AMEN, Jack! And WiFi? Noooooooooo!

no no no...you guys have it all wrong
"camping" is now defined as sitting in the lazy boy, in the 48 foot rv with all the slide-outs, 3 feet from the next 48 foot rv with all the slide-outs, watching the football game on tv. And video everything for the kiddies of course.
If you have one, you can sit outside watch the undermounted exterior tv from the ex lg wide body relcilner.
Oh yes, and in places like Palm Desert you pay $80 a night for that privilege.
I say keep Oregon Parks electric outlet free! Some of us really do like the out doors.

Jack, you are wrong. The numbers show more RVing. Not for me, but that's what's happening. And the majority (again not me) camp cheek by jowl basking in the blue glow of TVs while listening to the hum of their (and others' generators and breathing the stink of many poorly tended "camp" fires. The USFS is underbudgeted. Concentrating the lemmings in fewer big campgrounds will mean the rest of the woods will be left quieter for the rest of us.

As the quality of home construction of modern years will show you, most people are willing to accept mediocrity, and this is true of the woods also.

So do I think what they propose is anathema? Yes. Do I think it is what most of the May to September "campers" want? Yeah. So let them have it. So much the better for the rest of us.

Jack, you are half right. People often camp to get away from crowds. Also, they go to the outdoors to, well see and be in the outdoors, mother nature and all that. Electricity would appeal to some but is not part of the outdoor experience. No, the USFS should just figure out how to keep all the camp grounds and trails open. Without demanding that most of the work to keep them open and functioning be done by volunteers.

I'm a member of the Oregon Nordic Club and we volunteer to go out and help maintain ski trails.

Jack, I agree with you and I am both an RVer and a camper. When I want to use the rolling hotel room I go to KOAs or to full-service state parks. It's nice way to spend a few days and the wife likes using a bathroom that she herself cleaned.

When we camp, however, we like the Forest Service and BLM campgrounds because they are more primitive. The neglect of these facilities and the trails in the Mt. Hood forest is a crime to me. I'm of an age where it's just not much fun to crawl over fallen trees all day. I hope they keep the separation between the two.

Once again budget cuts are the way to reduce "The Commons." The way it goes is that first a public service is deprived of resources until it can't do its job right anymore. Then, it's accused of not doing its job right. Then, of course, it's time to either bring in a private firm to do the job or shut down the service. And "user fees" are introducd, then increased, charging us for the privelege of using what had been a public service. Never mind that part of the budget will then go to profit. Administrative overhead, and even line staff salaries in a public entity are viewed as waste, whereas profit, or return to shareholders, is viewed as what makes the world go around.

Also, any discussion of costs regarding Forest Service recreational facilities should be balanced by an accounting of the subisidies to the logging industry over the years in the form of road building and maintenance. Often the Forest Service received less from timber sales than it paid to assist in the harvest. Ah, the "free market."

And it's important to find a way to blame environmentalists. Cut all the trees and ship them to Japan to be processed, and blame the spotted owl and environmentalists when mills close. Conservation groups will somehow be blamed for reduction in recreational facilities, too; just watch.