Western State National Forest Campgrounds

Question:

> The way it was explained to me is that you can be bumped even if there is no > reserved signs, and in some sites you can only pay from day to day because a > reservation may come in.  The reservation service really thinks the > campground is empty unless they make the reservation. > As for me if I were camping alone I’d camp anywhere were suitable, but with > my grandson it’s best to be in a campground.

Why?  Is it a "comfort level" issue? Just curious, as I have been primitive camping with my kids since they were babies. penny

Response:

>As for me if I were camping alone I’d camp anywhere were suitable, but >with my grandson it’s best to be in a campground.

What is making the whole camping experience even worse is the attitude in the NF towards eliminating dispersed camping. It used to be you could find a place to camp in a nation forest outside of the campground experience, but more and more, the NFS is not allowing dispersed camping. That is what I am finding in Utah, and other intermountain states. More money for the forest service I guess. This forces everyone who wants to camp, to pay exhorbitant fees and to have to live surrounded by idiots, big mouths, and inconsiderate SOBs who have no respect for anyone around them, or even the ground they sleep on. I just spent several nights in a campground and am considering giving it up and selling my equipment. Hotels are looking better and better for a good night’s rest. The real bitch of all this is that when you pay $12 for a campsite, and the rules of quiet and decency are not enforced. Hardly a fun time for me and my children. This is happening more and more, IMO It was a crappy week for sure. Anyone else seeing the disperesed camping going away where they live or travel? John

Response:

>The way it was explained to me is that you can be bumped even if there is no >reserved signs, and in some sites you can only pay from day to day because a >reservation may come in.  The reservation service really thinks the >campground is empty unless they make the reservation.

It is certainly true that certain campgrounds make you pay one day at a time. The explanation you heard may be correct in some campgrounds, but I have never personally had a problem with being asked to move or leave. In my experience, only a portion of the campsites in any given campground are reservable, and the rest are first-come, first served. If no one reserves the reservable sites, they are open for anyone to use. But YMMV; there is currently no coherent policy for all FS CGs that I have seen. Best to ask the host in a particular CG what the rules are there. (Sure got complicated over the years, didn’t it?) Regards, Caveat

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I was camping with my grandson at a campground in WA the other day and asked >the host about the reservation system in place now.  I understand a person >who chooses a site, and wants to stay more than three days which isn’t >reserved has a risk of being bumped out if someone calls and makes >reservations while your their.  to make a long story short the reservation >company considers most sites empty unless you call and make a reservation >with them, and of course that costs additional money just for the >reservation.    I think the system is wrong this whole pay for use is a >crock I’m afraid if  I were camped for several days at a site and then they >told me I’d have to move out I would be removed kicking and screaming >I against the paying to camp in a national forest,  I think a lot of the >money goes to the running of the reservation system and company who hires >the hosts.   They are the ones raking in the bucks not the forest dept.  I >believe.

A little hard to make out exactly what you’re saying, but if you’ve gone to a campground and paid in advance for how long you want to stay and the money is accepted, then it’s the responsibility of the person running the campground to update records, deal with the computer/phone reserving system, and keep everyone else off your back (and out of your tent pitch).  If, however, you’re staying on and paying a day at a time, then, yes, you’re SOL in many places. If I’ve read correctly, there are many places you can stay without paying in a National Forest.  They won’t have roads, mowed sites, water provided, toilet facilities and all that, but they’re free for you to walk on in and find / make on your own.   You might have to pay a trailhead parking fee in some states out west, but as soon as you’re about 300 yards from any public structure or water source, you’re free of fees. The reserve people get theirs from the reservation fees, not the use fees.  The use fees do a small part in paying for the roads, the mowed sites, the toilets, etc..  The rest comes out of the public coffers.

Response:

The way it was explained to me is that you can be bumped even if there is no reserved signs, and in some sites you can only pay from day to day because a reservation may come in.  The reservation service really thinks the campground is empty unless they make the reservation. As for me if I were camping alone I’d camp anywhere were suitable, but with my grandson it’s best to be in a campground.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > <snip> > I’m afraid if  I were camped for several days at a site and then they >told me I’d have to move out I would be removed kicking and screaming > The situation in the National Forest campgrounds varies enormously > across the western US. Some are first-come, first-served (no > reservations), while others offer reservable sites. In the latter > group, you will see "reserved" signs on many of the sites with dates > written-in. This guarantees that the reserver will be able to get that > site on the dates specified (and has paid an extra charge for that > reservation). You can camp in that site before and after the reserved > dates, but will be tossed out if you are there on the same date > someone else has reserved it. > Many USFS agencies have contracted out the business of running their > campgrounds. These are typically run by local area entrepreneurs, > typically at much higher rates than what the FS used to charge when > they ran them. The hired hosts run the particular CG and take care of > the reservation sign dates. Ask them for information. In the USFS > campgrounds still run by the Forest Service, the camping is free or > cheap, and the hosts are volunteers. Not many of those are left. Some > forests still let you camp anywhere you wish, without charges. >I against the paying to camp in a national forest,  I think a lot of the >money goes to the running of the reservation system and company who hires >the hosts.   They are the ones raking in the bucks not the forest dept. I >believe. > Those companies who run the CGs for the FS are in it for the profit. I > object to that also, but in all fairness this is a tough business. The > FS dictates when CGs can open and close, and most of the CGs in the > southwest this year had to close early or, didn’t open at all, because > of the fire danger. > A few decades ago, someone sued the USFS regarding the charging of o > people for CGs that were run by the tax-supported Forest Service. As a > result, the FS CGs were free for a couple of years. But in the years > after that, the budget of the Forest Service was steadily > reduced–forcing them to charge more for camping, to farm-out > services, cut back on services, etc. Thais is my take on it. > The answer, IMO, is for Congress to properly fund the operation of the > FS CGs. But in these times, that’s quite unlikely to happen. > Caveat

Response:

<snip> > I’m afraid if  I were camped for several days at a site and then they >told me I’d have to move out I would be removed kicking and screaming

The situation in the National Forest campgrounds varies enormously across the western US. Some are first-come, first-served (no reservations), while others offer reservable sites. In the latter group, you will see "reserved" signs on many of the sites with dates written-in. This guarantees that the reserver will be able to get that site on the dates specified (and has paid an extra charge for that reservation). You can camp in that site before and after the reserved dates, but will be tossed out if you are there on the same date someone else has reserved it. Many USFS agencies have contracted out the business of running their campgrounds. These are typically run by local area entrepreneurs, typically at much higher rates than what the FS used to charge when they ran them. The hired hosts run the particular CG and take care of the reservation sign dates. Ask them for information. In the USFS campgrounds still run by the Forest Service, the camping is free or cheap, and the hosts are volunteers. Not many of those are left. Some forests still let you camp anywhere you wish, without charges. >I against the paying to camp in a national forest,  I think a lot of the >money goes to the running of the reservation system and company who hires >the hosts.   They are the ones raking in the bucks not the forest dept.  I >believe.

Those companies who run the CGs for the FS are in it for the profit. I object to that also, but in all fairness this is a tough business. The FS dictates when CGs can open and close, and most of the CGs in the southwest this year had to close early or, didn’t open at all, because of the fire danger. A few decades ago, someone sued the USFS regarding the charging of o people for CGs that were run by the tax-supported Forest Service. As a result, the FS CGs were free for a couple of years. But in the years after that, the budget of the Forest Service was steadily reduced–forcing them to charge more for camping, to farm-out services, cut back on services, etc. Thais is my take on it. The answer, IMO, is for Congress to properly fund the operation of the FS CGs. But in these times, that’s quite unlikely to happen. Caveat

Response:

I was camping with my grandson at a campground in WA the other day and asked the host about the reservation system in place now.  I understand a person who chooses a site, and wants to stay more than three days which isn’t reserved has a risk of being bumped out if someone calls and makes reservations while your their.  to make a long story short the reservation company considers most sites empty unless you call and make a reservation with them, and of course that costs additional money just for the reservation.    I think the system is wrong this whole pay for use is a crock I’m afraid if  I were camped for several days at a site and then they told me I’d have to move out I would be removed kicking and screaming I against the paying to camp in a national forest,  I think a lot of the money goes to the running of the reservation system and company who hires the hosts.   They are the ones raking in the bucks not the forest dept.  I believe.

Response:

Related Posts