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.

[bikendan]

vermilye wrote:
It is pretty obvious from the differences expressed in this thread that there is a wide range of opinions of what "our" National Parks should provide.

I for one do not want to see National Parks turned into trailer parks. I purposely travel in a small trailer so that I fit in most of them. I've equipped the trailer so I can dry camp (without a generator). As others have mentioned, almost all of the National Parks are surrounded with commercial campgrounds that cater to those that feel the need for full hookups. Seems to me like there is already a choice for the type of campground one prefers.

I agree.
RVs are designed to be self-contained. So national parks shouldn't be expected to develop FHU campsites for those who choose NOT to dry camp.

If you HAVE to have hookups, instead of dry camping, stay in a commercial RV campground outside the park.

I don't want a bunch of crammed parking lot campgrounds, like Fishing Bridge, in our national parks.

[vermilye]

It is pretty obvious from the differences expressed in this thread that there is a wide range of opinions of what "our" National Parks should provide.

I for one do not want to see National Parks turned into trailer parks. I purposely travel in a small trailer so that I fit in most of them. I've equipped the trailer so I can dry camp (without a generator). As others have mentioned, almost all of the National Parks are surrounded with commercial campgrounds that cater to those that feel the need for full hookups. Seems to me like there is already a choice for the type of campground one prefers.

[drsteve]

The number of campsites in the most popular parks could be doubled, and they'd still be booked solid within minutes of becoming available. The only thing that would change is the crowds would be bigger, the roads more crowded, and the experience less than it would be otherwise.

[huachuca]

Mission statement from the NPS website "The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. The Park Service cooperates with partners to extend the benefits of natural and cultural resource conservation and outdoor recreation throughout this country and the world."

Right, wrong or indifferent, the above statements provide clear insight as to why there will be minimal development on public lands managed by the National Park Service. 'preserves unimpaired' and 'for future generations' are the operative phrases here and personally, I have no problem with this philosophy. I want my grand daughter and every other American to come to have the opportunity to enjoy the natural and historical treasures of this great Country as much as I have. This isn't to say that I don't get peeved at certain management policies in specific units but that's not the topic here.

I certainly don't want to see the level of campground development that would be necessary to support a "I sure would like to be able to get into (insert Park of choice) on a whim with my (insert family members or friends)! And because they (removed qualifier) require more WATER and ELECTRICITY, so it sure would be nice if the parks would make this Possible" (Not picking on you here Busskipper, just my personal preference which is of no more importance than yours).

The stats (Very very small sample on my behalf) behind this link were quite surprising. Visitation by Park by Year Many of the Parks we frequent seem to have level or declining annual visitation numbers over the last twenty five years. This isn't true of all Parks and it doesn't segregate campers from day trippers but interesting nonetheless. This possible trend coupled with the significant amounts of land added to the NPS holdings over that period could be indicative of less density and more camping opportunities rather than less.

[monkey44]

We travel and camp about half the year or more still, and use our truck camper w/4x4 because it will park in short sites. We park in any site, we can (and do) go for a week or more without FHU, and we take whatever state and national parks offer. Some have W/E, some FHU, some no HU. We camp because we like it, and like the conveniences we take with us.

We agree with the statement above - during summers, most of the campers or RVers are not USA folks. Many foreigners are extremely 'messy' and environmentally insensitive ... that's one thing we should deal with, and it will help the budgets.

[its_just_me]

DrewE wrote:

its just me wrote:
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.............

There are 59 National Parks, designated as such, and 413 units associated with/administered by the National Park service. Here is a list (MS Word document from the NPS web site) of all of them with a breakdown by type of designation.

Thank you DrewE.

[Veebyes]

We prefer SPs, NPs, COEs & county parks. Don't need or want all the stuff many of the private parks provide.

Sure don't need FHUs. Don't even need water at the site. We also know how to get along with minimal power but in the heat of summer having a minimum of 30amp sure is appreciated for the A/C.

[Allworth]

I would like to see someday a breakdown of the number of owners who use their RV to "camp" as compared to the number who use it to "tour".

My wife and I (in our 70's) have no interest in camping. We do, however, greatly enjoy touring this beautiful country while hauling our accommodations along with us.

[DrewE]

its just me wrote:
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.............

There are 59 National Parks, designated as such, and 413 units associated with/administered by the National Park service. Here is a list (MS Word document from the NPS web site) of all of them with a breakdown by type of designation.

[RPreeb]

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.

I really don't understand this point of view. My family (Mom, Dad, brother, sister, and me) camped in Banff, Jasper, Glacier, and Yellowstone in a 15 foot TT with no electricity at all, and I'd bet no more than 25 gallons of water pumped manually. Saying that it can't be done is easily refuted, and maybe is more a statement of millennial entitlement. There are ways to get around no hookups with solar, and considerate generator use.

More spaces lead to more development, more crowding and congestion, which is already reducing the quality of the experience in some parks. Many parks are looking at ways to restrict or eliminate private vehicles in some areas. Adding more camping facilities might be contrary to that projected policy.

[Lauren]

dewey20 - I respect what you stated in print. I have heard from several sources - some really valid - that there are "variations" from that. What happens in DC ALMOST stays in DC. I really do not trust many of them there.

Sorry I added to the digressed but just wanted to clarify why I made the statement.

[pinesman]

When we were in Yellowstone this summer, "We the People" (Americans) made up only a small percentage of the tourist population that we saw.

[ppine]

The NPS is chronically under funded. They have trouble meeting basic requirements like law enforcement, trash removal and road maintenance.

[ppine]

Americans have changed their habits since most of the tent campgrounds were constructed especially after WWII. National Parks in particular have been slow to accommodate RVs. Forest Service campgrounds have done a little better.

I like having a smaller RV because it fits everywhere, say under 22 feet. You can commute to parks from private RV parks outside, but it is a different experience. I am usually happy to give up some amenities at a dry site in exchange for quiet, scenery and wildlife sightings.

Yellowstone is an example of a park that is LTD, loved to death. Go in May or Sept and forget the summer.

[LowRyter]

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? I don't think they want to, too much effort.

yep that federal government bureaucrat only has to snap his finger and get the appropriated funds in the budget, design the requirements, put it out for bid IAW FAR, select the contractor and ensure it's all delivered on time and budget at quality.

eazy peazy.