In Season on-site RV Storage – really?
“In season on-site RV storage” is one of the suggested proposals in the American Recreation Association (ARC) “Modernization of Recreation Sites” plan. The concept is that the U.S. Forest Service would give concessionaires operating Forest Service campgrounds the authority to permit, for a fee, the parking of unoccupied recreational vehicles on an active campsite for an extended period of time. According to industry sources, this would allow campers, especially from urban areas, to travel back and forth without having to haul their rigs each time they want to spent time in the forest. This, according to an ARC representative, would be easier on the environment and reduce fuel consumption. The assumption is both would be a good thing. And getting more people enjoying time in the out-of-doors would be good, too.
Shady lane thru Hillman Ferry cg where 3-week stays are win by an annual lottery
According to ARC, the number of people enjoying the out-of-doors, specifically in national forests and grasslands, is steadily declining. Although this representative admits obtaining accurate and comprehensive numbers for the number of people who are enjoying national forests and grasslands is nearly impossible, he suggests the decline is more a function of “working mothers” not having the time or energy to perform the logistics necessary for a family to spend time in the out-of-doors. My response is that’s nonsense!
I have been camping for a long time, before children, with children, working outside the home, and now, in “my golden years” when it is just Fred and my dogs heading for the woods. It is always a challenge planning, packing, and preparing for any trip, and trip camping is no different. However, there are techniques and methods that make it easier and possible to, at-the-drop-of-a-hat, head for the woods. Plus, many working mothers have a helper known as the “dad.” (And by the way, Mr. Recreational Industry Representative, EVERY mother is a “working mother.”) Don’t blame declining numbers on “working mothers.”
There are many factors likely influencing the possible decline of people using national forest campgrounds. Deteriorating infrastructure in campgrounds and the ever increasing influence of concessionaires could be reasons. An infrastructure where the vaults are not maintained or there is an absence of drinking water would discourage many potential campers. Fees for having pets in a campground, restrictions on collecting dead and down wood so campers must purchase firewood from the concessionaire, and closing of campgrounds as soon as schools are back in session, voiding the possibility of camping in the less crowded “shoulder” season, are likely to contribute to the reduction in people camping at concessionaire-operated campgrounds. Perhaps ARC and others in the outdoor recreation industry should look at other factors contributing to the alleged decline in national forest and grassland campground occupancy before pointing their finger at the “working mother” or suggesting “in season on-site RV storage” would miraculously improve campground occupancy.
At least, that’s my opinion. What’s yours? Please, tell us how you feel about this proposal.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 16th, 2012 at 11:46 am and is filed under camping, Forest Service, national forest campgrounds, national forests, national grasslands, RV lifestyle. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 16th, 2012 at 2:47 pm
I did a little digging on this. The proposal I found is at http://www.funoutdoors.com/files/USFS%20Recreation%20Strategy%20Final%20PDF.pdf which is a Forest Service document with “statistics” from the Outdoor Industry Foundation – the 501(c)3 non-profit arem of the Outdoor Industry Association which represents 4,000 manufacturers/distributors/retailers of outdoor equipment and activity. So we’ve go a lobbying organization pitching to the Forest Service to provide 20-30 year leases to private companies and extending GT leases to 15 years so their “investment” is protected. No thanks.
October 17th, 2012 at 8:19 am
ARC “Modernization of Recreation Sites” Plan? RV Storage? « A New Century of Forest Planning says:[...] to a reader for this contribution.. Here is the link (to the Camping with Suzi blog), and below are [...]
October 27th, 2012 at 6:02 pm
No we need more free camping.
NFS can use voluteer group like the AMC does for the AP Trail.
We certasinly dont need for for profit use of public land
November 1st, 2012 at 4:37 am
We have already seen an NFS campground doing this. Several years ago in Land between the Lakes. Can not remember the name. Discounts applied only to basic site, all else extra. Realized after there for a couple days that many rigs were unattended. Not only do these folks leave their RVs there, they bring all sorts of other”stuff” and leave that as well. ie: extra refrigerators, bikes, boats, outside tvs & the list goes on. We decided that sort of camp was not for us. We were surprised and disgusted to find this in a NF.
November 1st, 2012 at 7:34 am
I am truly disappointed that the NFS would even consider allowing an empty unit to occupy any site for more than a few days time (the few days being that they are overnight hiking). Where does this leave those of us who can’t afford to pay all week only to use it for a few days, and those of us who live in Iowa and can’t get there on a whim? I plan and save my money so that I can take a wonderful vacation in the NF, which for now is one of the few affordable vacations we can find. However, if in the future we are doomed to pull into Sibley Lake in the Big Horns (which is always FULL) and can’t find an available site because people who live within eye-shot of these mountains are just parking empty trailers in them, I’d be very, very disappointed in the NFS. I agree with the reasons Suzi suggested for the alleged “decline” in campers. One point of view that was not mentioned is the apparent “need” for campers to have electricity now days, enhanced by all the amenities introduced into the RVs, ie. slideouts, microwaves, TVs and full entertainment centers (have you noticed all the satellite dishes in campgrounds lately?), wide-screen TVs mounted into the outdoor compartments, electric waterheaters, WiFi…just to name a few. In some CGs we’ve visited there were tenters occupying electric sites because they didn’t want to put up with listening to generators running all day in the non-electric sites. It was much quieter in the electric sites and no exhaust smells. Seems to me that if you want to encourage more camping in the NF you need to update those sites with electricity! Make the forest quiet again, allow elderly with breathing machines to camp (we met quite a few at Sibley) and allow camping to stretch into the Spring and Fall seasons with electricity for heaters, lights, and easier cooking choices (microwaves). I don’t mind paying a fair price for camping and a little extra for an electric hookup, but to be there to experience empty trailers and motorhomes vs. the comraderie and interesting conversations of other campers…what a disappointment that a part of our gov’t. my taxes support would even consider this. I think this is a BAD idea born out of short-sightedness and greed.
November 1st, 2012 at 9:23 am
Thank you for your input – you’ve got some good ideas and we will pass then on. Suzi
November 1st, 2012 at 9:29 am
Remember Land between the Lakes was managed by TVA before Congress handed over to the Forest Service and folks that have been camping there have a different philosophy about camping than those who camp more often in a national forest. Of course the good thing is there are a bunch of options close by like the Shawnee NF and, personally, I think the Daniel Boone NF would be worth the drive.