50 AMP Tents

This thread isn't going anywhere. Lots of arguing and the arguments are repetitive.

The fact that a site in a public campground has a 50 amp plug DOES NOT imply that it was INTENDED only for a 50 amp RV! My impression by far is that the vast majority of public campgrounds that have a 50 amp plug, also have a 30 amp and a 20 amp plug. Though I realize you say that’s not the case at this park.

The fact that a tent is on the site also DOESN'T imply that a tent site went unused. Do the tent sites even have power? Sometimes, they don’t. Were you there when any of the tenters checked in? Did you hear them request that they specifically wanted those sites so that they can keep 50 amp rigs off of them? Or is it more likely that they wanted those sites because “it looks nice”, “it has a good view”, “it faces the water”, “it’s close to the bathrooms”, or “it’s next to the people I’m camping with”?

Even if the ONLY plug is 50 amps, In the absence of any rule stating so, it still doesn’t imply in a public park that it was intended to only be used by a 50 amp rig. That’s why adapters and dog bones are made. The price of the site is irrelevant, and none of your business anyway. If the tenter occupied the site within the rules and paid the fee, it’s his site!

Your argument for “common decency” would carry more weight if it wasn’t so blatantly obvious that it directly benefits the larger RV owners. Following the rules and using the established process for occupying a campsite IS common decency! If this bothers you so much, why don’t you take it up with the controlling authority (not the campground hosts)? Let them explain it to you, and if you don’t like the answer go talk to your elected representatives.

:):)

I would assume the 50 amp sites cost a bit more to pay for the service and infrastructure. If the tent wants to have a certain site for personal reasons and pays the price I don't have any trouble with that.

Lynnmor
Keep fighting the good fight. And add to your list of injustices, those selfish, inconsiderate so-and-so’s with 28 ft no-slide 10 ft tall camper trailers who snap up the wide 40+ ft sites and leave the narrow 30 ft sites with low overhanging limbs that my 40 ft, triple slide, 13 ft tall class A will not fit into unoccupied. They too should show some “common decency”.

Reisender wrote:

wnjj wrote:
I think he’s making a case that the tent site goes unused because the tenter didn’t use it and the large RV cannot.

If the site was paid for why would it matter. The purpose was fulfilled. Generate revenue. The resource was utilized for its intended purpose. Generate revenue. Will it make a difference to the proprietor if a Tesla Cybertruck owner rents two 50 amp sites for the night? One for the trailer and one for charging the Cybertruck? Of course not. The purpose was filled. Revenue was generated.

In the simple example I presented, the purpose was not fulfilled, whether a private or public facility. When there’s an empty site in a private campground, that’s lost revenue. When there’s an empty site in a public one and someone who wanted a spot, that’s lost use of a public space. The fact of the matter complete freedom of choice will lead to less than efficient use in either case.

Lynnmor wrote:

Reisender wrote:


If the site was paid for why would it matter. The purpose was fulfilled. Generate revenue. The resource was utilized for its intended purpose. Generate revenue. Will it make a difference to the proprietor if a Tesla Cybertruck owner rents two 50 amp sites for the night? One for the trailer and one for charging the Cybertruck? Of course not. The purpose was filled. Revenue was generated.

Wow, are you out in left field!

It is a state park for recreational use, not for generating revenue. A state park is owned by the citizens of the commonwealth.

The resource was intended for 50 amp RVs and they were needlessly denied use. It is an issue because there is a very limited number of 50 amp sites in this old campground.

The use is for recreational camping, not for an obsessed electric vehicle owners charging station.

The purpose was NOT filled, with just a little consideration for others, all could have what they need. But I guess that is no longer in style. This is the only reason I brought up the subject, but I'm not surprised by the responses from the me first crowd.

Again, a state recreational facility is not built or maintained to generate revenue. If one wants to get down to the dollars, perhaps people should pay their own way first instead of living off of rebates, subsidies and not paying their share of highway expenses.

Maybe the people taking showers should stay in there for hours because they were in first?

My apologies. I didn’t realize this thread was specifically talking about publicly owned parks like state or provincial or national parks. I agree with you 100 percent for those places. I think what swayed me was the discussion was about 50 amp sites. In Canada 50 amp sites in public parks are rare...if they exist at all. My apologies again.

For private parks I stand by my comments. The business plan has to come first.

Reisender wrote:


If the site was paid for why would it matter. The purpose was fulfilled. Generate revenue. The resource was utilized for its intended purpose. Generate revenue. Will it make a difference to the proprietor if a Tesla Cybertruck owner rents two 50 amp sites for the night? One for the trailer and one for charging the Cybertruck? Of course not. The purpose was filled. Revenue was generated.

Wow, are you out in left field!

It is a state park for recreational use, not for generating revenue. A state park is owned by the citizens of the commonwealth.

The resource was intended for 50 amp RVs and they were needlessly denied use. It is an issue because there is a very limited number of 50 amp sites in this old campground.

The use is for recreational camping, not for an obsessed electric vehicle owners charging station.

The purpose was NOT filled, with just a little consideration for others, all could have what they need. But I guess that is no longer in style. This is the only reason I brought up the subject, but I'm not surprised by the responses from the me first crowd.

Again, a state recreational facility is not built or maintained to generate revenue. If one wants to get down to the dollars, perhaps people should pay their own way first instead of living off of rebates, subsidies and not paying their share of highway expenses.

Maybe the people taking showers should stay in there for hours because they were in first?

wnjj wrote:

mich800 wrote:

Lynnmor wrote:

NRALIFR wrote:
When you’re talking about public campgrounds (city, state, federal) “efficient use” of the available sites probably isn’t the top priority for filling them. I would be willing to bet that at the vast majority of PUBLIC campgrounds, the policy I pointed to on the Tennessee state park website is more the norm than restricting 50 amp sites to 50 amp rigs. Why? Because they’re public, and they should be available to anyone willing to pay the fee, in the order they arrive or make their reservation.

:):)

We know all that, but it still is a shame that resources are wasted. A little bit of common decency would be a good thing.

But what resource is wasted and by whom? It's not the campsite. Not the parks revenue. Not the enjoyment of the outdoors. Energy and fossil fuels, I guess you could make the argument the tenter is saving resources.

I think he’s making a case that the tent site goes unused because the tenter didn’t use it and the large RV cannot.

If the site was paid for why would it matter. The purpose was fulfilled. Generate revenue. The resource was utilized for its intended purpose. Generate revenue. Will it make a difference to the proprietor if a Tesla Cybertruck owner rents two 50 amp sites for the night? One for the trailer and one for charging the Cybertruck? Of course not. The purpose was filled. Revenue was generated.

mich800 wrote:

Lynnmor wrote:

NRALIFR wrote:
When you’re talking about public campgrounds (city, state, federal) “efficient use” of the available sites probably isn’t the top priority for filling them. I would be willing to bet that at the vast majority of PUBLIC campgrounds, the policy I pointed to on the Tennessee state park website is more the norm than restricting 50 amp sites to 50 amp rigs. Why? Because they’re public, and they should be available to anyone willing to pay the fee, in the order they arrive or make their reservation.

:):)

We know all that, but it still is a shame that resources are wasted. A little bit of common decency would be a good thing.

But what resource is wasted and by whom? It's not the campsite. Not the parks revenue. Not the enjoyment of the outdoors. Energy and fossil fuels, I guess you could make the argument the tenter is saving resources.

I think he’s making a case that the tent site goes unused because the tenter didn’t use it and the large RV cannot.

Lynnmor wrote:

NRALIFR wrote:
When you’re talking about public campgrounds (city, state, federal) “efficient use” of the available sites probably isn’t the top priority for filling them. I would be willing to bet that at the vast majority of PUBLIC campgrounds, the policy I pointed to on the Tennessee state park website is more the norm than restricting 50 amp sites to 50 amp rigs. Why? Because they’re public, and they should be available to anyone willing to pay the fee, in the order they arrive or make their reservation.

:):)

We know all that, but it still is a shame that resources are wasted. A little bit of common decency would be a good thing.

But what resource is wasted and by whom? It's not the campsite. Not the parks revenue. Not the enjoyment of the outdoors. Energy and fossil fuels, I guess you could make the argument the tenter is saving resources.