Arizona State Park camping fees

the real answer which no one in power wants to face - give us the parks, charge what we need to run it and keep the revenue ALL of it, in the park. CA wants to make the parks sustainable and separate - if it wants that, then quit taking the money - I'd bet if the campgrounds took in the funding, even raising the rates a bit to make it happen, we'd pay it - but not if the raise in fees occurs and NOTHING changes. That funding has to stay there and it would work ..

When you says "different folks have different priorities" and so the forests and watershed comes in second or third because it hasn't failed yet - so it's not emergency. Once it becomes an emergency and the watershed fails, and the homes in LA have NO water, then it's an emergency but too late to heal it -- never has I see a "gut reaction response work" AFTER the fact. Once that watershed fails - California is dead meat ... Mad Max #4 and he won't have to fake it or film elsewhere - be tight there on the I-405 & I-118 ...

We need to keep that Sierra wilderness intact - and the groundwater - protect it at all costs - if we expect to harvest timber, drink water, and water crops in the San Joaquin valley. Farmers start trucking water in to grow crops, see how much a carrot costs then, let alone a campsite.

And it's not the camper that has to pay for that sustainable ecosystem - it's the entire state. Camp fees won't even come close --

2gypsies wrote:
Excellent 'toedtoes'! We've volunteered in many public parks. It's an eye-opener as to where the money goes and what is needed. Folks want 'it' but don't want to pay for 'it'.

I was amazed to find out how many employees at CA State Parks were buying toilet paper, etc. on their own because they didn't want the visitors to go without - unfortunately, as long as there was toilet paper available, many visitors thought there was no funding issue.

But, I will say, most people are willing to pay for what they believe is important. It's just that there is no consensus as to what "important" includes - everyone has their own opinion and is unwilling to see another person's "important" as having equal value to their own "important".

Excellent 'toedtoes'! We've volunteered in many public parks. It's an eye-opener as to where the money goes and what is needed. Folks want 'it' but don't want to pay for 'it'.

monkey44 wrote:
But a $12 a day increase by a vendor doesn't help the forests either, it only goes to the vendor. We need to take care of the forests, absolutely need to do it, and it can't be on the campers backs -- we need to protect those watershed areas in California or there will be no civilians living in the state ...

I lived in CA over thirty years - half that time in rural Sierras, and spent time hiking those forests years ago when a campsite was $2, and the forest were beautiful and the watershed lush - now, with the drought hurting it, we need even more protection - but we DON'T need vendor taking the money out of the campgrounds funding ... I'm all for paying a bit more IF and only IF it goes to protecting the forests.

Even tho' we now live in Florida, we still spend lots of time on the road, and lots of that road time in the western states. Ask me to support the forests, you get a yes, as me to support a vendor with higher fees, you get a no. Imagine what the forestry rangers could do with a $12 a night fee increase ... instead of a vendor more than likely removing that revenue from our country to another nation.

I agree about the vendors and privatization. But, even if the money goes back to the state parks, the government will end up cutting the general funds going to the park so they can appease another segment of the public - putting that money into schools, military, business, etc., because the parks are now getting "extra" funds from the fees.

It's really a matter of there isn't enough money in taxes and fees to pay for all the things that people think are important. Because people all have different opinions as to what is important and they want what is important to them and think that what isn't important to them should be eliminated - but the next person comes along and thinks the opposite. What do you cut and what do you fund? Then add on "no new taxes" and "must cut taxes" and you've got to cut even more.

toedtoes wrote:
Unfortunately, there is a lot more to state parks than just maintaining a campground. In California, the Department of Parks and Recreation is not only in charge of outdoor recreation (e.g., camping), but also in the protection of our natural and cultural resources. It costs a lot of money to keep the buildings at Bodie from further deterioration. It costs a lot of money to keep our cultural museums operating (not to mention restoring archaeological and other historical artifacts for viewing). It costs a lot to repair damage caused by flooding, fires, vandalism, etc. The costs spent to camp helps the department do all those other things.

So while it may be that a $2 increase to camping fees is enough to support the campground, it's not enough to support the rest of the work being done.

Now, some state parks departments ONLY manage campgrounds and day use areas. In those states, a slight fee raise may be sufficient to support the functions of the department in full. But in other states, there is so much more being done by the department on those fees and taxes that no one else wants to pay.

But a $12 a day increase by a vendor doesn't help the forests either, it only goes to the vendor. We need to take care of the forests, absolutely need to do it, and it can't be on the campers backs -- we need to protect those watershed areas in California or there will be no civilians living in the state ...

I lived in CA over thirty years - half that time in rural Sierras, and spent time hiking those forests years ago when a campsite was $2, and the forest were beautiful and the watershed lush - now, with the drought hurting it, we need even more protection - but we DON'T need vendor taking the money out of the campgrounds funding ... I'm all for paying a bit more IF and only IF it goes to protecting the forests.

Even tho' we now live in Florida, we still spend lots of time on the road, and lots of that road time in the western states. Ask me to support the forests, you get a yes, as me to support a vendor with higher fees, you get a no. Imagine what the forestry rangers could do with a $12 a night fee increase ... instead of a vendor more than likely removing that revenue from our country to another nation.

monkey44 wrote:
the money goes to vendor profit, not back into the parks for additional maintenance or improvements.
.

Yes, privatizing things almost always increases costs.

Unfortunately, there is a lot more to state parks than just maintaining a campground. In California, the Department of Parks and Recreation is not only in charge of outdoor recreation (e.g., camping), but also in the protection of our natural and cultural resources. It costs a lot of money to keep the buildings at Bodie from further deterioration. It costs a lot of money to keep our cultural museums operating (not to mention restoring archaeological and other historical artifacts for viewing). It costs a lot to repair damage caused by flooding, fires, vandalism, etc. The costs spent to camp helps the department do all those other things.

So while it may be that a $2 increase to camping fees is enough to support the campground, it's not enough to support the rest of the work being done.

Now, some state parks departments ONLY manage campgrounds and day use areas. In those states, a slight fee raise may be sufficient to support the functions of the department in full. But in other states, there is so much more being done by the department on those fees and taxes that no one else wants to pay.

4X4Dodger wrote:
I think that most state park administrators have smartened up and figure that if the average RV'er will pay 35$ for a site in some "RV Resort" then they are justified, competitively speaking, in charging the same for better scenery, semi wilderness big trees, lakes, rivers etc...location location location as they say.

State parks are under pressure from the anti tax, anti government political forces to support themselves as state funding has been taken away. You will pay the cost to operate the park one way or the other, either with taxes or with fees.

Nothing is free. Meanwhile the cost of keeping those state parks open is rising every year.

One thing is certain. You cant complain about the fees if you support the people who take away the funding. And Vice versa.

I agree - but a further note we need to be aware of also :: When the feds or state parks hire out the booking and other services to vendors, and the vendors either increase the rates or cause the state to increase the rates, THEN any "left-over funds ( eg. extra bucks beyond actual costs) the money goes to vendor profit, not back into the parks for additional maintenance or improvements.

The state and the feds want to reduce the actual budgets - and one way it "look better" is to remove park funding, so it shows a total smaller budget overall. But, when it does that, WE, the users, pay more to vendors in the form of higher fees. IF the feds and the states simply raised the fees a small amount ($2-3 instead of $12 per site / per day for Electric (like the vendor did in Tetons) We'd have a cost sustaining camp program instead of a vendor induced profit motive.

For example: If it costs $100 per electric pedestal, and the site fee goes up $12 per day, the vendor gets back the $100 in ten days, after that, it's all profit (well, maybe $1-2 for power in RV) -- so go figure where the funding goes then - not back into the parks, that's for sure.

4X4Dodger wrote:
You cant complain about the fees if you support the people who take away the funding. And Vice versa.

Amen.

I think that most state park administrators have smartened up and figure that if the average RV'er will pay 35$ for a site in some "RV Resort" then they are justified, competitively speaking, in charging the same for better scenery, semi wilderness big trees, lakes, rivers etc...location location location as they say.

State parks are under pressure from the anti tax, anti government political forces to support themselves as state funding has been taken away. You will pay the cost to operate the park one way or the other, either with taxes or with fees.

Nothing is free. Meanwhile the cost of keeping those state parks open is rising every year.

One thing is certain. You cant complain about the fees if you support the people who take away the funding. And Vice versa.