Land of the free?
Is it just me or was camping way cheaper 10 years ago?
I was hoping to campervan/trailer across the country in ER, but most of the parks now have high fees just to enter (some even on foot!) and a lot of campsites are north of $30 a night! Not long ago a lot of state park camp sites were only $8-12. What happened to the idea that our parks are for everyone to enjoy? I guess now they are just for people who have extra money.
I know there are camping communities you can join to get reasonable year round rates at various locations, etc. but I sure am getting sick of how the modern world has us jumping through so many hoops just to get a fair rate...to find a small pack of grass to "legally" set up a tent/park a vehicle?
What is up with that! Except for a few holes in the middle of nowhere, everywhere is set up to keep all but the wealthy working.
Who needs a tent/camper if you can often stay at a hotel for nearly the same cost($5-10 bundles of wood, don't bring your own or you will be fined)? Why are national/state parks involved in the supply and demand game? I understand that we want to keep them pristine, but come on!
America's parks and campgrounds
I don't think you can find motel prices for anywhere near the price of a tent/camping spot. Camping prices are still a really good deal.
Personally, I am happy to pay the camping fee at our state and national parks. Even the most expensive places are only about $30 night. This is not a big deal when you consider how much you are paying for other things like gas/food/admissions on your trip.
I doubt that the states are making money off the campsites -- in California politicians were actually talking about shutting them down because of budget issues. I'd much rather pay a little more than have them closed.
FYI, I've noticed that the national parks seem to be quite a bit cheaper than the state parks (at least in CA). E.g., Lassen NP was $18/night, Joshua Tree NP $10/night, whereas Big Basin SP is $35.
Personally, I am happy to pay the camping fee at our state and national parks. Even the most expensive places are only about $30 night. This is not a big deal when you consider how much you are paying for other things like gas/food/admissions on your trip.
I doubt that the states are making money off the campsites -- in California politicians were actually talking about shutting them down because of budget issues. I'd much rather pay a little more than have them closed.
FYI, I've noticed that the national parks seem to be quite a bit cheaper than the state parks (at least in CA). E.g., Lassen NP was $18/night, Joshua Tree NP $10/night, whereas Big Basin SP is $35.
I have found hotels that cheap...especially if you include costs to actually enjoy the camping experience (fire,etc.)...although as you mentioned it depends on where you are looking. Nice to hear a lot of places are still cheaper.
I would rather pay than have them closed as well. However, the cost to keep them open is nothing compared to other wasteful government spending. I am sure Americans in general would be happy to have their taxes go to the parks (I would prefer if they spent more in this area to have kept them free).
Any talk of closing them would be so "they" (put on my tinfoil hat) can eventually sell them off for privatization because we can't "afford" to keep them open. That, or it is something they can hold over our heads to get us to accept higher taxes.
Parks that see tons of tourism have to make money when they charge fees, force you to buy their wood, and open food shops. If they don't, it is probably related to how they calculate costs (like possibly putting a property value on the land and charging themselves "property taxes" to keep the parks open). Or because they pay park rangers to sit in huts to collect fees, hand out fines (not all fines are bad), and cut too much grass. It all hinges on how much management you believe a park needs and what the people should be paid. I don't see any reason a park needs to be self sustaining. Most people pay taxes and parks are supposed to be for everyone.
I would rather pay than have them closed as well. However, the cost to keep them open is nothing compared to other wasteful government spending. I am sure Americans in general would be happy to have their taxes go to the parks (I would prefer if they spent more in this area to have kept them free).
Any talk of closing them would be so "they" (put on my tinfoil hat) can eventually sell them off for privatization because we can't "afford" to keep them open. That, or it is something they can hold over our heads to get us to accept higher taxes.
Parks that see tons of tourism have to make money when they charge fees, force you to buy their wood, and open food shops. If they don't, it is probably related to how they calculate costs (like possibly putting a property value on the land and charging themselves "property taxes" to keep the parks open). Or because they pay park rangers to sit in huts to collect fees, hand out fines (not all fines are bad), and cut too much grass. It all hinges on how much management you believe a park needs and what the people should be paid. I don't see any reason a park needs to be self sustaining. Most people pay taxes and parks are supposed to be for everyone.
Most state forests have free dispersed camping up to 14 days in one spot. All that's really required is a little local knowledge or time. National and State Parks are often bordered by state forests, so you can make day trips to the expensive parks. One can gain local knowledge by talking to camp hosts at paid campsites, patrons at a local bar, or the worker/volunteer at the nearby town's community center. This method would be best if say you are camping out of truck or van, for nights when you want freedom from the cramped space.
If going the RV route, I think Wal-Mart parking lots are popular for an overnight stay.
Bike touring also has the possibility for $5ish hiker-bikers sites as well as the warm showers' community.
If going the RV route, I think Wal-Mart parking lots are popular for an overnight stay.
Bike touring also has the possibility for $5ish hiker-bikers sites as well as the warm showers' community.
-
George the original one
- Posts: 5406
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
- Location: Wettest corner of Orygun
BLM, National Forest Service, and state forest land (at least in Oregon) generally allow camping in unimproved sites for up to 14 days for free. There may be catches such as limited road access or no campfires during the dry season, but most of the time I do not pay for camping.
Last year I did tent-camp at an out-of-the-way Forest Service campground in Oregon for a mere $6/night to have the advantage of a fire pit, outhouse, and running water. There was even a camp host.
Last year I did tent-camp at an out-of-the-way Forest Service campground in Oregon for a mere $6/night to have the advantage of a fire pit, outhouse, and running water. There was even a camp host.
I've been doing a lot of camping lately and the prices vary a lot. There really are places were you can spend $40 for a motel room or $40 for a campsite. I need wifi to work during the weekdays, so I don't mind paying up to $20 if they have wifi and will let me use the power in the office. National forests are free *if* you can find a campsite. I haven't gotten this down yet since right now we're in a new area almost every day. It's hard to find a campsite in a place you've never been before at 11pm. As a result, I've only managed to do it once and just slept in the car at the trailhead the other times I've attempted. We have a station wagon, so sleeping in the car is actually pretty comfy, but probably less legal.
About buying wood: there are some invasive insects that are transported in the wood which you don't want to help move between areas.
About buying wood: there are some invasive insects that are transported in the wood which you don't want to help move between areas.
Perhaps one the reasons for the expensive camping is the infrastructure. Running water, electricity, nice shower facilities, and now even wifi. It takes money to provide that. And all of those people running with their fifth wheels and motorhomes like the amenities. I struggle with calling that camping.... but to each their own.
To S's point, invasive critters are a real issue. Iowa is sweating the invasion of the emerald ash borer, and one of the way it gets here is people bringing their own firewood.
To S's point, invasive critters are a real issue. Iowa is sweating the invasion of the emerald ash borer, and one of the way it gets here is people bringing their own firewood.
The emerald ash borer is from Northern China. It doesn't sound like firewood started this problem:( I agree that intrusive bugs can be an issue in firewood driven all across the country, but they can also be transported in your vehicle or bag. I would just like to see the government subsidize fire wood instead of corn or fuel because camping was one of the last few ways to travel cheap.