Mountain Project Logo

Proposed Camping Fees at Creek Pasture and Superbowl

doligo · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Sep 2008 · Points: 264

I would be also fine if they charged $10 say April through September and no fees the other half of the year... I'd be even ok giving up March. March through the summer are probably the biggest money maker months for greater Moab area.

Sam Feuerborn · · Carbondale · Joined Aug 2009 · Points: 810

What about only fees for the group sites as they're the ones with the greatest impact/sq ft in the campgrounds and those sites also have the greatest amount of development. That would keep the riff raff away leaving those sites for school/guided groups specifically which are more inclined to eat that cost while also showing appreciation to the companies and groups like FOIC that have been helping your average dirtbag for a while now.

Wally · · Denver · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 0

Interesting comments. $10 a night sounds like a bargain to me. Nice crappers. Improved campsites help consolidate folks and perhaps protect other areas? The campsites are big - easy to accommodate multiple folks. So 5 of you are camped at a site and the $2 per climber per night fee is too much - and worth challenging?

I don't understand. I am fully supportive of the Indian Creek improvements. Better than back in the day when there were shit piles just a few yards from some of the more popular camping spots.

My two cents. I commented to the BLM - indicated I was fully supportive of the proposal. Sounds like I am in the minority.

Climb Ohn. Wally

Jeff G · · Colorado · Joined Feb 2006 · Points: 1,098

$10 seems right to me for toilets and designated sites to avoid trashing the desert.

doligo · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Sep 2008 · Points: 264

Jeff and Wally, $10 is a bargain if the rest of the desert was off-limits for camping, but it is not. As soon as people heard rumors of the Creek Pasture being a pay campground, people started camping all over the Creek.

Yes, if you are a weekend warrior who has driven his/her sweet ass Sprinter 6 hours from SLC or 7-8 hours from Boulder, rolled in into the campground at midnight on Friday and found a site right off the highway on graded road, $20 for a weekend is a bargain. If you are spending a week or more at the Creek, $10 is not cheap, so many people would inevitably start camping and shitting all over...

BackAtItAgain · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2011 · Points: 15
doligo wrote:Jeff and Wally, $10 is a bargain if the rest of the desert was off-limits for camping, but it is not. As soon as people heard rumors of the Creek Pasture being a pay campground, people started camping all over the Creek. Yes, if you are a weekend warrior who has driven his/her sweet ass Sprinter 6 hours from SLC or 7-8 hours from Boulder, rolled in into the campground at midnight on Friday and found a site right off the highway on graded road, $20 for a weekend is a bargain. If you are spending a week or more at the Creek, $10 is not cheap, so many people would inevitably start camping and shitting all over...
Summed up perfectly... the long term campers will be the ones dispersing and impacting...
Jeremy K · · Evergreen, CO · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 0

Lots of climbers pay $10/night (or more) to camp long term at Rifle, Maple, NPs, etc. Sure, some think that is too much and go dispersed, but plenty enjoy a few amenities.

I stopped going to creek pasture/superbowl due to overcrowding, and would be fine paying $10 for a real site. Until they I will probably stick with the other dispersed options.

Aaron Livingston · · Ouray, CO · Joined Sep 2012 · Points: 330

3$ per vehicle, per night. The pit in Bishop has got it sorted out. Or at least offer a discount season camping pass to members of the FOIC? That would show appreciation to the people who volunteer to help take care of this beautiful place while letting the BLM keep rates high for those who aren't regulars in the Creek.

ben jammin · · Moab, UT · Joined Jul 2008 · Points: 852

Bump.. excerpts from my letter.

• Visitor Demographics in Figure 1 and Figure 2 (located on page 7-8 of the DBP) do not reflect actual visitation demographics to either of the above listed campground and assumed applicability of this information is not substantiated.

-Given the inherent differences between the tourism economies of San Juan and Grand County it is hardly reasonable to determine that the NVUM study cited here is applicable. Anecdotally, it is preposterous to assume that the user group (rock climbers), that reflects a sizable majority of users of the two above listed campgrounds, of which 43.6% have an annual household income over $75,000/year. In presenting the proposed fee structure I believe a more in depth analysis be done to substantiate the proposed fees.

• No alternatives are given in the DBP for the proposed fee structure.

-With the above information in mind I believe the proposed fee structure for Superbowl and Creek Pasture Campground are excessive. Why weren’t any alternatives given rather than outlining the proposed fee structure using erroneous information? I believe that other options such as 1) No fee and 2) A more moderate fee ($2-$5/night) should be proposed as alternatives. I understand that the continuing maintenance of the improvements (many of which were donated by the Rock Climber user group) are a reality. A fee structure that that is more equitable to the rock climbing user group should be considered considering many of the improvements (tent sites, bathrooms, etc.) were made by the Rock Climber user group at these two sites.

• The DBP fails to consider the potential for increased impact due to disbursement of the user group once (if) proposed fee structure is implemented.

-A serious implication of the proposed fee structure that has not been fully considered in the DBP is the possibility of extreme disbursement of people to undeveloped areas. As I said above I feel that the $10/night fee is excessive and feel it is a real possibility that climbers will disburse and create unintended impacts in which the improvements made by the user group (at Creek Pasture and Superbowl) were intended to diminish.

Highlander · · Ouray, CO · Joined Apr 2008 · Points: 256

Allowing fees is a slippery slope and sets a precedence. If fees are allowed they will likely be increased over time, and will eventually get to the $10 a night that they want. I have seen it happen before in other places.

doligo · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Sep 2008 · Points: 264
ben jammin wrote:Bump.. excerpts from my letter. • Visitor Demographics in Figure 1 and Figure 2 (located on page 7-8 of the DBP) do not reflect actual visitation demographics to either of the above listed campground and assumed applicability of this information is not substantiated. -Given the inherent differences between the tourism economies of San Juan and Grand County it is hardly reasonable to determine that the NVUM study cited here is applicable. Anecdotally, it is preposterous to assume that the user group (rock climbers), that reflects a sizable majority of users of the two above listed campgrounds, of which 43.6% have an annual household income over $75,000/year. In presenting the proposed fee structure I believe a more in depth analysis be done to substantiate the proposed fees. • No alternatives are given in the DBP for the proposed fee structure. -With the above information in mind I believe the proposed fee structure for Superbowl and Creek Pasture Campground are excessive. Why weren’t any alternatives given rather than outlining the proposed fee structure using erroneous information? I believe that other options such as 1) No fee and 2) A more moderate fee ($2-$5/night) should be proposed as alternatives. I understand that the continuing maintenance of the improvements (many of which were donated by the Rock Climber user group) are a reality. A fee structure that that is more equitable to the rock climbing user group should be considered considering many of the improvements (tent sites, bathrooms, etc.) were made by the Rock Climber user group at these two sites. • The DBP fails to consider the potential for increased impact due to disbursement of the user group once (if) proposed fee structure is implemented. -A serious implication of the proposed fee structure that has not been fully considered in the DBP is the possibility of extreme disbursement of people to undeveloped areas. As I said above I feel that the $10/night fee is excessive and feel it is a real possibility that climbers will disburse and create unintended impacts in which the improvements made by the user group (at Creek Pasture and Superbowl) were intended to diminish.
Bump... last day for comments - their site looks to be down. I'm hoping it's the climbers inundating them with their comments :)
Martin Harris · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jan 2016 · Points: 200

10 bucks adds up when you r out there for 3 weeks or more

Aaron Livingston · · Ouray, CO · Joined Sep 2012 · Points: 330
Rob T wrote: And that's why I think they should charge more. You're only supposed to be on BLM land for 2 weeks at a time.
Are you kidding me dude? Dick.
Matt Z · · Bozeman, MT · Joined Mar 2012 · Points: 161

You're only supposed to occupy a single campsite at super bowl or creek pasture for 14 days at a time. Nothing says you can't just switch sites with the homie next door. And as far as I know there's no limit as to dispersed camping unless specifically posted unlike Forest Service land which almost universally has a 14 day limit.

tonymclane McLane · · Unknown Hometown · Joined May 2015 · Points: 76

If pasture and Super Bowl become less friendly towards climbers, with expensive rates(more than 5 bucks) and bitchy RV living hosts, the original idea of charging money to help preserve the desert is going the backfire. The hordes of climbing dirtbags that frequent the creek will surely camp elsewhere causing more damage to the desert, and they'll get away with it considering the very limited resources of law enforcement.

MaxSuffering · · KVNY · Joined Jul 2012 · Points: 0
tonymclane wrote:If pasture and Super Bowl become less friendly towards climbers, with expensive rates(more than 5 bucks) and bitchy RV living hosts, the original idea of charging money to help preserve the desert is going the backfire. The hordes of climbing dirtbags that frequent the creek will surely camp elsewhere causing more damage to the desert, and they'll get away with it considering the very limited resources of law enforcement.
Which is what the BLM will use as an excuse to eventually ban at-large camping and force everyone to stay at the paid campgrounds. I think we've seen this happen at other places? (Think Gunks and Red Rocks.)
Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Southern Utah Deserts
Post a Reply to "Proposed Camping Fees at Creek Pasture and Supe…"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.