Vanagon EuroVan
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (May 2012, week 4)Back to main VANAGON pageJoin or leave VANAGON (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Thu, 24 May 2012 00:07:26 -0400
Reply-To:     Kim Brennan <kimbrennan@MAC.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Kim Brennan <kimbrennan@MAC.COM>
Subject:      Re: [NVC but camping!] In Canada's B.C.
Comments: To: Rocket J Squirrel <camping.elliott@GMAIL.COM>
In-Reply-To:  <4FBD7CE0.2030500@gmail.com>
Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII

I feel camping is one of the big things about our Westy's, so I don't think it's a NVC topic at all...

Like Dave when I'm out camping, my first choice in National Forests. Not campgrounds but just place in the National Forest. As Dave indicates, National Forest rules vary, forest to forest (even in the same state). The usual pattern is that if you aren't visible from a normally traffic'd road you are okay. For Syncro's this isn't difficult. You 2wd guys still have a lot of clearance though and can often take the level jeep trails with out too much issue. And you often don't have to go to far to get a nice spot.

Of course familiarity with the Forest in particular will let you get the choice spots. I'm an East coaster, so the forests I've been in are the George Washington and Jefferson Forests (in Virginia and West Virginia), the Allegheny Forest (in Penn). Out in Montana the Bitterroot National Forest has some nice spots. As does the Olympic National Forest (as opposed to the Olympic National Park) in Washington.

I reserve those state park campgrounds to emergency status only. They are often not much cheaper than a bottom line motel, and often a lot noisier than same.

On May 23, 2012, at 8:12 PM, Rocket J Squirrel wrote:

> I have made no secret that I find state parks in California, Oregon, and > Washington to be really sucky. They are overly-manicured and crowded. > "Cheek by jowl" camping is how I've referred to them in the past and I > stand by my opinion. Can't stand them. To us, the lower the population > density, the more primitive, the fewer amenities, the quieter and more > secluded and the prettier they are, the nicer they are. Park us > overlooking a lake without some yahoo running a generator and playing > music nearby and we are very happy. > > So this summer, Mrs Squirrel and I have an opportunity to take a > twelve-night trip from our home in Bend, Oregon. > > We could go east, stay in the U.S., visit Idaho, Montana, Wyoming; stay > in quieter USFS campgrounds and wash up in small town motels; or we > could head on a generally north by northwest course sorta-kinda up > towards Seattle then to places unknown. > > Anyone got any perspective or suggestions on this? Y'all can pmail me so > as not to chew up list bandwidth.


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main VANAGON page

Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!


Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com


The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.

Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.