Fishing Bridge rv park

[tbred]

I know this location has been discussed in the past but i just have a couple more questions for those who have been there.

Is it really as bad as some reviews make it out to be? I understand sites are close together but are there other horrible things about it as well?

Many complaints state that you are only allowed 2 showers a day in the showerhouse. Am I missing something here? Is showering in your own rv with full hookups not allowed for some strange reason?

Booked it for a week next July,wondering what to expect (or not to)
Thanks!

[CManley]

Our approach with campsite selection had to do with how we planned to experience the park. Dry camping within the park was not available. Yellowstone's Grand Loop has stops approximately every 15 minutes which breaks up the day. In viewing the park in 4 quadrants the following worked for us:

1. West Yellowstone allows access to the (Q1) Norris and (Q2) Old Faithful areas. Grizzly is a great RV Park. West Yellowstone itself and areas west of the park are also within reach.

2. Fishing Bridge provides easy access from (Q3) Yellowstone Lake to (Q4) Lamar Valley. It's a good campground. Not a lot of space, no campfires and the mosquitoes were at least twin engine in size. The link below provides a good picture.

http://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/fishingbridgecg.htm


Tetons are easily accessed from Colter Bay.

[dodge_guy]

Why would anyone want to drive from West Yellowstone into the park when you can stay in the park? I wouldn't want an extra hour drive just to stay at a campground I'm only sleeping in! The campgrounds in Yellowstone are only for parking the RV. Your gone from 8a.m. Or earlier till evening! Why pay more and drive more when it's unnecessary?!

[Gsetter]

We have stayed in Grizzly and Yellowstone Edge. Drove thru FB and was happy to not be staying there. Yellowstone edge is nice for its own scenery, but about 30 minutes to the north gate. Grizzly is about as nice as a campground can be and right at the West gate.

[creeper]

tbred wrote:
I know this location has been discussed in the past but i just have a couple more questions for those who have been there.

Is it really as bad as some reviews make it out to be? I understand sites are close together but are there other horrible things about it as well?

Yes it's that bad. West yellowstone is a much better option. I wouldn't stay there if it was free.

We were 12 inches from the camper behind us.

Probably worst campground we've ever stayed in. If you go to bed early, forget it. The kids play in the road till late at night. Footballs banging up against the campers and motorhomes, because there is just no room for them to play. The staff could care less, because they get so many complaints.

Mammoth which is also inside the park is just a joy. It's first come first serve and no hookups. But you can run a generator into the early evening. HUGE spots

Grizzly in West Yellowstone is great also.

Why be jammed in like a sardine in FB when their are much better options.

[cecerecreek]

Worst campground I ever been in !! And I've been in more than most ....Sites extremlely
small. We had difficulty getting in & out of our toad because of having to park along side our unit ( and no! We are not obese).... I'm one of the few that did not enjoy Yellowstone, too many people and traffic congestion. And we visited the last week of September after the summer crowd. I can't imagine how crowded it is during the "high" season. Good Luck !! Glacier National Park in my opinion is much,much better than YNP

[hotpepperkid]

ddndoug wrote:
Yes, you are only allowed two showers per day, but we used our RV shower too. The sites are tight, but as others have stated you're not there to hang out at the campground, you're there to see the park.

My biggest complaint (which I've not seen anyone mention in any of the FB threads) was the mosquito population. BE sure to take mosquito spray with DEET in it if you plan on grilling, eating dinner outside, or having your morning coffee outside of your RV. Taking the dogs out was a chore.

Doug

So whats the big deal about only 2 showers a day. Yea there are a zillion mosquitos and they are as big as a humming bird. Don't plan on sitting out side

[Drbolasky]

obgraham wrote:
Sure it is tight, but you're there to visit the Park, not the RV site.

'Nuf said.

[Odessa_Grandma]

We didnt mind it being a "parking lot" campground. We were there to see Yellowstone, and were greatful to have a central space to sleep. The mosquitos were just ridiculous. Couldnt even open the truck door to get in without them just fogging the interior of the truck cab. That made for quite lively antics trying to get them out of the truck. Lots of great memories and great photos. Would we stay there again....... You betcha!!!

[Naio]

agesilaus wrote:
"I've never understood why people bash it so much, since I've stayed in some really unsatisfactory places, and Fishing Bridge was not bad at all.... I guess they expect Yellowstone to have very large sites with thick foliage and lots of space in between for privacy like some state parks. It's not like that, but to me it was perfect for busy sightseers. "

Federal campsites like that are in the minority. The ones that come to mind are Lassen, Bryce and the North Rim of the Grand Canyon. Even the Yosemite CG are tight and if it wasn't for the overwhelming views people would complain about those. Almost all of these CG were built in the 1950's or earlier and were designed with much smaller RV's in mind.

The NPS refuses to upgrade them since they are hostile to RV campers IMO. The added revenue who pay for CG improvement in a few years.

Are you sure the sites at other parks were made for RVs at all?

[scbwr]

We were there in June. Our site was really pretty small. Some of the sites looked a lot better....guess we just got one of the smaller sites. Mosquitos were terrible. We only stayed there for our 5 night venture into the park. If I were doing it again, I'd camp elsewhere and consider a couple of nights by the south entrance, and then move on to the west or north entrances.

By comparison, the Coulter Bay campground in Grand Teton NP was much nicer.

[tbred]

agesilaus wrote:
"I've never understood why people bash it so much, since I've stayed in some really unsatisfactory places, and Fishing Bridge was not bad at all.... I guess they expect Yellowstone to have very large sites with thick foliage and lots of space in between for privacy like some state parks. It's not like that, but to me it was perfect for busy sightseers. "

Federal campsites like that are in the minority. The ones that come to mind are Lassen, Bryce and the North Rim of the Grand Canyon. Even the Yosemite CG are tight and if it wasn't for the overwhelming views people would complain about those. Almost all of these CG were built in the 1950's or earlier and were designed with much smaller RV's in mind.

The NPS refuses to upgrade them since they are hostile to RV campers IMO. The added revenue who pay for CG improvement in a few years.

This is precisely why I asked all you kind folks opinion! I had just been reading so many horrible reviews,I needed to hear it "straight from the horses mouth".

We are not boondockers and quite frankly I really don't want to spend a couple thousand dollars on an adequate generator to stay in one of the more "scenic" campgrounds.

From the general consensus here it is exactly what we need it to be, a home base for our busy daily activities (and a daily shower!)

Thanks again to you all!!!!

[agesilaus]

"I've never understood why people bash it so much, since I've stayed in some really unsatisfactory places, and Fishing Bridge was not bad at all.... I guess they expect Yellowstone to have very large sites with thick foliage and lots of space in between for privacy like some state parks. It's not like that, but to me it was perfect for busy sightseers. "

Federal campsites like that are in the minority. The ones that come to mind are Lassen, Bryce and the North Rim of the Grand Canyon. Even the Yosemite CG are tight and if it wasn't for the overwhelming views people would complain about those. Almost all of these CG were built in the 1950's or earlier and were designed with much smaller RV's in mind.

The NPS refuses to upgrade them since they are hostile to RV campers IMO. The added revenue who pay for CG improvement in a few years.

[NCWriter]

I thought it was just fine. Friendly staff, trees all around, convenient to the figure eight road that leads to all the Park's sights, fuel and propane available, large laundry facility and clean showers, full hookups plus dump stations, paved and level sites. A bison and deer wandered through.

I've never understood why people bash it so much, since I've stayed in some really unsatisfactory places, and Fishing Bridge was not bad at all.... I guess they expect Yellowstone to have very large sites with thick foliage and lots of space in between for privacy like some state parks. It's not like that, but to me it was perfect for busy sightseers.

[OldBlackWater]

I was there last week and didn't notice much for mosquitos, at least not in the D loop.

We were one of the lucky few to have a decent-sized tree in our site, but with some crafty angling of the motor home and toad, we were able to fit both with just enough room to get the awning up.

They give you a punch card with two showers per day. We just used our RV shower and kept the card as a souvenir.

The water is free, just note that you'll need to fire up your water heater ASAP. Unlike the rest of the park, the water coming out of the ground is COLD!

Regarding electrical service, we were seeing about 110-112 volts most of the time on 30A service, so be aware of that as you use your more sensitive appliances.

If you plan to use the laundry facility there, go before 4pm to avoid waiting in line for a machine. There were a few that were out of order when we were there.