Arizona State Park camping fees

littlemo wrote:
Didn't mean to start a war here!

If I'm on a vacation I don't mind paying $35-$50 a night, and did, many times when I was working. Now I'm on a "several months" trek in the west and am just looking for something I can better afford.

Sorry if I have offended anyone!

No offense from your part - sometimes posts get into side-tracks that provide or discuss tangent info ... sorry we hijacked your thread. Hope you got the info you need. :) Happy Camping M44

4X4Dodger wrote:
I think there is a general misunderstanding here. The vendors who run reservation systems like Reserve America have NO authority to raise or lower the cost of any campground or park.

They make their money by charging a reservation fee or in some cases taking a commission agreed upon with the state.

In most states a rise in the park rates would take an act of the legislature.

Contracting with a company to do online/Tel reservations cannot be classified as Privatization of parks.

It'not just reservations.

Aren't some vendors running cg stores, providing hosts, etc.? I have avoided cg's thst sre listed on the forest srvice websites as doing that, because I notice they are always priced higher than neigboring cg's with similar amenities. And because I disagree with the idea and am voting with my dollsrs.

At the biggest national parks, I think the restaurants, bike rentals, bookstores etc., are run privately. I could be wrong.

littlemo wrote:
Didn't mean to start a war here!

If I'm on a vacation I don't mind paying $35-$50 a night, and did, many times when I was working. Now I'm on a "several months" trek in the west and am just looking for something I can better afford.

Sorry if I have offended anyone!

I think some excellent issues have been brought up in this thread. I don't think anyone sounds offended :).

tplife wrote:
And it took a lot of employees working overtime to keep that $20 million hidden for 13 years. You have to decide between your own perks and the public good:

Parks Officials Kept $20M Hidden

I'm not sure what your point is about "your own perks".

The money was never spent or diverted or stolen or used for personal purposes during that 13 years. While that doesn't make it right, I don't think there were necessarily evil or selfish intentions.

(I do believe it was bigger than just CA State Parks - there were other departments under the umbrella of the Resources Agency that also had hidden money, so it was likely from higher up).

But, this is a far leap away from the discussion about State Parks being able to support themselves completely with camping/day use fees while maintaining reasonable camping/day use fees for the public.

monkey44 wrote:
It is the responsibility of everyone in the state (in fact in the country) to protect its natural resources ... NO one area of funding or protection will do that, each component does its part (or should) and when one component falls down on that responsibility, another either picks up the slack and stretches itself thinner, or that resource begins deteriorating.

There is no "going back" -- we all need to accept our individual responsibilities as citizens and as campers to reach out and assist in this effort. It's more the responsibility of the campers to keep the parks up and running properly, and to keep revenue from the parks in the parks system to do it.

It is the responsibility for the states and feds to protect all wilderness and watershed areas or we lose it (that means everyone in the country, not one component of one area). We cannot put the responsibility of the entire Sierra ecosystem on the backs of the campground revenues ...

I think we are saying the same thing... I am saying that CA State Parks along with their camping/day use fees are NOT responsible for the entire Sierra ecosystem (let alone the entire California ecosystem). You are saying that the entire Sierra ecosystem (let alone the entire California ecosystem) should not be protected by only campground revenues.

I think there is a general misunderstanding here. The vendors who run reservation systems like Reserve America have NO authority to raise or lower the cost of any campground or park.

They make their money by charging a reservation fee or in some cases taking a commission agreed upon with the state.

In most states a rise in the park rates would take an act of the legislature.

Contracting with a company to do online/Tel reservations cannot be classified as Privatization of parks.

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.

And it took a lot of employees working overtime to keep that $20 million hidden for 13 years. You have to decide between your own perks and the public good:

Parks Officials Kept $20M Hidden

Didn't mean to start a war here!

If I'm on a vacation I don't mind paying $35-$50 a night, and did, many times when I was working. Now I'm on a "several months" trek in the west and am just looking for something I can better afford.

Sorry if I have offended anyone!

toedtoes wrote:
CA State Parks does not protect the water table - it's not part of their function. They also do not protect the ecosystem of California as a whole. Their function is to protect the natural and cultural resources that fall under their jurisdiction.

Unfortunately, the full California ecosystem is not protected nor supported by anything other than politicians.

CA State Parks DOES keep the fees that are paid for camping and day use. They are not enough to support the parks. Heck, even the failed "license fees" wouldn't have been enough to fully support the parks without general funding - but if it had passed, the politicians would have taken away the general funding AND the voters would have failed any future bond issue that would provide funding for CA State Parks. Now, I don't necessarily disagree with those, but before claiming X will solve all of CA State Parks' funding, it is best to verify that BEFORE telling public it will do so.

It is the responsibility of everyone in the state (in fact in the country) to protect its natural resources ... NO one area of funding or protection will do that, each component does its part (or should) and when one component falls down on that responsibility, another either picks up the slack and stretches itself thinner, or that resource begins deteriorating.

There is no "going back" -- we all need to accept our individual responsibilities as citizens and as campers to reach out and assist in this effort. It's more the responsibility of the campers to keep the parks up and running properly, and to keep revenue from the parks in the parks system to do it.

It is the responsibility for the states and feds to protect all wilderness and watershed areas or we lose it (that means everyone in the country, not one component of one area). We cannot put the responsibility of the entire Sierra ecosystem on the backs of the campground revenues ...

CA State Parks does not protect the water table - it's not part of their function. They also do not protect the ecosystem of California as a whole. Their function is to protect the natural and cultural resources that fall under their jurisdiction.

Unfortunately, the full California ecosystem is not protected nor supported by anything other than politicians.

CA State Parks DOES keep the fees that are paid for camping and day use. They are not enough to support the parks. Heck, even the failed "license fees" wouldn't have been enough to fully support the parks without general funding - but if it had passed, the politicians would have taken away the general funding AND the voters would have failed any future bond issue that would provide funding for CA State Parks. Now, I don't necessarily disagree with those, but before claiming X will solve all of CA State Parks' funding, it is best to verify that BEFORE telling public it will do so.