the main street (Sol Foods), and a large field with a few handsome horses standing in the shade of a massive cottonwood tree across the street to the south (no more horses, but you can get pizza & a number of other not-so-modestly priced items… Oh, and I do believe the tree is still there).

To be clear, we all needed coffee, (& a restroom) and Mean Joe Bean served it up right. Locals paid one dollar a cup for quality coffee, with unlimited refills. An added luxury was that Joe, the proprietor of this fine establishment, made sure to always keep a few packs of matches atop the toilet in the restroom. Vans didn’t have composting toilets back then…

Of course, we all knew that an additional price was paid in the form of accepting jabbing, often witty, personal insults dealt out by Joe. It was all cool, as Joe was jolly good fun, and we all enjoyed the deprecating morning humor, often served at a buddies’ expense. Rarely did one get offended in this setting… This wasn’t really the sort of crowd to get offended in the first place.

---

---

Now, this Mean Bean place was sort of the cultural center of Zion at the time. If you came to town, you could cruise into the coffee shop, meet the locals and score some beta on climbing or canyoneering in the park. With any luck at all, an inquisitive visitor could probably make a few friends with whom he or she could enjoy a day’s adventure. Countless epic climbs and canyoneering trips were hatched from the Mean Bean’s patio… and my crew were as regular as potted plants there at the shop.

A typical Mean Bean morning would witness a number of conversations ranging from the drunken exploits of one of the group, to politics, to climbing or biking, to new women in town, to park policy or local drama… But somewhere near the end of these vocal engagements was a common thread… “what you got goin’ on today?”

I hate to admit it, but back then, we sort of took it for granted that we could come up with a plan on the spot and see it through that day. Imagine a world where your group could decide upon a plan, grab a hassle-free permit for $5 from the Zion Backcountry Desk and immediately embark on a journey that many folks now begin to plan a year or more in advance. And we did it… Every. Single. Day.

---

---

Typically, if I had to work, I’d be up for something light, such as Keyhole, or Pine Creek Canyon, which runs parallel to the Mt Carmel Tunnel. Many times, we’d just do both, because it was just too damned easy. If you’re already up there, you may as well.

The biggest obstacle to completing this adventure on a workday was that traffic was often held up at the tunnel by a large RV. Vehicles must stop and wait for the passage of RVs, as the height limitations along the sides of the tunnel force taller vehicles into the middle of the tunnel, which requires the stoppage of oncoming traffic. We’d actually bitch about that, but the issue of securing a permit was never a problem.

In fact, just a couple of years prior to my arrival in Zion, there was no permit needed at all. Canyoneers would simply drop into whatever canyon they pleased, and just go for it. The 1990s were the official end to the Wild West of Zion National Park. I got there in the year 2000, just a bit too late, but I’m super thankful to have enjoyed quite a few seasons of relatively stress-free roaming in this land of red rock canyons.

I truly hate the process of landing a permit in our national parks these days. A rational part of my mind understands the issue of overcrowding, especially in a slot canyon, where a massive backup of people can mean the death of everyone in a flash flood scenario. But why in the name of everything that is holy are we allowing a private, for-profit corporation to operate the reservation systems for our most sacred public lands?

I find it appalling that access to our national parks has become shackled by the almighty dollar. I hate the bureaucratic process & the fact that a massive corporate entity now realizes great financial gains from the backcountry permitting process. That’s why I all-to-often skip the Keyhole, Pine Creek, the Subway & a number of other adventures that require online reservations. I still get permits occasionally, but if I do, I just go to the backcountry desk and hope for the best. Works sometimes…

But more often than not these days, if Park Junkie wants to run a canyon, I either go with someone who has already dealt with the scammers over at Rec dot Gov, or I just run one of the numerous canyons that lie outside the boundaries of Zion National Park. There are countless canyons in southern Utah…

I’m not necessarily opposed to the permit system, just the corporate side of it. The National Park Service used to be in charge of this permit stuff, and they seemed capable of handling the public demand for these things.

Despite the NPS’s contract with the public to hold these lands “For the Benefit and Enjoyment of the People”, it’s all ran by a corporate oligarchy now. The NPS has quietly handed it off to a group of financial wizards who shower their shareholders with returns, as nearly every backcountry site in the entire country can now be reserved through their fancy little web portal. Damn the interwebs…

---

---

Luckily for me, my good buddy Alex asked me if I wanted to run the Keyhole just last week. He has some family coming to visit, and wanted to take them on just such a mission. He was however, wisely concerned that they may not find it as enjoyable as we do and wanted a recon to remind him of the physical demand necessary for this journey.

Don’t ask me why, but some folks just don’t fancy banging their knees and rubbing the skin off of their elbows on gritty sandstone in the murky waters of a desert slot canyon, in which danger lurks around each bend. So, we ran the canyon as a recon mission for Alex, as he had already went through the process of obtaining the online permit. In the end, it seems he may opt to take the family on a more stable trail, something flat and paved perhaps. There are such options in Zion you know…

That said, some of us do enjoy that banging knee & scraping elbow stuff… And for us, the Keyhole is incredible. I really do regain an appreciation for it each time I run through there. I’ve probably ran that thing at least 50 times, and its always more fun than I remember.

Same with Pine Creek… which reminds me… I need to find a friend who has an extra spot on a Pine Creek Permit in the coming weeks… 🤔

---

---

Guide to Zion

• Zion
• Activities
• Visiting
• Facts
• Map
• Geology
• History

---

---

Relevant Links

NPS – Zion

Zion Keyhole Permits

---

National Park Guides

---

All content found on Park Junkie is meant solely for entertainment purposes and is the copyrighted property of Park Junkie Productions. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited without the express written consent of Park Junkie Productions.

YOU CAN DIE. Activities pursued within National Park boundaries hold inherent dangers. You are solely responsible for your safety in the outdoors. Park Junkie accepts no responsibility for actions that result in inconveniences, injury or death. 

This site is not affiliated with the National Park Service, or any particular park.