Each spring, a series of social media rants and articles appear, making assumptions about the complicated workings of Recreation.gov (Rec.gov) and expressing concerns about service fees, lotteries, and campsite availability. While there are valid criticisms of the relationship between the US government and Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH), the Big 4 consulting firm that built and operates the platform, many of the most widely-shared pieces are misleading and lack nuance. Below, I aim to address how, why, and what can be done about it.
Firstly, to better understand the complexities around this eternally relevant topic and identify common misconceptions about the use of Rec.gov to manage public lands, I recently spoke with Rick DeLappe and Mark Salansky, program managers for Rec.gov, and Janelle Smith, a Forest Service public affairs specialist, among other current and past park service personnel.
Throughout these conversations, I explored the challenges that agencies face in managing public lands through permits, lotteries, and other means, and examined how these strategies impact accessibility and equity in outdoor recreation. While these tactics are useful for managing visitation, they can also be a source of frustration and confusion, fueling concerns about the transparency and effectiveness of Rec.gov.
If you recreate on public lands, this is a subject you should care about.
What is Rec.gov?
Rec.gov is an online reservation system for public lands that started primarily as a way to share information across agencies, but it has since grown and expanded to include search, campsite booking, permits, and lotteries for public lands across the country. It is an interagency platform primarily administered by the US Forest Service (USFS) with 13 different agencies involved. In 2006, Reserve America took over the contract, and for years their system was plagued by user experience issues and USFS was consistently frustrated by the pace of development and lack of agility in that relationship.
Reserve America was replaced by BAH in 2016 after a lengthy bid and review process (including congressional testimony) that emphasized migration to modern technologies and an agile approach to development. BAH submitted a significantly lower bid than other companies involved in the process.