Not a fan
This is a posting I made more than eight years ago and am still waiting for answers. Do you have any insight for me?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Each month Fred and I publish a newsletter. One of the newsletter’s monthly features is a “Notable Campground” article. I’m a little surprised no one has noticed a rarely a Colorado national forest campground has been cited.
Colorado is a beautiful state with great scenery and some fabulous campground locations but there is just something about the management of the developed campgrounds that I find a “turn-off.” Okay, very often the people of Colorado strike me as being over-stressed and in a major hurry but so were the folks back in Washington, DC. So I doubt that is the reason.
Could it be that most of the campgrounds felt overused and overcrowded? All appeared “over loved” and in serious need of some rest and renovation. I know the natural groundcover of a Ponderosa pine stand is pine needles but why, sans the pine needles, is there so much dust and dirt in Colorado’s popular campground?
Could it be the use of concessionaires with their long list of rules governing everything from the use of generators to size of campfires that keeps me away? We must have surveyed well over 200 campgrounds and only a handful weren’t concessionaire-managed in the whole state. I realize rules are necessary, especially with the number of campers these campgrounds see but please explain the heavy-handed application we saw. And who decided there should be fees on *everything*? I mean, why do I need to purchase an area pass when I’m only camping in the campground! And why are the camping fee a forest service campground is comparable to what the private campgrounds are charging but the facilities sure aren’t?
I have to ask what happened to the Forest Service and Smokey Bear in Colorado? Did you notice their absence, too. Guess they are off fighting wildfires or something.
Nope, I’m not a big fan of Forest Service campgrounds in Colorado. There were a few I would have considered going back to (remember I’ve been to 366 FS developed campground in the Rocky Mountain Region). Funny thing is the FS apparently couldn’t find a concessionaire to operate them and so now most have been closed! But that’s okay since I’d rather disperse camp than put up with the hassle of a concessionaire managed campground in Colorado.
Sorry for venting but sometimes all I can do is shake my head at the reasoning used by this agency.
Suzi, your (and Fred’s)opinions about campgrounds are very important to my wife (Bette) and I (Glen). First, we both appreciate your articles, pictures, and blog – which we both find informative, and helpful.
We moved here to Sun City/Peoria over 15 years ago, from Oregon (Yes, after we both retired, and wanted almost 365 days of sunshine), and are still avid campers and RV’ers. We have looked at Colorado, many times, but have never visited that State. Since we have a 34 ft 5ver, we “use” private” RV Parks, various types of campgrounds, and boondock, quite a bit.
Since the Northwest is a long ways from our home (over 1000 miles), with Nevada, and Utah in between, we thought, as we get older (now in our mid-70’s; but healthy – so far) that Colorado might be a decent alternative. But we have looked at the private RV Parks, and were surprised at their high prices, and poor to mediocre quality.
So, it sounds like we are left with boondocking, or dispersed camping (in Colorado), as the best alternative to staying in USFS Concessionaire – run Campgrounds. Never have been fans of privatized federal programs, which frankly, to us, is a smoke and mirrors way to shield or hide costs, and reduce the number of federal workers; especially in the area of public recreation. Trying to stay polite here :>), by the way.
Take care of yourselves, and keep on writing/informing…..Bette & Glen Horsmann