National Parks and the Lack of Adequate # of Camp Sites

[Busskipper]

National Parks and the Lack of Adequate # of Camp Sites.

Sort of says it all - Now I have "No Dog in this fight" or "Horse in this Race"

BUT I sure would like to be able to get into YNP on a whim with my Granddaughters! And because they are Girls they require more WATER and ELECTRICITY, so it sure would be nice if the parks would make this Possible.

I personally have no issue - having Been there and Done that - and can do it again (With the present system) - but for the life of me I have a hard time understanding how a NP Service can let an area larger than the State of Rhode Island Burn, but has no ability to create a few more acres of CG's?

So I've opened the door to a very SENSITIVE ISSUE - let's stay civil and see if we can have a discussion that proposes Solutions to this issue. Private or Public - In the Park or out of the Park - Solutions not Sermons.

Let the Games Begin.

[Lwiddis]

"I have a hard time understanding how a NP Service can let an area larger than the State of Rhode Island Burn, but has no ability to create a few more acres of CG's?"

I don't see the relationship between fire and campsites. Fire is necessary in all forests...so reasonable "let it burn" decisions actually improves forests in the long run. Look at Yellowstone as an example of regeneration after the big fire.

Regarding campsites, many of our National Parks are at "carrying capacity." Anyone completely happy with their experience in our popular NPs in the middle of summer? Comments I hear are "its too crowded."

[its_just_me]

How many National Parks do we have? We have traveled thru 40 states and have visited 26 National Parks. We are in our 70's but plan to keep traveling for as long as we can. We plan to go to Shanksville, Pa this summer. I'm not sure if this is a National Park......probably a National Memorial Monument. Happy camping.............

[bid_time]

We don't take in enough money now to pay our bills. How about we fix the $20T problem we already have before we try to "fix" any others.

[GordonThree]

Apply for a back country camping permit and take your tent. There's plenty of room actually.

[Busskipper]

dewey02 wrote:

Busskipper wrote:

So let me try to rephrase the question – How can we make it possible for 3,000,000 American’s to have the Same Access to the National Park System as we had just 40 years ago, when there were just 2,180,000 of us?

300 million (not 3 million).

Thanks corrected that.....:S

[dewey02]

Busskipper wrote:

So let me try to rephrase the question – How can we make it possible for 3,000,000 American’s to have the Same Access to the National Park System as we had just 40 years ago, when there were just 2,180,000 of us?

300 million (not 3 million).

[Walaby]

As a young kid, we traveled as a family, to Yellowstone, as well as Mt Rushmore/Badlands, Niagara Falls and many other places. I have not been back in my adult life, but it is in my thought/planning phase, although probably a year plus out.

Having said that, I think it's interesting to be able to banter about solutions, but at the end of the day, I don't see anything actually happening. I don't think anyone from the Department of Interior will be looking at RV.net for a solution to a problem they don't perceive.

But, in the interest of bantering about just for the sake of argument, maybe privatization of accommodations (or expanded privatization) could work. Problem is, someone has to manage that, and control the expansion, but assuming for the sake of argument, an actual planning function could be done, and careful expansion is executed and managed, let private companies offer solutions that have to be approved and are in keeping with the overall objective of maintaining the beauty and keeping the area as pristine as possible.

But, in the end, I believe that would fail, because the greed of the individual companies, and the GOV would expect their cut, and then the greed of the GOV would demand further expansion 'because we want to make it available to everyone', and as a result, it would be destroyed in the future.

My two cents... leave it as is. I may change my mind when I visit as an adult, but from what I've read, it's so **** crowded now that Im not sure it can withstand additional visitors.

Mike

[westernrvparkow]

The money would have to come from some source. How would the general population feel if money was diverted from schools, from our crumbling infrastructure, from social programs etc. to fund construction of RV parks that serve what appears to be a relatively small and affluent segment of the population, people who can afford to own and operate recreational vehicles?
Furthermore, the basic needs of the RVing public are being taken care of by private enterprise. There is no great shortage of private RV parks around the national parks. Construction projects within the national park system will always be a last resort. The government does not owe RVers sites in the prime areas national parks and monuments. There is no constitutional right to an RV site next to Old Faithful or on the White House lawn.

[dewey02]

Lauren wrote:
As has been said, most of the money collected at National Parks goes to D C; then God only knows what REALLY happens to it.

Yes, the above statement has been said before, but repeating the statement doesn't make it any less incorrect. So here's a second verbatim listing of the relevant section of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act followed by my actual experience with managing a program under it.

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act - Section 7
7(c)(1)(A) RETENTION OF REVENUES.--Not less than 80 percent of the
recreation fees and site-specific agency pass revenues collected at a specific unit or area of a Federal land management agency shall remain available for expenditure, without further appropriation, until expended at that unit or area.
Reference

Having been a Recreation manager and managing the budget at "a local unit" I can say from actual experience that 80% of the funds DID stay at the local unit and were spent on recreation management, maintenance, and improvement of the area. The 20% of funds that were not retained at the unit went to other units that did not generate such a large revenue flow to help them with their recreation programs.

[Busskipper]

Busskipper wrote:
National Parks and the Lack of Adequate # of Camp Sites.

Sort of says it all - Now I have "No Dog in this fight" or "Horse in this Race"

BUT I sure would like to be able to get into YNP on a whim with my Granddaughters! And because they are Girls they require more WATER and ELECTRICITY, so it sure would be nice if the parks would make this Possible.

I personally have no issue - having Been there and Done that - and can do it again (With the present system) - but for the life of me I have a hard time understanding how a NP Service can let an area larger than the State of Rhode Island Burn, but has no ability to create a few more acres of CG's?

So I've opened the door to a very SENSITIVE ISSUE - let's stay civil and see if we can have a discussion that proposes Solutions to this issue. Private or Public - In the Park or out of the Park - Solutions not Sermons.

Let the Games Begin.

Interesting group of Post’s, Remember – Solutions not Sermons

OK – let me explain MY logic for the question – If the parks had been meant to be off limits to the “people” then there would be NO Roads, NO campgrounds, No concessions, No Hotels, No way to see and Love these Beautiful areas.

The parks would be fenced off and the “People” would be locked out? The Parks would be “Saved” – from US.

BUT – they are not locked up……………………….. They have all these facilities and at one time, not that long ago, that were adequate to handle the crowds. Trust me I can Remember those Days, the days when my Dad would just get in the Car (granted he was military and it was not really a vacation – it was a relocation) and we would just drive across this country and would just be able to not only SEE the parks but get a Room in the Parks, Without a reservation. And Yes I’ve taken My Kids to these Great Parks and just driven up and been able to do the same in both the RV and in the Hotels and Motels within the parks, so what “was” and what “is” seems to be the issue to ME.

So, IMHO, it’s just not FAIR to many Americans to not be able to see and Enjoy these Wild and Beautiful areas without having to make a commitment Months in advance – maybe Years in advance. (Which might be the reason so many reserved campsites are left EMPTY)

So How can we both “Protect” the Parks and Share the Parks in a Fair and Balanced way?

Two of the Voices, on this Forum that, IMHO, are the most respected “4runnerguy” and “2gypsies” have raised what I would call the “Politically Correct” answers, so this may be hard for them to Understand, how I can take a position on the other side of this issue, but, I just think we need to make this/these resources available to the People Today like it was Available to Us Yesterday.

So is there a Way?

Can the Parks be Saved and Shared?

Can our Kids, and most importantly their Kids, be allowed to SEE and USE the Parks as we have been able to see and use?

Is there a viable solution to “Over Loving” this Resource?

Let’s see if we can propose solutions that might work to allow “All” of us to use these Parks, that is the question I propose.

So let me try to rephrase the question – How can we make it possible for 300,000,000 American’s to have the Same Access to the National Park System as we had just 40 years ago, when there were just 218,000,000 of us?

[Lauren]

Interesting to read, kinda. Well, for the most part. Our two young ones grew up tent camping - on a sandbar on the upper Mississippi River (where it was pristine) south if Minneapolis.

When they were in young to mid teens I rented a class C and we went west. About the third morning out - as I am driving along - I hear my daughter say from the rear bench seat - "The tent camping phase of my life is over!"

As has been said, most of the money collected at National Parks goes to D C; then God only knows what REALLY happens to it. I have an old codger pass but always leave a donation in the box at each place....that money stays there. But this donation money is really peanuts compared to what is needed.

Lots of good - and some not quite so good - things said here. I can only state, that for me / us, adding more spots would only further deteriorate these places.

People abuse the Parks now as many people don't care or realize that rules are made to protect what is there as well as for their safety. They climb fences to stand on the rim of the Grand Canyon (one example). Then they fall and get hurt or die. Then they sue the Park.

The most polite people in the Parks are the people in rental class C's or something from another country. As we travel on a trip we ask people where they are from if we get into a conversation or they ask for info or help. Not unusual to come home with a list of two dozen countries of people we have met.

Yes, I realize that happens no matter how many people are there but you only increase it.

I digress a bit to say - leave them the way they are.

Happy, healthy and safe 2017, my friends.

[Ivylog]

There is a new CG on the west side of RMNP that was built in an area where the pine beetle had killed all of the trees. What a joke... the bathhouses for the tent area were 1/4th mile away... in the RV sections they were close by :S
Rocks were placed at the back of the RV site's limiting their length for no reason... nothing in the way. In a 100+ new CG not a single site for a big rig and there was nothing limiting the size of the sites other than stupidity.

Sorry Busskiper, even if the Gov builds more it will not help those of us with big rigs. Even with two extra water houghs you should be able to go 4-5 days without FHUs.

I can usually find nicer USFS CGs just outside a NP where the sites are not jammed together and with GoldenAge pass its $6-8/night. Most of the side roads in YNP prohibit RVs so driving the toad is a plus.

[kohldad]

Not sure what you're talking about referring to shuttle busses at Zion. You don't mean that you must be on a shuttle to visit Zion, do you? Did something change since I was there in June on my Harley?

To access the road up to the start of the slot canyon you need to use the shuttle bus. This is the most visited area of Zion and was bumper-to-bumper traffic before they started the shuttles. At one time, there was a campground at the turn-around but had to be closed due to over-use which was destroying the beauty of the area.

If you want to enjoy the solitude of Zion, go to the north end of the park which most folks doesn't even know exist.

[azdryheat]

2gypsies wrote:
I've said it before but this statement used often by the rangers might help you to understand: "Our parks are being loved to death". As volunteers in these parks we see firsthand how some people treat our parks and how masses of people do damage to these precious lands. There is much destruction to buildings, campsites and trails. I'd hate to see RV parks inside these beautiful surroundings. There are enough campgrounds already. If the future could have been seen when these parks were created, I'll bet there would be no accommodations in the parks - just roads, overlooks to special areas and parking at trailheads. I think, in the future, Yellowstone and other big parks will go the shuttle-bus route like Zion does now.

Not sure what you're talking about referring to shuttle busses at Zion. You don't mean that you must be on a shuttle to visit Zion, do you? Did something change since I was there in June on my Harley?

[azdryheat]

4runnerguy wrote:

azdryheat wrote:
Seems to me that the federal government bureaucrat run RV parks have not kept pace with the growth of the RV industry in both quantity of RV's and the physical size of the RV's of today. Park roads can be tight, spaces can be short and few in number. My experience with park rangers and others suggest that they believe the government owns these parks and don't realize they are managing these parks for us, WE THE PEOPLE, we own these parks. Why won't the feds modernize and update the RV parks?

"We the People" isn't just those who own and camp in RV's. The act establishing the NPS states: "The service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations hereinafter specified by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purposes of the said parks, monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." Expansion of existing or development of new campgrounds can obviously come into conflict with the conservation mandate and the order to leave the parks unimpaired for future generations.

You misunderstood me. WE THE PEOPLE is from the US Constitution and encompasses all Americans, not just RVers. I was speaking as an American citizen who gets peeved when the government takes over our land and then prevents WE THE PEOPLE from using it or charges us to use it or limits us using it. Then you get the rangers who think they own these parks, forgetting that it is WE THE PEOPLE who own all of these lands. Roosevelt Lake is a very large lake NE of Phoenix and has a huge boating population that use it. Rangers once told us we were "lucky" that they let us use the lake. That is the mindset of these bureaucrats and I'm sick of it.