camp reservations - or wing it? Weigh the choice.

[SDcampowneroper]

Theres always discussion, dissent, preference to or not to reserve. Many past and recent threads point to individual preference to 'Wing It'. I fully understand that freedom to pull off the road whenever the fancy strikes for a night or longer, and it used to be that way, we could, years ago. Camps of all kinds had open sites, and they were many. The changing regulatory and land value climate has changed all that. I invite your comments on closures and new camps.
I am one that has been denied a short time arrival site because of reservations , or the camp was full even when off high season due to an area construction project or natural disaster.

The popularity and rising #s of RV sales, the anticipated use of them is out pacing construction of new parks and sites to accommodate that growth, while at the same time parks in high real estate value are selling out to condo developers. The land is simply worth more for other development than a camp.

New private Rv parks or expansion in public parks are not keeping pace with demand, primarily in destination parts of the nation due to the cost or availability of land, or regulations to develop it.
Tell us about the loss of camps you know of gone to developers, or the price increases to keep them, lack of replacements and increase if any in site numbers to grow with demand, or have fallen behind it.

[Lauren]

I agree with westernrvparkowner.

[mdcamping]

SDcampowneroperator wrote:
Theres always discussion, dissent, preference to or not to reserve. Many past and recent threads point to individual preference to 'Wing It'. I fully understand that freedom to pull off the road whenever the fancy strikes for a night or longer, and it used to be that way, we could, years ago. Camps of all kinds had open sites, and they were many. The changing regulatory and land value climate has changed all that. I invite your comments on closures and new camps.
I am one that has been denied a short time arrival site because of reservations , or the camp was full even when off high season due to an area construction project or natural disaster.

The popularity and rising #s of RV sales, the anticipated use of them is out pacing construction of new parks and sites to accommodate that growth, while at the same time parks in high real estate value are selling out to condo developers. The land is simply worth more for other development than a camp.

New private Rv parks or expansion in public parks are not keeping pace with demand, primarily in destination parts of the nation due to the cost or availability of land, or regulations to develop it.
Tell us about the loss of camps you know of gone to developers, or the price increases to keep them, lack of replacements and increase if any in site numbers to grow with demand, or have fallen behind it.

I know of 4 private campgrounds that have opened in the past few years in my area, Here in the Northeast costs are high and the business climate not so good.... seems someone is looking to make money even in our neck of the woods.

Mike

[Crowe]

I just fail to see the "Goodwill". The Goodwill earned with the walk-in is just replacing the Goodwill you lose telling someone you don't have a space available, when actually you did.

I'm not a hotelier, just repeating what I've been told.

[westernrvparkow]

Crowe wrote:
Why would a park turn away a reservation to hold open a site for someone who is "winging it"?

It's a common practice among some hotels. It's considered a "good will" gesture so that they can accommodate everyone or people with last minute emergencies. If the demand starts to exceed supply then the risk is low that the site won't be taken. It's just a possible scenario, not a decree.

I just fail to see the "Goodwill". The Goodwill earned with the walk-in is just replacing the Goodwill you lose telling someone you don't have a space available, when actually you did.

[Crowe]

Why would a park turn away a reservation to hold open a site for someone who is "winging it"?

It's a common practice among some hotels. It's considered a "good will" gesture so that they can accommodate everyone or people with last minute emergencies. If the demand starts to exceed supply then the risk is low that the site won't be taken. It's just a possible scenario, not a decree.

[junmy3]

We are taking our grandson to the Grand Canyon this summer. We have already made reservations there and near Denver where we will be staying for a geocaching event on the 3rd of July. No need to want to go somewhere and not find a good place to stay. Just how we operate.

[pitch]

We always reserve for our destination, always.
Never for stops enroute. We have never failed to find an open spot when we needed it. We stop someplace where there is wifi mid afternoon and locate a spot. I don't think we have ever made more than three calls to find something.

I will admit that some of these places we end up are "interesting" and chock full of "colorful" characters, but for an overnite who cares.

Maybe if you are the kind that likes gated communities,security or judge your fellow man by his "accomplishments" and material possessions this may not be for you, but it works well for us!

[westernrvparkow]

Crowe wrote:
Thanks for the cg owner's perspective. Interestingly enough, this can be interpreted two ways: 1. Reservations should definitely be made or 2. Campground owners should be more willing to leave sites unreserved for those who like to "wing it" as they should get taken due to higher demand. On the down side, if demand suddenly decreases then there could be too many open spaces causing economic hardship on the campgrounds.

There were over 274,000 RVs shipped last year and a projection of over 281,000 for 2016. That is a lot of new RVs and a lot of new RVers.

That depends. Are these for people who are just starting the lifestyle or are they upgrades for existing RVers? What is the "net" number of people, i.e. how many are starting versus how many are leaving? I've no doubt the numbers are increasing but one must be careful without all the necessary factors weighed in.

Why would a park turn away a reservation to hold open a site for someone who is "winging it"? The reservation is a sure thing, the "winging it" customer may or may not show up on our doorstep. The only business model where it would make sense to hold open sites for the "winging it" crowd would be one where those last minute sites were rented for a substantial premium over the reservations. I personally don't think a site that can be reserved for $40.00 a night but costs $60.00 if you are a walk up customer would go over very well. Anybody feel differently?

[colochoclab]

I agree with 4runnerguy. Personally, I have definitely noticed the increase in camping traffic, especially on weekends. For us, reservations are the only way to go. I like knowing that a spot awaits us when we arrive. Unfortunately, I don't have the luxury of time driving around looking for a spot to camp. They say it's not about the destination, but the journey, but we enjoy going to a specific place for the destination (The "journey" is sometimes a perk!)
We mostly do state parks and I do notice at least one spot in a camping area/loop that is not reservable on-line and is for walk-up only. In Colorado, the reservation window generally opens 6 months in advance. If you want a spot on a popular weekend or holiday, you better reserve when the window starts! Just my 2 cents.

[nickthehunter]

GordonThree wrote:
I don't really see how it costs the government any money to leave an already rustic campground open during the off season. There's no bathrooms to clean, no money tube to empty... usfs law enforcement are still on the payroll and could drive through now and then, they're not seasonal workers.

My opinion of the company is pretty low.

I have a hunting shack on 13 acres of land I own, surrounded by a few hundred acres of also privately owned land. It's only accessible by about a 1 mile drive down a two track (private road with a gate no less) and then a quarter mile hike through the woods. My hunting shack has been used for target practice, a bathroom stall and everything else. It's only a plywood shack with 4 walls. An improved facility, on public land, down an improved road wouldn't have a chance. NO Cost you say; I'll bet you wouldn't leave your pickup parked next to the restroom in "off season" and go away for about a week.

[2_Retired]

During peak camping dates (basically mid May - early October) don't even think about the possibility of finding a site in one of South Carolina's State Parks anywhere near the ocean over a weekend (and often during the week) that is anywhere near the ocean! We live in Myrtle Beach and from mid May (often earlier than that) through most of October both MB State Park and Huntington Beach SP are booked solid. Edisto SP and Hunting Island SP are similar. Even several of the lake-front SP (like Lake Wateree SP) are booked solid. The same holds true for the SC SPs that are in the mountainous areas from after Labor Day through much of October on every weekend. People can make ressies up to 13 months in advance and many, many do - even if they ultimately change plans and cancel. Few if any sites are saved for "drive up only" as the demand for these sites continues to increase. Having said that, South Carolina is in the process of expanding the number of sites available at several of their most popular CGs. Reports are that Lake Wateree and Huntington Beach are in the early stages of creating a second camping area. (Huntington Beach is restoring the original camping area destroyed by a hurricane in the late 1980's - at least that's what we've been told by State Park Rangers there! Hopefully those expansions won't be held up but a lot of red tape and politics!

[4runnerguy]

GordonThree wrote:
I'm against reservations, so I avoid tourist traps aka popular destinations and seasons.

I guess it depends on what you call a tourist trap. I hardly think that Yellowstone, Yosemite, Arches, Grand Canyon or Zion NP's qualify as tourist traps in my book. (Places like Branson come to my mind when I hear tourist trap.) Yes, there are some first come first served campsites in those NP's, but you'd better get there early on a weekday to hope to snag one of those places. For some of the NP's, if you can't get a spot in the park, it's a fair drive every day just to get to the scenic wonders.

I've noticed than in these discussions, there's a marked difference between those who are retired or are full-timers vs. the working families who have to reserve their time off at work months in advance and then might have two weeks for their vacation if they are lucky. Those families don't want to travel hundreds or even thousands of miles without the comfort of knowing they'll have a place to camp once they get to their destinations.

We kind of fit in the middle. We have the summers to travel, so, for instance, we always avoid the week of July 4th. For our June trip this year, we'll be gone for 28 days and we have reservations for 9 of those nights in places where we want to stay close to certain NP's. For the other places, we're either going to out of the way places to explore or we're arriving on a Sunday through Wednesday morning to snag a spot.

The area where we live (Glenwood Springs, CO) is an example of not enough camp sites for the demand. Lots of people want to visit Maroon Bells or see Marble. Some of the (few) private CG's around have quite a number of spots used as full time residences. There are NFS CG's here and many of the reservable spots are all booked months in advance either for weekends or for the whole summer. Another issue with the NFS CG's is that they aren't designed to handle large rigs. Many sites are tent only. The NFS is talking about closing a couple of lightly used CG's in the area. Lightly used because with difficult access, they aren't very RV friendly CG's. These closures would result in the loss 13 tent sites.

We have had a couple of private CG's built in the last few years. Over by Gypsum, they put in River Dance which has 42 sites. To the west, they just opened a new KOA in Silt with 62 RV sites and seven tent sites. These are both a 20 to 30 minute drive from Glenwood, but still give some additional camping along the corridor. Land is just way too expensive to put in new camping facilities up valley toward Aspen.

[korbe]

We normally have a route and schedule to follow while traveling during our vacations. Until we retire we will normally make reservations for these types of trips.

In our neck of the woods, I have noticed more people and families living in their RV's and staying long turn in the RV parks. That process gives these parks some steady income during the off-season. I have also noticed around here that fewer families are camping. Some of the Forest Service campgrounds that allow dry camping don't fill up on the weekends like they did 25 years ago.

[GordonThree]

trailertraveler wrote:
In the past 10 years it seems that more and more National Forest campgrounds are ending their seasons on Labor Day and actually closing rather than just shutting off the water and locking the bathrooms where they used to allow camping after the facilities were shutdown.

I've noticed this in Michgan as well. A company named American Land and Leisure took over several forest campgrounds in my area, installed gates and closed the camps for most of the year. (Oct 1 - May 1)

The camps used to charge during peak season and be free during off season, like you say, with the bathrooms locked and water turned off.

I don't really see how it costs the government any money to leave an already rustic campground open during the off season. There's no bathrooms to clean, no money tube to empty... usfs law enforcement are still on the payroll and could drive through now and then, they're not seasonal workers.

One such large camp was popular with snowmobile operators, it was the only way in once the snow was deep enough. Land 'n Leisure bought it from the feds about five years ago, hiked up the on-season rate and closed everything off with gates and fence for the off season.

My opinion of the company is pretty low.