Paid for but vacant sites

Some parks have a "Minimum reseveration length" for example. on a trip to NYC I opted to overnight in Jenny Jump (PA) State park, they have a 2 night minimum, I only overnighted.. Thus the site was only occupied the first night.

However I can see cases where I"d have to occupy the 2nd night of a 2 night minimum.

IF the site is pre-paid, then it should be mine for the duration... If it's only a deposit.. then the deposit should hold it only for a limited length of time. That is my opinion.. However in the case cited above.. If someone else took the 2nd night I'd not object.

In our provincial parks (Ontario), you must occupy the site. If you have a seasonal site where you are set up it is different.

I understand people wanting a seasonal site, however I feel that our provincial parks were supposed to be for everyone not for a few who are lucky enough in a draw to get a site. It really bothers me when you go to a northern park that is supposed to be a wilderness park, meaning very few amenities and you see sites set up with little fences around or sheds and large patio furniture set up on a deck. If people want a permanent site then go to a trailer park where you can add all you want.

You can reserve five months ahead but it seems now that if you do not reserve within a few days of the five month deadline you will never get a site. Therefore seasonal sites in a public park should not be allowed.

When we booked our holidays there was only one site available in all of Ontario. We still had to drive 10 hours to get to it.

BluStem wrote:
I maintain if a site is payed for then it should be yours regardless if you have a unit on it or not. Why wouldn't it?

Using this principle, you are saying someone with the financial means could reserve the whole CG for weeks and weeks without occupying a site.

Minnesota parks also require the site to be occupied on the first night of the reservation. There are only 5,000 sites in all the parks here and it only seems fair to give someone else a chance at the site. Many people are now reserving a site for every weekend during the summer and using it as their weekend getaway.

The policy out west at Forest Service campgrounds, that are not on the reservation system, require the site to be occupied to be taken. It stops people from holding adjacent sites for their friends that will be coming in a couple of days.

BluStem wrote:
Most state parks in Iowa consider a site occupied if it's payed for.
I find out from co-workers that some public parks they have been to require a payed site to be occupied with a camper or someone else can take it. I maintain if a site is payed for then it should be yours regardless if you have a unit on it or not. Why wouldn't it?

We have a "if you don't have a camping unit it on it within 24 hours of the start of your reservation it's considered abandoned" rule here in our provincial parks. I think it's 24 hours, might be 36.

Nothing chaff's my backside more than coming in to a campground and the sign says "campground full" but if you drive through you see dozens of empty sites.

As a seasonal guy this year, I wish there were rules that stated you have to actively USE the site. There were about six seasonal sites this year that I saw the trailer owner maybe one weekend all summer. $1500 for a spot for summer and you don't use it at all? Why not give it back so someone on the waiting list (ours are done via a lottery draw) can have a spot?

We also have a two week maximum in the park we like (if you're not seasonal) and it's a pain...why can't I rent a site for a month?! I can rent this site for two weeks, then rent THAT site for two weeks, what's the bloody difference?

This might be a bit of a touchy subject for me. lol.

They are trying to preclude people from paying for a site that they don't intend to use until a day or so later. Some have suggested for first come/first serve sites to go in on a Thursday and pay for the site including the extra day but don't arrive until Friday. The feeling is this gives locals or those who can sneak down there a day early an unfair advantage over those who can't get there until Friday. It's also designed to cut down the number of no-shows. Sometimes a no-show is unavoidable and sometimes it's people reserving the site even if they aren't sure they are going to use it.

BluStem wrote:
Most state parks in Iowa consider a site occupied if it's payed for.
I find out from co-workers that some public parks they have been to require a payed site to be occupied with a camper or someone else can take it. I maintain if a site is payed for then it should be yours regardless if you have a unit on it or not. Why wouldn't it?

I take a different view. if the site can be reserved then yes, the site belongs to the fellow who made the reservation. but for the first come/first served sites paying for a site and then deliberately not occupying it should be disallowed.

I was a working stiff, too, at one time and sometimes found it difficult to get to our favorite state and county parks in time to snare one of our favorite sites. but we dealt with it. if it was important for us to get one of those sites I made arrangements to get the day or days off. I've seen people roll in on the tuesday or wednesday before a big holiday (back when we used to camp on big holidays), register, park the camper on the site and disappear until Friday afternoon or sometimes until Saturday morning. totally unfair.

Most of the state and county parks here in California require the person holding the reservation to occupy the site by noon the next day after the start of the reservation or the site will be rented out to someone else. I have no problem with this policy. Why would someone pay for a reservation and not occupy the site?