Louisiana State Park fee increases

Thanks for the link.

It looks like the fees are coming into line with those for other states in the area with heavy demand. The "seniors and tots get in free" is unusual among states that have per capita entrance fees.

I am from Louisiana and love the state parks. It's sad how much I've watched one park go down over the last 25 years. The new prices are still very reasonable given my exposure to other areas but the money going in to the general fund in LA redefines a swamp. I don't see how a park has a chance to improve it's facilities. I still camp at the park near my hometown but I can't recomend it on RV.net because it's now so run down it's an embarrassment. The park was teeming with day use trafffic when I was a kid and now it's full of weeds. I'm sure some of that is a changing society but a lot is mismanagement.

Here in Colorado, you can think hunters and fisherman for supporting the majority of state lands. The majority of those licenses pay for the budget of Colorado Parks and Wildlife. I can understand why out east that that may not work.

westernrvparkowner wrote:

Lantley wrote:
At the end of the day camping fees do not cover the cost of a state park. Not even close. Nevertheless high prefer higher camping fees vs. more taxpayer subsidies.
Those of us that enjoy the state Parks should be more willing to pay for them vs. the masses.
State parks can be free to schools and non profits for educational purposes otherwise there should always be some sort of minimal fee charged to everyone that uses the park.
Campers should be charge the going market rate as well.
Taxpayers should not be subsidizing camp sites

I don't doubt that camping fees cannot cover the costs of the state parks, but they can and should cover the costs of the camping area within those parks. Things like the campground utilities, site repairs, toilet paper, security patrols, maintenance etc. should be covered by the daily site fees. Subsidizing someone driving $200,000+ rigs is never going to be a popular position. Subsidizing the outdoor experience by having a place for citizens to go and have a picnic, take a day hike and maybe cast a line into a lake is much easier to swallow.

I really don't know the economics enough to know if the fees are enough to make the CG area self sufficient. I would like to think you are right or at least close. When I think of some of the larger COE parks, I doubt camping fees cover the actual cost. Hopefully I'm wrong!?

Lantley wrote:
At the end of the day camping fees do not cover the cost of a state park. Not even close. Nevertheless high prefer higher camping fees vs. more taxpayer subsidies.
Those of us that enjoy the state Parks should be more willing to pay for them vs. the masses.
State parks can be free to schools and non profits for educational purposes otherwise there should always be some sort of minimal fee charged to everyone that uses the park.
Campers should be charge the going market rate as well.
Taxpayers should not be subsidizing camp sites

I don't doubt that camping fees cannot cover the costs of the state parks, but they can and should cover the costs of the camping area within those parks. Things like the campground utilities, site repairs, toilet paper, security patrols, maintenance etc. should be covered by the daily site fees. Subsidizing someone driving $200,000+ rigs is never going to be a popular position. Subsidizing the outdoor experience by having a place for citizens to go and have a picnic, take a day hike and maybe cast a line into a lake is much easier to swallow.

At the end of the day camping fees do not cover the cost of a state park. Not even close. Nevertheless high prefer higher camping fees vs. more taxpayer subsidies.
Those of us that enjoy the state Parks should be more willing to pay for them vs. the masses.
State parks can be free to schools and non profits for educational purposes otherwise there should always be some sort of minimal fee charged to everyone that uses the park.
Campers should be charge the going market rate as well.
Taxpayers should not be subsidizing camp sites

We went to Yellowstone in May and stayed at a lot of State Parks on the way out and back. Fees were anywhere from $16 a night in Iowa, to $26 a night in Ohio. All had electric hookups. I believe here in Pa it is $26 a night with electric but they do offer a senior discount at least for residents.

bogeygolfer wrote:
State Parks are not now, and will never be "cash cows". They should break even, however, and those who use them should bear the majority of the cost.

Heck, I wish they would raise the fees at some of our Texas State Parks to reflect the true value and demand for campsites. Maybe then, we could actually get a reservation at some of our favorite ones without having to try a year in advance.

Respectfully disagreeing with you. It's all about location, location, location. I can think of 2 SPs in CT that apparently make enough money to keep the other 40 odd campgrounds in business: Rocky Neck and Hammonasett. Both are located on Long Island Sound, and have 160 and over 500 sites respectively. Were the state of CT to have a separate ledger for their campgrounds I suspect they could have avoided closing 3 or 4 campgrounds last year. Instead, they played games with the budget funds for the last several years. For 2 solid years, during the height of the Great Recession, they budgeted nooooooo funds for tourism, leaving the line in place on the state's official budget but a zero amt. Seemed willfully backwards thinking to me.

rhagfo wrote:
State parks do fill a need, unfortunately many states treat them poorly when it come to funding. Based on some of the feed back on this site, some are getting less and less funds.

This is a shame as many SP are more than campgrounds. Many have large natural areas for hiking, horseback riding, boating, swimming and biking. Some have large areas of responsibility for upkeep.

The worst thing for many states is inconsistent funding, not having much idea of what funds they will be allowed to operate.

Many on this forum say great things about Oregon State parks, part of this is a stable funding source. We get user fees, a large percentage of RV licensing fees, and a percentage of Lottery dollars.

This is one of the reasons as an Oregon resident I don't mind spending about $200 every two years to license our 32' 5er. I know a large percentage goes to OPRD to keep our parks great.

I will add the the LA rate schedule looks like the person that came up with has worked in the Hotel/Motel business in the past!!

We love the Oregon state parks - excellent services - and we stay often when we travel in the west. If I'm not mistaken, the fees state parks generate stay in the parks. IF all state parks did that, and operated as a independent entity, most state parks would probably do nicely.

We need also to remember state parks as well as national parks protect natural resources and watershed. So, it benefits all citizens not just the park users. Once those resources disappear, it's forever.

State Parks are not now, and will never be "cash cows". They should break even, however, and those who use them should bear the majority of the cost.

Heck, I wish they would raise the fees at some of our Texas State Parks to reflect the true value and demand for campsites. Maybe then, we could actually get a reservation at some of our favorite ones without having to try a year in advance.