HikeArizona.COM

Interesting op-ed in the NYT last weekend.

Parks raising more money through camping and increased amenities, and subsequently higher fees.

But does the increased cost prevent some people from accessing the park anymore?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/opini ... rness.html

It used to be that a family living on a slim budget could go camping cheaply. When my kids were little we went camping a lot, but never in a campground. We chose to cowboy camp for free in the Chiricahuas, White Mtns., Pinalenos, Whetstones, etc. That is still possible. We were never too keen on going to national parks because we found peace and quiet in doing what we did.

That being said, I don't think tent camping in a public lands campground should cost $25 or $30 or more. It's insane.

@azbackpackr
Yeah but I want someone to bring me coffee in the morning.

@Alston Neal
With cream and sugar?

Yep...25.00 for me to sleep in my Car at Picacho....I don't need Electric and Water...I'm CAMPING...But they have no Tent Sites without Power and Water so you are going to pay the same Fee as the RV'ers....Won't stay there again....

At first I thought you meant the other Picacho, on the California side, on the Colorado River. It's $25 and there is NO electricity, and you can only get there by boat or via a bad road. There is water...in the river.

None of this will matter in a few years when all the Wilderness, BLM, etc. lands are sold off to the highest bidders and all that are left are National Parks, maybe.

Wow! Joe deleted my comment about lumbersexuals? It was a joke!

Jim_H wrote:Wow! Joe deleted my comment about lumbersexuals? It was a joke!

Joe - These guys want to have a word with you... ;)

hikeaz wrote:

Jim_H wrote:Wow! Joe deleted my comment about lumbersexuals? It was a joke!

Joe - These guys want to have a word with you... ;)

Who are they?

Jim_H wrote:

hikeaz wrote:

Jim_H wrote:Wow! Joe deleted my comment about lumbersexuals? It was a joke!

Joe - These guys want to have a word with you... ;)

Who are they?

Just random prototypical lumbersexual models....

I didn't see the inappropriate comment, but the original lumbersexual reference was from the article. It's an actual quote in the NYT article. It amazes me how many people comment on things without actually reading them. I see it all over the web.

I scanned that article but didn't see that line. I was commenting back at Alston, and thought he would get the joke.

Jim_H wrote:I scanned that article but didn't see that line. I was commenting back at Alston, and thought he would get the joke.

You know the scary thing at my age I log on this morning and go ....I think I posted something on this thread. Yeah right after Chums OP and I go........oh no I'm having a senior moment...dementia...half timers....but then I see Jim's post and go whew! Dodged that bullet.....for now.......oh wait I thought this was the bacon forum.

I wonder if my post just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I bet this would be awesome to camp in, in the Arizona desert. In June.

Phoenix's and Tucson's homeless problem: solved!

Using nature as a cash register is one thing. Glamping ruins the experience of we are supposed to get from nature. Being vulnerable is a part of it. It's unnatural to be certain that you'll be warm, dry, bug-free, won't fall to your death or be mauled by an animal when in the wilderness. These things force you to think natural thoughts. It certainly shouldn't hurt the rest of us if people want to cheat themselves by sitting in front of a TV while in nature.

@The N
I've camped now for almost 60 years, it is always scary for one reason or another. That's why we still camp.