State Parks

[flathead92]

So BC ( before Covid) we didnt have to much of an issue getting res at AZ state parks. Now there like 6-8 months out. When we do get a res, and are there we see open spots everywhere, lots with names on posts BUT peeps never show. I SAY SCAM

[Veebyes]

With all of the boomers retiring & placing the demands on CG availability right now & for the next 10-20 years, what is going to happen when the boomers disappear?

Lots of empty sites with greatly reduced demand? Will RVers be able to simply wing it & only have to worry about making reservations for holiday weekends?

[austinjenna]

I checked Ohio State Parks and they state "If you don’t arrive for a reservation and if you don’t contact the park to cancel, you will forfeit all fees paid."

So, if you are staying at your state parks, you do stay at campgrounds with a requirement to show up on the first day.

Sorry that is not what that means that there is a requirement to show up on the first day. What it means is if you don't show up and didn't cancel the reservation you wont get any money back.

[toedtoes]

austinjenna wrote:

Campgrounds with the "must occupy the first night" rule mean occupied by a person not a vehicle or trailer.

I have never been to a CG that had this rule. Not saying it doesn't exist but I have been around a lot and never seen or noticed it. Probably because I am occupying the site so it didn't matter to me.


I can see that this going back and forth will lead to nothing so I will end it. I wish you all well in what you are trying to do and happy camping.

Pretty much all federal campgrounds have this rule. My preferred campgrounds are in national forests. They have the "must occupy the first night" rule as well as a 14 day limit. The only time I see empty campsites with tags on them is if the tag is for the upcoming weekend and it's the middle of the week. The rangers put the tag on early so any walk ins know that the site is booked for the weekend. They can have the site until the reservation date.

I checked Ohio State Parks and they state "If you don’t arrive for a reservation and if you don’t contact the park to cancel, you will forfeit all fees paid."

So, if you are staying at your state parks, you do stay at campgrounds with a requirement to show up on the first day.

[goducks10]

Lantley wrote:
If you not there the site would be open up period. The only thing to debate is should you be fined? Death is not an excuse otherwise there would be a lot of Grandmothers and Aunts dying Friday night at check in time!
The vacancy problem can be curtailed, we just need policy makers to be aware of the problem and then have to stomach and determination to implement STRICT rules to address the issue.
As you can see from this thread there are plenty of people willing to tie up sites and knowingly leave them vacant as long as the reservation meets their own personal criteria. Some reserve sites for "just in case" without a firm plan to use the site.
Those that intentionally create vacancies are not concerned with the financial cost and can afford to waste the money on the vacant site. They have no concern for others who would actually use the site.
It's the other campers that must put there foot down and demand policy makers fine the abusers and eliminate deliberate premeditated vacancies.

In Oregon there's a CG called RiverBend. It's run by Linn County. Super popular all summer because it's close to a fish/ski lake.
Lots of small towns and a couple cities nearby within 10-40 miles.
Few year back we were talking to a one of the camp hosts and we were complaining about all the walk in sites that were booked wed thru sunday and that people were driving in to grab sites then driving back home only to show up fri nite. I said that's not fair. He said "Why not they paid for it". Thing is Linn County got more money that way because more likely than not many of those sites would be empty wed/thur.

IMO it's a systemic issue and good luck changing decades old policies.

[austinjenna]

Campgrounds with the "must occupy the first night" rule mean occupied by a person not a vehicle or trailer.

I have never been to a CG that had this rule. Not saying it doesn't exist but I have been around a lot and never seen or noticed it. Probably because I am occupying the site so it didn't matter to me.


I can see that this going back and forth will lead to nothing so I will end it. I wish you all well in what you are trying to do and happy camping.

[toedtoes]

Again, we're talking about publicly owned campgrounds that are there for The People to enjoy - not privately owned for profit campgrounds.

Therein lies the difference.

Whether it's Yellowstone National Park or Catalina State Park, it's there for the enjoyment of ALL people, not just the ones who can afford to toss money around.

As for someone booking the site and dumping an RV on it for a week, that is not occupying the site. Campgrounds with the "must occupy the first night" rule mean occupied by a person not a vehicle or trailer.

Basically, if you aren't going to use it, then leave it for someone else to use.

[austinjenna]

I have no problem if they actually used it. But to leave it vacant is a waste. But more importantly it denies others the chance to use the site.
Is it OK for Elon Musk, Warren Buffet or Jeff Bezos to book all the state parks in the country and leave them vacant because they can afford to!

It's also not sour grapes on my part because when I see all the vacant sites it's because I'm actually at the CG camping. Typically I have a site already.
However I recognize that there is a problem because the sites are showing as reserved on line. In some cases the site has a tag showing it as reserved but no one shows up the entire time.
Wasting an opportunity for others is a real problem and contributes to the shortage of camp sites we see all over the country.
I hope I'm ruffling some feathers because the inconsiderate behavior needs to be addressed.
Fines and penalties will resolve the issue because it will separate those who think they have money to waste by making reservations that don't plan to keep. From those that do have money to waste.
Yes there are some truly wealthy people that fines and penalties won't faze. But a $100.00 or more penalty will open up quite a few camp sites.

Where do your rules end? Is it just for camping? If I go to a sold out sports venue and see empty seats - do I make them sell them to me because they aren't being used? Probably not and why - because someone paid for them even though they are sitting empty and others could enjoy it.

Would it really make you feel better if someone booked the site for a week, came on Sunday to drop off their rv, left and didn't return until Friday night for the weekend?

[Lantley]

austinjenna wrote:

If you not there the site would be open up period. The only thing to debate is should you be fined? Death is not an excuse otherwise there would be a lot of Grandmothers and Aunts dying Friday night at check in time!
The vacancy problem can be curtailed, we just need policy makers to be aware of the problem and then have to stomach and determination to implement STRICT rules to address the issue.
As you can see from this thread there are plenty of people willing to tie up sites and knowingly leave them vacant as long as the reservation meets their own personal criteria. Some reserve sites for "just in case" without a firm plan to use the site.
Those that intentionally create vacancies are not concerned with the financial cost and can afford to waste the money on the vacant site. They have no concern for others who would actually use the site.
It's the other campers that must put there foot down and demand policy makers fine the abusers and eliminate deliberate premeditated vacancies.

They paid for the site and its theirs to use. Its not up to you to decide on how they use it. Just sounds like sour grapes on your end because you didn't get a site for lack of planning better.

I have no problem if they actually used it. But to leave it vacant is a waste. But more importantly it denies others the chance to use the site.
Is it OK for Elon Musk, Warren Buffet or Jeff Bezos to book all the state parks in the country and leave them vacant because they can afford to!

It's also not sour grapes on my part because when I see all the vacant sites it's because I'm actually at the CG camping. Typically I have a site already.
However I recognize that there is a problem because the sites are showing as reserved on line. In some cases the site has a tag showing it as reserved but no one shows up the entire time.
Wasting an opportunity for others is a real problem and contributes to the shortage of camp sites we see all over the country.
I hope I'm ruffling some feathers because the inconsiderate behavior needs to be addressed.
Fines and penalties will resolve the issue because it will separate those who think they have money to waste by making reservations that don't plan to keep. From those that do have money to waste.
Yes there are some truly wealthy people that fines and penalties won't faze. But a $100.00 or more penalty will open up quite a few camp sites.

[austinjenna]

If you not there the site would be open up period. The only thing to debate is should you be fined? Death is not an excuse otherwise there would be a lot of Grandmothers and Aunts dying Friday night at check in time!
The vacancy problem can be curtailed, we just need policy makers to be aware of the problem and then have to stomach and determination to implement STRICT rules to address the issue.
As you can see from this thread there are plenty of people willing to tie up sites and knowingly leave them vacant as long as the reservation meets their own personal criteria. Some reserve sites for "just in case" without a firm plan to use the site.
Those that intentionally create vacancies are not concerned with the financial cost and can afford to waste the money on the vacant site. They have no concern for others who would actually use the site.
It's the other campers that must put there foot down and demand policy makers fine the abusers and eliminate deliberate premeditated vacancies.

They paid for the site and its theirs to use. Its not up to you to decide on how they use it. Just sounds like sour grapes on your end because you didn't get a site for lack of planning better.

[Lantley]

If you not there the site would be open up period. The only thing to debate is should you be fined? Death is not an excuse otherwise there would be a lot of Grandmothers and Aunts dying Friday night at check in time!
The vacancy problem can be curtailed, we just need policy makers to be aware of the problem and then have to stomach and determination to implement STRICT rules to address the issue.
As you can see from this thread there are plenty of people willing to tie up sites and knowingly leave them vacant as long as the reservation meets their own personal criteria. Some reserve sites for "just in case" without a firm plan to use the site.
Those that intentionally create vacancies are not concerned with the financial cost and can afford to waste the money on the vacant site. They have no concern for others who would actually use the site.
It's the other campers that must put there foot down and demand policy makers fine the abusers and eliminate deliberate premeditated vacancies.

[austinjenna]

As far as who determines a no show is not rocket science. You have 24 hours to show or call CG with explanation otherwise you are penalized.
My grandmother died or the dog hid the RV keys is not a valid excuse.
Either you call to say I broke down but I am now on my way or you face the penalty.
Yes some innocents will become collateral damage but the no shows will cease.

If you re-read my post I never said who determines a no show. Its rather obvious if they didn't check in LOL. I said who makes the determining factor on opening up a previously booked site when the person notifies the CG on why they are late.

According to you a death is not good enough but a broken truck is LOL

[toedtoes]

The problem with that is it pretty much guarantees only locals will ever get a campsite. Anyone coming from further away will waste a long trip. And with the price of fuel, that will pretty much stop a lot of folks from camping altogether.

And before it's said "good!", those teenage partyers blaring their music, getting drunk and puking all night in the bathrooms? They're most always local.

[Veebyes]

ken56 wrote:
Hey, I have an idea....lets go back to first come first served and you can stay on the site for as many days you care to up to the 2 week limit. Sound good? Keep things interesting.

I could live with that.

It would not go down well with the weekend warrior who gets off work Friday late & it is a mad dash to get to the nearby CG.

That used to be my style, but with a boat. Get off work. Go home & pack up car. Drive to dock. Unpack car. Load little boat to go out to big boat out on a mooring. Transfer everything from little skiff to big boat. Head on out,usually getting to anchorage after dark.

[ken56]

Hey, I have an idea....lets go back to first come first served and you can stay on the site for as many days you care to up to the 2 week limit. Sound good? Keep things interesting.

[toedtoes]

Why not? It works for the federal forest campgrounds.