State forest campsites - no longer free

[salmonoid]

Pennsylvania Bulletin

Information included at this site has been derived directly from the Pennsylvania Code, the Commonwealth's official publication of rules and regulations and from the Pennsylvania Bulletin, the Commonwealth's official gazette for information and rulemaking

www.pacodeandbulletin.gov

I just got an email from DCNR, noting that I could now reserve one of 650 SF campsite. Running on the same platform as the state park reservations for cabins and camping, I was sure that was not a free lunch and it is not. Since this is a topic that periodically comes up (SF camping), it's no longer free.

I'm particularly interested to find out what a "designated trailside" primitive campsite it, which costs the same as a roadside site ($10-20/night, plus a $5-8 transaction fee).

"The resulting fees are comparable to those of state parks and forests in neighboring states and will narrow the gap between State Parks and Forests in this Commonwealth and private facilities, resulting in a more favorable competitive climate for the private sector."

So since free is cheaper than a pay campground, they're now charging fees to help the private sector???

 

[pcray1231]

That kinda sucks. For no maintenance sites.

I have no problem with private places in principle, except most of them are all about RV's, and make it their goal to get as many in a space as they can. Tenting, with a little space around you and maybe tree cover, is either non-existant, or if they do have tent sites, an afterthought with sites stuck in some corner where it's too wet/rocky/steep to make another RV site. The one advantage of private places is they often have pools and events and such for the kiddos.

State parks are generally very good, but I always liked the roadside sites in state forests, and I believe you can still just pull up and camp anywhere in the national forest.

 

[PennKev]

So since free is cheaper than a pay campground, they're now charging fees to help the private sector???

The argument being that free camping steals customers from campgrounds. Does this actually happen in reality? I dunno. I don't think cost is the biggest reason people choose primitive forest camping over commercial campgrounds or vice-versa

 

[flyguyfishing]

I camp in PA state parks often. Some PA state forest camping. Some camping in nearby states.

I don’t mind paying for camping, but I hate the processing fee. Many states seems to use the same reservation system - all charge $6 fee.

I booked camping at three different PA parks (3 consecutive weekends) all in one transaction and was charged $18 fee.

It doesn’t cost that much to maintain that site…a $2 fee would still be profitable.

Rant over. Lol.

 

[mikephl]

Hmmm. The State Forest campsites I stayed at used to be free, but they required a reservation -- by calling the SF office. What about the backpacking trails in the state that cross state forest land? Those used to be no-reservation. Any idea?

 

[caddisflyer]

Sorry to hear that. PA price gouges for everything and service and maintenance certainly are worse than ever. Stealth camping is always an option. After all it is OUR forest.

 

[kbobb]

What if you camp in a state forest (backpack in or near car) but not at a designated site? just pitch a tent or hang a hammock in the woods?

 

[wildtrout2]

What if you camp in a state forest (backpack in or near car) but not at a designated site? just pitch a tent or hang a hammock in the woods?

That's what I always considered "remote camping".

 

[dryflyguy]

That kinda sucks. For no maintenance sites.

I have no problem with private places in principle, except most of them are all about RV's, and make it their goal to get as many in a space as they can. Tenting, with a little space around you and maybe tree cover, is either non-existant, or if they do have tent sites, an afterthought with sites stuck in some corner where it's too wet/rocky/steep to make another RV site. The one advantage of private places is they often have pools and events and such for the kiddos.

State parks are generally very good, but I always liked the roadside sites in state forests, and I believe you can still just pull up and camp anywhere in the national forest.

Yes, the camping un the ANF is free on a first come basis.
No permit required.
They do it right IMO.

I camp at a designated site in the New York state forest land when I fish the Delaware river.
It's free with a first come basis too.
A permit is only required for stays long than 3 nights, which is fair IMO too.

This new rule for PA camping seems like overkill to me.

 

[Trico3]

PA DCNR just continues to frustrate me with their changes to long time policies, procedures and access to State owned lands. They tout being a self sustained agency (no tax payer dollars to them). This a new revenue maker for the agency. Gas, mineral, timber and state park fees may not have been enough for the bottom line in this economy? Under new regs they'll get around $100 from me this year. I think some sites get used a lot, some almost never. I would have no idea what the total $$$ generated for DCNR will be.

 

[dryflyguy]

I don't have much problem with paying to camp.
My issue is having to reserve and book camping sites.

I like to wing it when I go fishing.
Taking into account the weather conditions and how good the fishing is.
And be free to move around to different streams and areas.

When I fish BWOs in march, I have, on occasion, reserved a camping spot in the Rothrock state forest.
At that time of year things can be pretty dicey though.
I've canceled some trips last minute because of snowstorms, or high water.

A few times, even though the current weather was fine, the state forest roads were still covered with ice, making it dangerous to drive on even with 4WD
And I reserved the site for nothing.

 

[jgish92]

I'd rather have the people who use it pay a relatively small fee than have my taxes raised and the new tax revenue sent to the black hole of state bureaucracy.

 

[Fly-Swatter]

I'd rather have the people who use it pay a relatively small fee than have my taxes raised and the new tax revenue sent to the black hole of state bureaucracy.

self sustained agency (no tax payer dollars to them)

 

[salmonoid]

PA DCNR just continues to frustrate me with their changes to long time policies, procedures and access to State owned lands. They tout being a self sustained agency (no tax payer dollars to them). This a new revenue maker for the agency. Gas, mineral, timber and state park fees may not have been enough for the bottom line in this economy? Under new regs they'll get around $100 from me this year. I think some sites get used a lot, some almost never. I would have no idea what the total $$$ generated for DCNR will be.

I've never heard DCNR tout themselves as a self-sustained agency.

Revenue aside, in one sense, I get why they are doing this. Each State Forest had their own means of reserving sites. Some you emailed them directly. Bald Eagle had an online (free) reservation system. Some didn't even have numbered sites, per se; but to be legal, you were supposed to contact them and get a free permit. This process at least standardizes reserving a site. I'll be interested in how enforcement works out. Do you get fined if you camp on an open and unreserved site? What happens if you decide to squat on a site that is reserved? Are state forest employees going to put little cards on reserved sites? Maybe there will be an opening for state forest campsites hosts - free site if you patrol the other sites!

 

[troutbert]

self sustained agency (no tax payer dollars to them)

DCNR receives tax money.

 

[silverfox]

What if you camp in a state forest (backpack in or near car) but not at a designated site? just pitch a tent or hang a hammock in the woods?

That's what I'm curious about. Everywhere I've done this the SF manager just wants you to let them know a general area of where you'll be, for how long, and where you intend to park. That way, when they see your vehicle along a road somewhere for 3 days they don't send the search party out.

I see "primitive camping, designated trailside," but I'm not sure what that means. I don't typically camp off trails or in designated areas. Just backpack in and camp where I want to (following rules about proximity to streams etc.). Do I have to pay to do that now?

Nevermind. This doesn't apply to true primitive camping on SF.

"There is no fee for a state forest primitive camping permit. Primitive campers spending no more than one night at a campsite do not need a camping permit; however, a free camping permit is required if:"

Backpacking and Primitive Camping

www.dcnr.pa.gov

 

[salmonoid]

That's what I'm curious about. Everywhere I've done this the SF manager just wants you to let them know a general area of where you'll be, for how long, and where you intend to park. That way, when they see your vehicle along a road somewhere for 3 days they don't send the search party out.

I see "primitive camping, designated trailside," but I'm not sure what that means. I don't typically camp off trails or in designated areas. Just backpack in and camp where I want to (following rules about proximity to streams etc.). Do I have to pay to do that now?

Nevermind. This doesn't apply to true primitive camping on SF.

"There is no fee for a state forest primitive camping permit. Primitive campers spending no more than one night at a campsite do not need a camping permit; however, a free camping permit is required if:"

Backpacking and Primitive Camping

www.dcnr.pa.gov

I am not sure that all their information has caught up with the new reservation requirements. That's the same language used before paid reservations. There needs to be a definition for "primitive campsite, designated trailside". Does that mean they are now establishing numbered sites along trails? Or if you camp at an established site (firering, logs or stones setup as chairs,.etc.), that is a primitive campsite, designated trailside? Or something else? Given that I've never seen a ranger too far from their truck, I think any sort of enforcement on the trailside piece will be lax.

 

[jifigz]

I am not sure that all their information has caught up with the new reservation requirements. That's the same language used before paid reservations. There needs to be a definition for "primitive campsite, designated trailside". Does that mean they are now establishing numbered sites along trails? Or if you camp at an established site (firering, logs or stones setup as chairs,.etc.), that is a primitive campsite, designated trailside? Or something else? Given that I've never seen a ranger too far from their truck, I think any sort of enforcement on the trailside piece will be lax.

As an avid backpacker I see no way they would ever be able to enforce hike in camping and there is ZERO chance I would ever pay. When I backpack it is spontaneous, sporadic, etc. Sure, I always plan trips in how many days/nights I'm going to be in there, but I'm not going to go in and prepay for a three night trip on a remote trail. That just ain't happening.

In fact, if that is what they are implying needs to be paid for by "hike-in trailside" then I'm pretty salty about it.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

I am a member of a state lease camp. Anyhow, there has been a group that hauls in a camper and sets up a big tent camp for bear season along the forestry road near our driveway. We wondered if they would be there this year and they were. The only reservable sites on the dcnr site are 20 miles away in a completely different section of the Sproul State Forest. Will be interesting to see how this plays out over time.

 

[Fly-Swatter]

If I didn't read about the new state forest camping fee here, how would I know about it? It seems like plausible deniability to me.