Can we expect these shenanigans?

Court ruling on adventure pass

I'd rather be charged the higher fee & be done with it. Hate the additional nibbling. Just booked an airline trip today & the extra this & that is highly annoying. Unfortunately I don't have a choice. The trip cannot be driven.

Same with CGs. If the base rate is cheap then, wellll, maybe OK for a little nibble here & there. If the base rate is already high then things like WIFI, the fire ring, bathroom use, enough power for AC should be covered.

We sometimes overnight at KOAs while traveling - 2 different ones this year. While they have offered to charge us a fee for the kid-friendly amenities, it was offered, not mandatory. The only thing we've ever had to pay extra for after arriving at a KOA are our kids (the extra-person fee).

In one case, the kid-friendly amenities cost extra and we declined (it was late and we were all tired), and at the other KOA they didn't cost extra.

downtheroad wrote:
Can you say KOA..
We were charged a required, "resort fee," on top of the nightly rate...
The resort fee included admission to the "bouncy room" and a pancake breakfast. We wanted neither and but they wouldn't let us opt. out.

Opt out by going elsewhere!

When customers misunderstand what they believe the price is for their stay at a campground, it is usually because of the convoluted terms.

Then ask if you think the terms are "convoluted". I've never been to a cg where the terms weren't clear when it came to extra charges. I have no problem with a structured fee assessment. Start with a base of two people then go from there. I only had one child. Majority of the time I paid for the base rate of 4. What I see on here is the reverse-many don't think they should HAVE to pay for extra services, guests, pets, etc. These are businesses, not charities.

Gonzo42 wrote:
OK, lets be specific about each campground, please. Of course some campgrounds in a single organization may charge differently, so lets call out the actual offenders. Name and shame, I say. I don't like these kind of surprises.

Ramblin Pines cg in Woodbine, MD add on ad nauseum if you're not careful.

Drives me nuts when there are unannounced fees. I research each CG and read the reviews from alternative sites. Some charge for dogs, others don't. Some charge for wifi, most don't. And for the most part, 50 amp sites are more expensive than 30 amp sites. I've tried to reason with the person at the desk, but get nowhere.

Gonzo42 wrote:
We recently had a program where the rangers were selling 'wilderness access permits' (not sure of the exact name), and ticketed people without the pass. A judge just last week declared them illegal.

Note that the rangers never had legal authority to issue a pass or write a ticket or collect a fine.

:h

Wow- that IS news; got a link to a news story?

I ask because Wilderness Access Permits have been required for years on many Federal Lands including California's- but especially since the requirement is still listed as ongoing at this Rec.gov site.

Francesca Knowles wrote:

Gonzo42 wrote:
Can we expect these shenanigans?

Yes.

And may I say that "shenanigans" is one of my favorite words ever. Right up there with hankypanky, monkeyshines, and of course the ever-relevant "tomfoolery".

Thanks for your help in preserving the language!

x2

We recently had a program where the rangers were selling 'wilderness access permits' (not sure of the exact name), and ticketed people without the pass. A judge just last week declared them illegal.

Note that the rangers never had legal authority to issue a pass or write a ticket or collect a fine.

As was previously said, I don't mind contributing if the funds actually went to maintain/improve the wilderness area. If the money went into somebody's 'retirement fund' I would scream.