Why there isn't more State RV Parks. Ranger Says!

[Chuck___]

We are staying at the Silvercreek State Campground 25 miles east of Salem, Oregon.
We are amazed that the campground is full this time of the yeaar. Talked the Ranger and he open are eyes.

Back in the 30's when the Silvercreek Falls State Park built the lodge they throught that they would only have a maximum of 250,000 visitor per year. Last year the park had 1.5 million visitors. The Ranger advised anyone wanting to stay at the park they better have reservation 9 months in advance to insure a spot.

Asked the Ranger why the government/state hasn't built more parks because of the great demand? Back in the day when RV parks and such no one thought of the items needed now.

1. If the State has to purchase the property from a private owner it is a massive layout.
2. Were can the government put a park to have the least impact to the area?
3. With the newer RV's most people are requesting 50 amp electrical hook ups. That can be a massive amount of power needed.
4. If the park is by a creek; how does the park system handle a gas or oil leak coming from a RV accident? This isn't the old day were you don't have to think about the area drinking water supply.
5. Sewage system sometimes have to have a pumping system in order to pump to a large holding tank and grinding system sometimes is needed also.
6. How about black top or your basic road around the park.

For a 40 site RV park the basic layout is approximately 1 million dollars. I truly believe that would be on the low side.

The park Ranger said that think God the Park System gets a lot of volunteers to help with general maintenance and small projects to off set the cost of running each park.
Ater the park is up and running the general maintenance cost are relatively low.

I have to say; plan early "reservations"; hopefully we all can find a way to help support are park systems and thank God we all have one of the best recreational items in the good old USA.

PS: Thanks to all the Men & Women who served and are severing the in the armed service. Without them we would never have the change to enjoy this great country. I didn't serve but my folks instilled in me to give thanks to all the service people and would have kicked my '''''''''' if I didn't stand up, put my hand over my heart at any event to give thanks to all the past and future true hero's!

[Blazing_Zippers]

Also, don't forget that about 10,000 folks per day are turning into "Boomers." Boomers that travel, play, and camp.
The local CG's here are usually full with U.S. residents and visiting Canadians.
I'm happy that we live in the West, where there is a chance to enjoy the outdoors without traveling many miles. In fact, I live a mile from a Costco, and 1 1/2 miles from a state forest! Is this a great country or what?

[Sabretooth007]

Someone mentioned fee increases, Although this is National Parks,

http://www.cnn.com/travel/article/national-park-service-fee-proposal/index.html

[Tvov]

Walaby wrote:

Snowman9000 wrote:
What would the market do in a situation where the demand far exceeds the supply?


Raise prices! And keep raising until you have vacancies. If parks were revenue-generators instead of losers, you'd see a lot more support on the budget side for them. And for new ones.

Nail - meet hammer. Hit the nail on the head.

Mike

Then you will have people saying (and I kinda agree) that you will pricing the parks out of the reach of many people. State parks are supposed to be for everyone, not just the "rich".

Plus, I think it has been mentioned, many state parks ARE revenue generators, pulling in more money than it costs to run them. But the state takes that money and spends it on other stuff.

Actually, if you think about it, state parks are one of the very few things that states "make money" on... virtually all other state services simply soak up money.

My state (as do all states) has some gorgeous state parks. And they are run remarkably well. And they make money. Just have to keep the politicians hands out of them!

[Walaby]

Snowman9000 wrote:
What would the market do in a situation where the demand far exceeds the supply?


Raise prices! And keep raising until you have vacancies. If parks were revenue-generators instead of losers, you'd see a lot more support on the budget side for them. And for new ones.

Nail - meet hammer. Hit the nail on the head.

Mike

[toedtoes]

I think something that is forgotten in these discussions is that not everyone who uses, or wants to use, state parks has an RV or wants all these upgrades.

Many are tent campers, many are RV owners like me who don't want or need full hookups or 50 amp service.

So while you may think all these parks need upgrading, not everyone else agrees. And whose prefenence takes priority?

The government has to find a way to make everyone happy. Private businesses can say "if you don't like it, go elsewhere". But the government can't because "it's my tax money and I want this".

[Johno02]

A really good way to fully understand the problems, and to help do something about it is easily available. Just volunteer as a host or worker at any camping or recreation facility. Doesn't take very long at all to get a really good understanding of the problems.

[Snowman9000]

What would the market do in a situation where the demand far exceeds the supply?


Raise prices! And keep raising until you have vacancies. If parks were revenue-generators instead of losers, you'd see a lot more support on the budget side for them. And for new ones.

[rhagfo]

ksg5000 wrote:
The Oregon State Parks I have visited seem to be in constant state of upgrade - but the camping demands are putting pressure on the System. New Parks are coming on-line but Parks like Stubs are going to take many years to mature into legit alternatives to some of the better/older parks.

BTW - Silver Falls State Park and many other Oregon State Parks were build as part of the older WPA projects under FDR. May give you better perspective of age and resources available.

Stubs is headed in the right direction this was fourth year that we have hosted at Stubs. We had more full weekends this year than the last three and we were only there June and July. Here at South Beach the campground full sign was up for
Almost all of August, and September, now in October it is slowing down, but even this stormy weekend we had a lot of storm watchers with winds up to 50 mph and heavy rain.
On the subject of Rangers I believe that the Park Rangers in Oregon are great. Both the full time and seasonal. They are as a whole hard working, and love what they do.
Oregon SP also have a fairly stable funding source it consist of User Fees, 60% of RV registration fees, and a share of lottery dollars.

[ksg5000]

The Oregon State Parks I have visited seem to be in constant state of upgrade - but the camping demands are putting pressure on the System. New Parks are coming on-line but Parks like Stubs are going to take many years to mature into legit alternatives to some of the better/older parks.

BTW - Silver Falls State Park and many other Oregon State Parks were build as part of the older WPA projects under FDR. May give you better perspective of age and resources available.

[Tvov]

I can hear the howls coming from environmental groups if you start bulldozing more state park land to make camping sites for gas guzzling, polluting RVs.

Then when government (whatever level) "buys" more land (remember, this is your money), all sorts of restrictions usually come with it. NO ATVs, no hunting, no fishing, no mountain biking, even no camping. Not even HIKING or walking unless you are on marked trails!! Unless you are wearing the latest, expensive outfit to go bird watching, you can do nothing on the land. Unless of course you want a baseball field "for the kids", then you can bulldoze it. In my small corner of New England I see it happen all the time with towns buying up land "for the public". It is for "everyone" to enjoy, but only if you are doing what "we" think is correct.

I always get suspicious when anyone says "the government should do something about this".

[gbopp]

What do you think is more important to gov't officials, building/maintaining State Parks or 'entitlement programs?'
I doubt we will see many, if any, new State Parks in the near future.

[Bumpyroad]

cpaulsen wrote:

azdryheat wrote:
This is why the government shouldn't be in charge of the parks. Keep in mind that the government doesn't have to buy any new land for a park because the government already owns most all of the land anyway, at least out west. A private builder could easily develop any size park we want and equip it any way we want and not have cost overruns, etc. The same private builder could easily upgrade any of the existing parks to accommodate today's RV's. Just look at all of the private rv parks and resorts already in existence.

What the rangers are saying is a bunch of bull. They don't want to develop new parks or rejuvenate older parks. Too much work for them and they didn't take on the ranger job to do any work.

Maybe you should contact the park system and maybe volunteer if you think the rangers do not want to work.

does dry heat affect ones thinking?
bumpy

[cpaulsen]

azdryheat wrote:
This is why the government shouldn't be in charge of the parks. Keep in mind that the government doesn't have to buy any new land for a park because the government already owns most all of the land anyway, at least out west. A private builder could easily develop any size park we want and equip it any way we want and not have cost overruns, etc. The same private builder could easily upgrade any of the existing parks to accommodate today's RV's. Just look at all of the private rv parks and resorts already in existence.

What the rangers are saying is a bunch of bull. They don't want to develop new parks or rejuvenate older parks. Too much work for them and they didn't take on the ranger job to do any work.

Maybe you should contact the park system and maybe volunteer if you think the rangers do not want to work.

[jus2shy]

I dunno, have you looked at budget sheets for the parks? Many states are pulling money from their parks programs to fund other things, other "Priorities" that constituents ask for (roads, schools, other infrastructure, etc...). It's easy to point fingers and say the private parties can do better, but last I looked, the tolling and road maintenance programs at Illinois that are supposedly public/private are utter rubbish. Our Oregon rangers are some hard-working folks. Some of them are even armed to serve an anti-poaching function. They've had a devil of a time keeping up with all the new people moving to the area, some "Artists" from other states thought it would be an improvement to tag the landscape with their "Art". They put up with plenty in these parts. Last I checked, many private parks in these parts tend to either cater to a high end clientele, or cram in lots of RV parking slots, or push a more "Modern" type of living with tons of amenities. Many State parks here tend to try and keep things more "Natural" or "Rustic", as best as they can. So they do assess the affects to the parks out here when looking into upgrading. I know that Cape Blanco was sporting some nice new cabins and 50 amp service in some spots. That's more my pace for camping. Don't really see your neighbors very well, plenty of space, and unspoiled scenery for the most part.

Also, the claim of "Government owns a lot of land out west" has a lot of caveats with it. Is it Federally owned? State owned? County? City? Which government? Hell, we have a housing crisis in the PNW. Much of the bigger cities in the entire west coast have tons of "Private Owners" that rent houses and rooms. Last I checked, most houses aren't special, or maintained any better than most places. But they sure like charging an arm, leg, first born, etc... I hate to think what would happen with a fully privatized market that knew there was such a demand for RV camping and they could "Raise Rents". So I think it's a little naive to paint with such a broad brush without understanding the issues in full depth.