# Closing 23 State Forest Campgrounds



## The Mechanic

"Michigan parks officials plan to close 23 state forest campgrounds on May 19 as they continue to grapple with budget problems."

http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2011/04/michigan_to_close_23_state_for.html

What happened to the cash cow called the Recreation Passport?


----------



## foxriver6

The Mechanic said:


> "Michigan parks officials plan to close 23 state forest campgrounds on May 19 as they continue to grapple with budget problems."
> 
> http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2011/04/michigan_to_close_23_state_for.html
> 
> What happened to the cash cow called the Recreation Passport?


The Passport supports State Parks. State Forest Campgrounds are supported with State Forest Campground fees and general funds. Considering this fiscal year and probably next, the State continued to allocate the DNR less general funds, programs funded with general funds (ie state forest campgrounds) get cut. 

If money were to be diverted to campgrounds from funds acquired under the passport, the law that established the passport would have to changed by the legislature and signed by the governor.


----------



## The Mechanic

foxriver6 said:


> The Passport supports State Parks. State Forest Campgrounds are supported with State Forest Campground fees and general funds. Considering this fiscal year and probably next, the State continued to allocate the DNR less general funds, programs funded with general funds (ie state forest campgrounds) get cut.
> 
> If money were to be diverted to campgrounds from funds acquired under the passport, the law that established the passport would have to changed by the legislature and signed by the governor.


That makes sense, thanks for the clarification.


----------



## mdad

It seems like a shame. I would like to know exactly how much money is saved by this. Maybe the passport law should be changed to include funding for state forest campgrounds. seems goofy to me that it doesn't.


----------



## foxriver6

mdad said:


> It seems like a shame. I would like to know exactly how much money is saved by this. Maybe the passport law should be changed to include funding for state forest campgrounds. seems goofy to me that it doesn't.


The state forest campgrounds chosen to close are the biggest money losers and least utilized. While it doesn't seem like it would cost much to maintain them, someone still has to go in daily to check the pay pipe, fill toilet paper, cut grass, annual well inspections etc...

It is still unclear how much the passport will bring in for the State Parks. The line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere with respect to what the passport will fund and what it won't fund. Passport money stays in the Parks division, if you start sending the money to other DNR divisions you end up with money diverted away from the State Parks which is what the Passport is intended to fund.


----------



## chasin tail

Well, i am glad they spent so much money on the "pure michigan" advertising campaign, that makes sense. Why not encourage people to get out into the outdoors, then close a bunch of great campgrounds.... good call.

"someone still has to go in daily to check the pay pipe, fill toilet paper, cut grass, annual well inspections etc...

Read more at Michigan-Sportsman.com: Closing 23 State Forest Campgrounds - The Michigan Sportsman Forums http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?p=3620356&posted=1#post3620356#ixzz1ItH09Iuf"

not sure if I did this right, but anyways. I do agree there is maintenance, however, I find it hard to believe that pay pipes are checked on a daily basis. there are also campground hosts that take care of the outhouses, as far as cleaning and filling tp on some of these locations. Regardless, it sucks.


----------



## Westlakedrive

Not sure why they have to actually close them. 
Why not leave them as rustic camping sites and let them 'go back to nature' ?


----------



## PerchPatrol

The last time they closed state forest campgrounds (2009?), they blocked them off completely so no one could use them at all. Its too bad. 

I can't believe it costs that much money to maintain these things. I realize that the state is in financial trouble, but this is the wrong area to cut, IMO.


----------



## foxriver6

PerchPatrol said:


> The last time they closed state forest campgrounds (2009?), they blocked them off completely so no one could use them at all. Its too bad.
> 
> I can't believe it costs that much money to maintain these things. I realize that the state is in financial trouble, but this is the wrong area to cut, IMO.


So within the DNR and more specifically programs that get funded with general fund dollars, what should be cut? State Forest Campgrounds are funded with general funds. 

Next fiscal year, the Fish and Game fund will be approx. $3,000,000 in the red. Fish stocking, fisheries biologists, wildlife biologists, Conservation Officers etc are primarly funded with these dollars. 130 field COs for 83 counties, wildlife biologists covering upwards of 5 counties, fisheries biologists covering the same. Cuts will come or fish and game revenue will have to increase.

Services and people cost money and unlike the federal government that operates with deficits, the state works with the money it has not with what it doesn't. The bottom line is that the campgrounds that are closing cost more money than they bring in.


----------



## GVDocHoliday

State forest campgrounds are giant money pits. With gas prices at 4.00/gal, even more so. State Forest campgrounds are maintained by Field Offices, some of these FO are an hr roundtrip away. Driving a truck and trailer hauling a couple of lawnmowers, paying staff, etc, you're looking at a few hundred dollars a day for a 30site campground that only sees 3-4 camp nights a week. 

So what it all comes down to is logistics. It simply costs too much money in both fuel and man power to maintain these satellite locations.


----------



## Crowhunter

GVDocHoliday said:


> State forest campgrounds are giant money pits. With gas prices at 4.00/gal, even more so. State Forest campgrounds are maintained by Field Offices, some of these FO are an hr roundtrip away. Driving a truck and trailer hauling a couple of lawnmowers, paying staff, etc, you're looking at a few hundred dollars a day for a 30site campground that only sees 3-4 camp nights a week.
> 
> So what it all comes down to is logistics. It simply costs too much money in both fuel and man power to maintain these satellite locations.


I agree. Bud


----------



## PerchPatrol

I completely agree that cuts have to be made somewhere. Everyone knows that the state doesn't get a financial return on its investment regarding state forest campgrounds.

I just think that the money could have been saved elsewhere. The state recently spent millions putting those awful elevated fire pit rings in the state parks, in every camp site in the state. Had they only replaced 50% of them, it would have freed up money that could have been used to keep the state forest campgrounds open.

Or they could add an extra dollar/night to the cost of state park permits to subsidize the state forest campgrounds. Whats an extra dollar when it is already >$20/night.:evilsmile


----------



## foxriver6

PerchPatrol said:


> I completely agree that cuts have to be made somewhere. Everyone knows that the state doesn't get a financial return on its investment regarding state forest campgrounds.
> 
> I just think that the money could have been saved elsewhere. The state recently spent millions putting those awful elevated fire pit rings in the state parks, in every camp site in the state. Had they only replaced 50% of them, it would have freed up money that could have been used to keep the state forest campgrounds open.
> 
> Or they could add an extra dollar/night to the cost of state park permits to subsidize the state forest campgrounds. Whats an extra dollar when it is already >$20/night.:evilsmile


Again, the problem becomes how things are funded. State Parks and the DNR Parks Division are primarily funded by restricted funds. I do not believe that Passport funds can be used for State Forest Campgrounds. 

Only 4% of the DNR comes from General Funds. General funds are used to pay for State Forest Campgrounds, fight fires, when a Conservation Officer arrests someone for drugs, environmental investigations, state land enforcement, etc....I believe that only 50-60% of DNR Forest Fire Officer positions are currently filled because there is not the general funds to do so. How much time a Conservation Officer can patrol state land, do general criminal enforcement or environmental investigations is significantly restricted by how little general funds money is allocated to the DNR.


----------



## PerchPatrol

http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2011/04/officials_offer_way_to_keep_23.html#incart_hbx

Looks like people are looking into ways to save these campgrounds.


----------



## mdad

GVDocHoliday said:


> State forest campgrounds are giant money pits. With gas prices at 4.00/gal, even more so. State Forest campgrounds are maintained by Field Offices, some of these FO are an hr roundtrip away. Driving a truck and trailer hauling a couple of lawnmowers, paying staff, etc, you're looking at a few hundred dollars a day for a 30site campground that only sees 3-4 camp nights a week.
> 
> So what it all comes down to is logistics. It simply costs too much money in both fuel and man power to maintain these satellite locations.


GIANT MONEY PITS????? Hundreds of dollars a day???? These campgrounds do not have the grass mowed daily. they may clean the pit toilets and restock tp. I sure would like to know what the costs are and what the total dollar figures are in savings by closing these parks?
Where do you get actual figures vs. wild speculations? The separation of funds from State Parks and State Forest Campgrounds reeks of bureaucratic bugetary politics. The more divisions you have within a division the more layers of staff and department heads you need. The state park people I have talked to claim the pass port funding is working better already than they had projected.


----------



## PerchPatrol

The article i linked to above sez $300 per site per year is the cost.


----------



## mdad

PerchPatrol said:


> http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2011/04/officials_offer_way_to_keep_23.html#incart_hbx
> 
> Looks like people are looking into ways to save these campgrounds.


 
well that answers alot of my questions about cost calculations.


----------



## foxriver6

mdad said:


> GIANT MONEY PITS????? Hundreds of dollars a day???? These campgrounds do not have the grass mowed daily. they may clean the pit toilets and restock tp. I sure would like to know what the costs are and what the total dollar figures are in savings by closing these parks?
> Where do you get actual figures vs. wild speculations? The separation of funds from State Parks and State Forest Campgrounds reeks of bureaucratic bugetary politics. The more divisions you have within a division the more layers of staff and department heads you need. The state park people I have talked to claim the pass port funding is working better already than they had projected.


Where do you get actual figures vs. wild speculations.....
taken from the mlive article:
Meanwhile the lowest-producing campground generated only $306 in camping fees last year. Radabaugh said the average cost to manage a campground is about $8,060 per year. One campsite at the campground costs on average $309 to manage.

Either the LEGISLATURE provides adequate earmarked funding for the select State Forest Campgrounds or shut them down!


----------



## flip69

westlakedrive said:


> not sure why they have to actually close them.
> Why not leave them as rustic camping sites and let them 'go back to nature' ?


amen


----------



## FishinJoe

Every year they close more of my favorite campgrounds. I know for a fact that they don't check the paypipe everyday and it is not a uncommon site to see the TP empty, which is no big deal for me I just plan for it. Also I would like to know where all these grass cutting is going on. Leave them open and just let people stay at them then, it would make a lot more sense to me instead of closing them down.

Joe


----------



## Putman Lake Campground

Westlakedrive said:


> Not sure why they have to actually close them.
> Why not leave them as rustic camping sites and let them 'go back to nature' ?


The way I see it, that used to be a very viable option. We used to do a good job of maintaining our own public campgrounds, especially the small rustic ones.

Then around 8 years ago a governor traveled the state, educated everybody in the state about our remote public campgrounds (in an effort to increase their usage). The by product of this was extra usage. Unfortunately it was extra usage by folks the didn't get the extra discipline growing up and never learned to clean up after themselves. Likewise now, if not closed they would deteriorate to dumps, placed ridden with trash from disrespect, we spend a lot of tax dollars cleaning up after the slobs, more tax dollars than the revenue they generate. 

I think a good option might be to close them, then after a few years re open them without state wide publications. The campgrounds quietly popped up one at a time, around the state. and we took care of them (we being those that used them). We could start that process over again.

We are a good example. We are considering on leaning towards straight seasonal camping. Granted the daily traffic generate more revenue for us, but it also kills us cleaning up after them and repairing the damages caused by them. 

That's not to say all daily campers are like that.. in reality it's a select few (3 or 4%). but the over all costs of those type of folks is enough to make it a viable consideration (financially speaking).


----------



## Putman Lake Campground

PerchPatrol said:


> http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2011/04/officials_offer_way_to_keep_23.html#incart_hbx
> 
> Looks like people are looking into ways to save these campgrounds.


I think i know which campground was the lowest producing!! Bray Creek
half a mile from us. Their customers pretty much all end up here... since they pass us on the way there and pull a u turn coming back.

I was glad to see that non of my old favorites were on that list!


----------



## Putman Lake Campground

FishinJoe said:


> Every year they close more of my favorite campgrounds. I know for a fact that they don't check the paypipe everyday
> Joe


Joe,

the sad part is that way too many people know they don't check every day, and I'm thinking I've seen more folks NOT pay than i have seen them pay.

A park ranger one time sat with me while we totaled up how many campers we know had been there versus how many had paid, and it was absolutely ridiculous to see how many wouldn't pay the $3.00 requested to launch and camp. 

Myself I always bought an annual sticker for all my vehicles.


----------



## Shupac

Dang! Several of may favorites and two I was going to hit this summer.

I think raising the fee to $15 may have had a lot to do with their declining use. I know when that hit, I started just throwing up the tent on state land sometimes if I was only up for one or two nights.

And yeah, plenty of people not paying.


----------



## bankerman

:rant: It'll probably cost more to shut the campgrounds down the way our gov't does things. And what's there to shut down? Will "public" land then be chained off like it's private property? Just stop maintaining them: TP and lawncare, really? We clearly can't afford to try and make everything clean, manicured and perfectly safe for all the knuckleheads and we can't afford to have our gov't clean up after them when they abuse the privilege. We always spend some time every trip cleaning up after fools. I guess that brings up my last point. I would hope more of the maintenance and supervision of public lands could end up in the hands of private volunteers.


----------



## Angeloboot

Shupac said:


> Dang! Several of may favorites and two I was going to hit this summer.
> 
> I think raising the fee to $15 may have had a lot to do with their declining use. I know when that hit, I started just throwing up the tent on state land sometimes if I was only up for one or two nights.
> 
> And yeah, plenty of people not paying.


Could someone clarify? Even if they close, don't they remain state-owned lands? Why couldn't a camper stop by the nearest DNR site, grab one of the self-posting campsite forms, and be kosher? More than once I've grabbed one from the drop-box at the Indian River DNR station and affixed the form at the place I camped at on state land (in Emmett County.) Have I been following some non-existent protocol?


----------



## Roober

Our group has been using the Manistee River bridge camp pretty regularly. Its been deer camp since the early 70s for some of us. It serves as a base camp for our fishing trips 2-3 times a summer just because of its location---an hour or so to most (or enough) lakes and rivers in the north or flys for browns 150yds from the campsite. Even a quick run to the grocery store in Grayling isn't too bad. These are all extended stays. In oct. there's a long weekend for archery deer and grouse, and 7-10 more days for gun season. Lots of memories and laughs around the fire pit. I guess the fact that somebodys been in "our spot" once to my memory (trout opener 4 yrs ago) probably meant the place wasn't used that heavily. I'd hate to see it go.


Steve


----------



## swampbuck

Why dont they privatize the servicing or management of those sites. I could easily take on a few in my area at reduced cost or commission. They already do it with consessions at state parks.


----------



## Zorba

swampbuck said:


> Why dont they privatize the servicing or management of those sites. I could easily take on a few in my area at reduced cost or commission. They already do it with consessions at state parks.


 
Or have volunteers to run the park. Volunteers, concernded citizens, anyone willing to help keep the park from crimnals and vandals.

People should not feel like a tresspasser on state land.


----------



## cjric

Why don't they just remove the toilets, fill the pits, take out anything else that is an improvement and let it blend back in to the surrounding area?
Sure, some people who used them in the past will keep using them, but then, what would be the difference from getting a permit and camping anywhere else?
That solution seems to make the most sense and make everyone happy. No more cost for the state and and a clearing still available for campers to use.


----------



## Putman Lake Campground

mdad said:


> GIANT MONEY PITS????? Hundreds of dollars a day???? These campgrounds do not have the grass mowed daily. they may clean the pit toilets and restock tp. I sure would like to know what the costs are and what the total dollar figures are in savings by closing these parks?
> Where do you get actual figures vs. wild speculations? The separation of funds from State Parks and State Forest Campgrounds reeks of bureaucratic bugetary politics. The more divisions you have within a division the more layers of staff and department heads you need. The state park people I have talked to claim the pass port funding is working better already than they had projected.


Mdad,

I could be wrong.. but if I'm correct, he's "one of THEM" them there park rangers, or what ever the title they carry is that runs the parks.

If I'm correct he's even one of them there good ones. 

That's speculation based on 2 things (assuming my memory is actually working and he's who I think I remember him to be): 1. my conversations with him and the vast knowledge that he's proven to have. 2. Hearsay from my customers that have camped where he works and brag about him. (I don't know that he's the same person, but the personality that he reflects here is a remarkable duplicate of the personality the customers brag to me about over at the other campground down the road a bit of a piece.

You do have some valid points though. However if you add the costs up that are required to merely eliminate liabilities as a result of sue happy Campers looking for any reason to hire an attorney.. thus causing the need for more trips for "safety checks" than actually required to maintain, then the additional trips to just clean up folks trash that disrespect themselves and our state/fed campgrounds, etc. it all adds up. and when some of the campgrounds have only 5 or 10 paying campers a month... 

so as it was explained to me... we have a choice.. close the ones that don't carry their own weight or take from those that carry their own weight to support the others while the producing campgrounds are in dire need of upgrades.

Lets take Bray Creek for example. Geesh, for a mere $5.00 a night extra (on weekends) camp here and have larger sites, more tree's showers, a lake, half a mile to the same creek, electric (slight extra charge), an eleborate petting zoo, horse and buggy rides to bray creek and other lakes even, the ability to have a campfire on the "no burning" days bicycles, use of our kayaks, canoes, row boats, paddle boats, swim plateforms beach etc all included in the base rate of $20.00 a night (hopefully slightly increasing soon). And have a hot,private shower after wards. 

well, in the Case of Bray creek, every body wins by it being closed. 1. there is better camping for the same basic money (here at Putman lake) 2. it's not taking from our tax dollars to support a campground that's rarely used. 3. It cleans up our public land by eliminating the trash that comes with the campers there. 

I'm pretty confident that this also apply's to the other campgrounds being closed, but having another private campground nearby for about the Same dollar figure (just less amenities, since we foolishly over do it, just cause we can and love doing it).


----------



## mdad

Putnam Lake Campground

You make an interesting point about the 15 dollar fee. I always thought this was too much. I always paid it just to support the parks. I am staying at Muskellounge Lake at the end of the month for only 20 bucks a night and I get electricity and showers. I wonder if use would go back up if fees were dropped to what they should be.


----------



## Putman Lake Campground

mdad said:


> Putnam Lake Campground
> 
> You make an interesting point about the 15 dollar fee. I always thought this was too much. I always paid it just to support the parks. I am staying at Muskellounge Lake at the end of the month for only 20 bucks a night and I get electricity and showers. I wonder if use would go back up if fees were dropped to what they should be.


 Is electric included in the price for $20.00 a night? (I'm trying to redo my price schedule, I want to be competitively priced knowing we offer tons more than anybody else that I have heard of.)
~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes that and if less people know about them.

the biggest problem came in when granholm took her state wide week long tour of the campgrounds and published the info and put billboards outside of Detroit area and Lansing area's.

The problem being over populated, and trashed. And then semi local folks quit trying to get in, since they were over occupied and when they weren't over occupied they were trashed, broken glass and the like.

That's when me and my family quit using them. We used to camp literally all summer long dropping the kids off at home while I go to work, picking them up after word.. them out catching fish (for breakfast) while I cooked dinner, etc (we rotated campground weekly. there was 3 or 4 groups that did this with us... it was a wonderful life style.

Thus now you know more about how I ended up buying a campground also. We couldn't find reasonably priced seasonal's that offered what State/Fed campgrounds did.. hiking trails, a lake to fish/swim in, and with tree's. So we bought and rebuilt one to match what we had lost, then added modern amenities that more civilized folks enjoy like flush toilets, showers, wifi, electricity, sewage services, and the like.......

so. 1. Make them cost effective again. 2. keep the rif raf out and keep them clean/safe. and they will again be profitable with less costs to maintain them and more appreciated. 

we must keep in mind some of the profits are residual profits. The profit isn't from the money they actually receive but via taxes collected when new folks come to town and spend money, in turn create jobs. They should however be self supporting.


----------



## chutta

Myself, as soon as they jacked the price up to $15, why not just go to the National Forest campgrounds for the same price and far better amenities?
If Benton and Nichols were filled, rough it in the Natty forest itself


----------



## Putman Lake Campground

chutta said:


> Myself, as soon as they jacked the price up to $15, why not just go to the National Forest campgrounds for the same price and far better amenities?
> If Benton and Nichols were filled, rough it in the Natty forest itself


We left before the price hike. We left when the riff raff started showing up and the trash and broken bottles became more than it was worth. basically when I couldn't take my children camping safely we found an alternative.
(almost immediately following the Jenny campground tour). That created instant disaster for our camp spots.


----------



## chutta

Almost every time out I fill at least one full size bag with other people's crap just to keep a two track looking like it did before the inconsiderate lowlifes infested it. 
Oh, to catch them in the act


----------



## Putman Lake Campground

chutta said:


> Almost every time out I fill at least one full size bag with other people's crap just to keep a two track looking like it did before the inconsiderate lowlifes infested it.
> Oh, to catch them in the act


I love catching them.


----------



## chasin tail

hey mdad

Not to change the subject, but, I am heading up to a state forest campground, rt up the road from there the last wkend of this month also. I was wondering if you have heard anything on the snow conditions up that way. (wondering if i can even get into the campground) Any info would be great.


----------



## Forest Meister

foxriver6 said:


> Where do you get actual figures vs. wild speculations.....
> taken from the mlive article:
> Meanwhile the lowest-producing campground generated only $306 in camping fees last year. Radabaugh said the average cost to manage a campground is about $8,060 per year. One campsite at the campground costs on average $309 to manage.
> 
> Either the LEGISLATURE provides adequate earmarked funding for the select State Forest Campgrounds or shut them down!


Besides paying for temporary campground workers who usually are responsible for at least three or four campgrounds and make about eight bucks/hour and receive absolutely no benefits, that $8,060/year/campground figure includes the salaries of several people in "Lansing" and partial salaries for some Fire Officers. For ease of statistics overhead costs are spread evenly over all campgrounds. My point? Closing 23 campgrounds will surely not result in reducing Lansing staff so the cost of keeping the remaining campgrounds open will go up considerably. 

Also, a bit of clarification concering the Recreation Passport might help to further muddy the waters, but what the heck....... Some Passport money _will_ be used to support State Forest Campgrounds. That's the good news. The bad news for SFCs, and I apologize for not having the exact figures, is that any support from Passport dollars will come only after the Secretary of State gets paid to cover their costs of issuing and after the State Parks get a certain amount of money. Once the State Park system receives a legislatively set dollar amount a small percent (seven sticks in my mind but don't quote me) of any further dollars will be used for boat access sites, SFC maintenance and a few other outdoor recreational projects. 

Since this is the first year offering Recreational Passports the funding will not be available for use until next fiscal year, October 1, 2011 at the earliest. FM


----------



## brushbuster

It really is quite sad to see them shut down. Alot had to do with the price increase. It would be good to let them go back to a natural setting and just pack out what you bring in,or have a camground host at each one. The ccc bridge on the Man. is going to be sorely missed by alot of folks. There were some real nice ones in the u.p that i will miss alot. I will probably camp right next door with a state land overnight use permit. It doesnt make sense we can camp on state land with a permit but we cant use the old campgrounds. Stupid.


----------

