Louisiana State Park fee increases

[DwnSth]

Effective March 1st. If you plan on making reservations, old rates will be honored until March 1st. Fairly steep increase in addition to now including state tax and other fees.

http://www.crt.state.la.us/louisiana-state-parks/reservation-information/fees-and-facilities/fees-an...

[tatest]

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.

[OutdoorPhotogra]

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.

[AJBert]

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.

[Lantley]

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!?

[westernrvparkow]

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.

[Lantley]

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

[RGar974417]

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.

[NYCgrrl]

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.

[monkey44]

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.

[bogeygolfer]

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.

[NYCgrrl]

westernrvparkowner wrote:
Contrary to what we all believe, most legislators are actually pretty dang smart. Even though all the site fees often flow to the general fund, it is very easy to track the incomes versus the expenses for state park campgrounds. It is never going to be popular in legislative circles to subsidize a very small segment of the voting population. Use fees are going to become more and more popular as states grapple with how to balance budgets and keep the voting public happy. Use fees are pretty much a voluntary tax, which makes it a popular choice when states look to add to their coffers.

I don't doubt the overall intelligence of the collective bodies of state's ('cept the occasional ones I know are only out for selves;)) legislatures but having to do the math on your own leads to misunderstanding, a lack of transparency, and the infrastructure of our SPs looking much like many an interstate road. Treating state parks like cash cows is inherently wrong IMO if the wrong 'uns get into office and use the income for pet projects or to fill a need they neglected to fund in the past.

To me, state parks, should reflect the same ethos of federal parks- a treasure for the ages that reflect pride in our lands.

[westernrvparkow]

Contrary to what we all believe, most legislators are actually pretty dang smart. Even though all the site fees often flow to the general fund, it is very easy to track the incomes versus the expenses for state park campgrounds. It is never going to be popular in legislative circles to subsidize a very small segment of the voting population. Use fees are going to become more and more popular as states grapple with how to balance budgets and keep the voting public happy. Use fees are pretty much a voluntary tax, which makes it a popular choice when states look to add to their coffers.

[DwnSth]

drsteve wrote:
Are you sure about the three night minimum? I just went to the LA parks reservation page, requested a single night, and it returned a list of available sites.

The reason I tried is because I've never heard of such a policy midweek, when many sites are empty--here in MI, major holiday weekends have minimum stay restrictions, but no other times.

New policies do not go into effect until tomorrow March 1st so it will be interesting to see how reserve America handles things.

Happy Mardi Gras!

[NYCgrrl]

DwnSth wrote:

NYCgrrl wrote:

I get that it's a hike in price but eventually the shock will wear off, DwnSth. Hopefully, the increased taxes will go towards something useful to the state.

Well, in LA the park fees end up in the general fund and we all know LA politics and funding. I'll still camp at my local parks, too nice and close to skip.

However one new policy that I think is slipping through the cracks is the 3 night minimum mid week. That will be a deal breaker for me...sometime we go for just a couple of nights mid week since we know it will be very quiet. I think they may want to purposefully kill mid-week stays. I even use state parks in other states as overnights when traveling - not possible in LA anymore. Is this done anywhere else?

You are right on the minimum nights:

For cabins, lodges, group camps, rally shelters and campsites a two-night minimum reservation is required for weekends and a three-night minimum reservation is required for weekdays. The weekend minimum applies to any reservation containing a weekend night (Friday, Saturday, or Sunday) consecutive with other nights. The weekday minimum applies to any reservation not containing a weekend night.

I realise this is how many use the parks anyway particularly on wk/ends but still....required 3 night minimum on weekdays is a bit nervy. Maybe it has to do with promoting the local economy or just more stable work schedules for camp staff. Don't know for sure.


I know states that have minimum nights on cabins but don't know of any with minimums on dry camping or campgrounds. Hope this isn't a trend for the future.