Big attractions camping

[suprz]

When you are going to large attractions, (mt rushmore, grand canyon, etc...) Do you usually go with convenience of location, (KOA's or others ) or quality (privately owned) I only ask because with the large attractions, basically we would be out all day, and coming back later in the day tired from sight seeing etc, and just need a place to relax eat and get ready for the next days adventure. KOA's seem to be in all the right places close to the attractions, etc. if I was going just for the relaxation and scenery, then KOA would not be my first choice. Just wondering if I'm alone in thinking this way

[2gypsies1]

suprz wrote:
When you are going to large attractions, (mt rushmore, grand canyon, etc...)

You mentioned public parks (national in particular) as the large attractions. You are driving great distances, spending a lot of money for your trip and are going to a destination that you really want to be. Why would you not stay in the gorgeous parks themselves to really experience the park?

If your large attraction would be something like Disney World, then that's where you would stay.

If there isn't a RV park at your 'large attraction' then it seems like you'd at least want to stay close by.

This is my opinion and I'm not telling anyone what to do but it just makes sense to me. 🙂

[Lantley]

When staying near a large attraction I try to balance convenience and location.
I want to be close the attraction. I don't want a long drive back and forth. All I really need is 50 amp electric. State or local parks are fine I don't have to have FHU. However if FHU is the closet I won't avoid a FHU place.
If I have a choice I often look at price. If a state park is 1/2 the price and has 50 amp service I'll take the savings.

[tmoore2]

Allworth, I have to agree with you concerning to campfires. The last time I got near one someone had put a log with poison ivy on it in the fire. It was dark so I didn't realize it until a couple days later when I broke out all over. Doctor could tell I had gotten it from a fire by the pattern. Said I was extremely lucky I didn't get it in my lungs or I would have been in a world of hurt.

[garmp]

katleman, THANK YOU! My thoughts exactly. We are B people, not RV people. We like to camp, not park. We rather start a campfire than align our satellite dish. BUT that's our thing. Tell me about the sites, the views and the local history, etc. We can enjoy together (even though you're wrong)! Just a joke!

[katleman]

Allworth wrote:

The OP specifically mentioned visiting major attractions and only returning to the trailer at night. That certainly does not sound like boondocking to me!

I understand your frustration, even if I'm coming from the otherside (folks telling me to get hookups because its better than dry). Folks need to respect both styles. I'm to the point of encouraging folks to go with hookups, because the more that do, makes more spots available in rustic locations. 🙂 we both chafe at others telling us what to do.

The OP did say they would return at night and not need any amenities at the campground. In those instances, I pick low amenities sites, like a NF campground, etc. Did just that last time we stopped by Rushmore. Was just a stop over, on our way further east. Found a fabulous NF campground very close to Rushmore (Horse Thief Lake, not to be confused with the private Horse Thief cg)

While I would highly recommend the above cg to anyone who can go a night dry, I wouldn't try to talk anyone into it. Both styles of camping can coexist just fine.

As for the OP, while you aren't going to use the amenities near a big attraction, there is something to be said about minimizing your commute time to that attraction, so you have more time doing what you came there for, irregardless of what style cg that happens to be.

[kellertx5er]

Allworth wrote:
I am beginning to get really tired of people jumping into every campground thread to tell me that I should stay ONLY in No-hookup NPS, NFS, or State facilities.

Did anyone above actually TELL you where to stay? What I read was others simply giving their preferences. Chill out man!

[intheburbs]

Like in real estate, we go with location, location, location.

Staying right at South Rim this year, stayed at Fishing Bridge in Yellowstone, and always stayed at Fort Wilderness when we were doing the Disney thing.

All I need is a site with 30a service. Everything else is fluff.

I don't care if it has tight spaces, back-in vs pull-through, patios, pools, fire pits, craft activities,etc.

Only other factor that drives our decision is the quality/cleanliness of the bathrooms, and only when there's a choice of more than one campground.

[Allworth]

I am beginning to get really tired of people jumping into every campground thread to tell me that I should stay ONLY in No-hookup NPS, NFS, or State facilities.

Some people DO NOT CAMP! We (and many others) travel by RV and use it as a base for other touristy activities. We sleep there. We relax there. We eat there (inside the trailer, mostly). I have NOT made a campfire in ten years and don't intend to. (Smoke aggravates my wife's COPD) When I cook outside, I use the little propane grill. We have camp chairs and sometimes sit outside in the evening (IF the neighbor's smoke is not drifting through out site) but that is not a main reason for being there.

The OP specifically mentioned visiting major attractions and only returning to the trailer at night. That certainly does not sound like boondocking to me!

End of rant! It just bothers me that some people seem to feel that the way they use their RV is the way that everyone MUST use their RV.

I feel better now. I think I'll go find a tire thread! (Or maybe Wal-Mart)

[Pawz4me]

bigdogger wrote:
We always see a KOA as a safe choice. We are not price sensitive, so if it is a couple of bucks more we don't really fret about it. Our first stops are usually rvparkreviews.com and the park's website. If the reviews are good and there is nothing on the website that is a tipoff to something we don't want, we are usually good to go. KOAs are seldom the worst park in an area, so they are usually a park we consider. Cost is seldom a determining factor.

X2

Convenience is often the deciding factor for us. If it's a stopover we want something close to our route. If we're staying a few days it's to see nearby attractions (not sit around the campground), so we want a convenient location.

[rfryer]

I rarely stay in any commercial campground. I have stayed in KOA’s on a few occasions and I’m sort of neutral on them but they’re too overdeveloped for my taste. I’m much more inclined to stay in a more rustic cg without any HU’s and fewer people. And I’m willing to drive further to do that. Now if I were in an area with no rustic cg’s I’d have to bite the bullet and stay wherever I could, but I wouldn’t like it.

[bikendan]

we would never stay at a KOA or similar type campground, except in an emergency.

we choose national/state/county park campgrounds first. don't need any hookups, since we're experienced dry campers.

[Mike__Rose]

We have done a mixture of both private and state campgrounds. It all depends on your basic need and the size of your RV. We are 32' Class C and like full hookups even when it is just a place to sleep at night. We have found some of the rustic campground hard to access due to our size.

[rr2254545]

Vulcaneer wrote:
We prefer a nicer campground to stay in. KOA's are usually more on the (lets say) "rustic" side.

We would rather drive a few miles than put up with an over priced, un-level, dirty campground.

We have stayed at 37 KOA over the last 5 years - not rustic at all,

Always have pools etc and are a cut above most others.

You get what you pay for

[RoyB]

WE too have stayed at some nice KOA's but it is definitely not the norm... All the ones close to to the interstates are just one nighters for the most part. Busier than a local truck stop haha...

We have one we like off of I81 that has a real nice stream and a very pleasant setup...