Question about campsite policies

[tim1970]

I have noticed around Texas that the majority of the public campgrounds (especially State Parks) have a policy of no alcohol. The signage varies from the strict "No alcoholic beverages of any kind permitted", to the less strict "public display or consumption prohibited".

Now, my wife and I are at the age where we have grown kids (and grandkids), and have no desire to have loud "parties" while we camp. However, we both do enjoy having an adult beverage while sitting around the campfire.

I am not trying to start a debate about drinking. I am just looking for advice from people that do like to have a responsible adult beverage while camping.

Do you feel like the signs are posted to give authorities the ability to control any loud and crazy campers that are disturbing other campers? Or do you feel like they are really trying to prohibit any and all consumption, even though it might be done responsibly?

[toedtoes]

lamopar wrote:
Living in Oregon I was surprised to see these rules. I have seen posting for city parks but I do not remember seeing them at state parks. I know it is stated at the dunes no alcohol but when camping on the dunes the rangers don't seem to care at all. I know it really helped reduce the number of bad accidents from drunk ATV riders. I know the police or rangers are not after people who are not causing problems. One day at a lake waiting on fireworks after dark several boats were lined up with multiple people on them and drinking, music playing and the sheriff stopped at each one. They pulled up in front of mine and it was just me and my dog, grill going on the back and I was sitting with a Bud Light. They just waved and went on. I know there are some LE out there that have a power problem and need to enforce to support their ego but they are very few. I firmly believe if you drink responsibly you are 99% assured of not having a problem. I do have to say I may steer clear of Texas after hearing all these posts about it. LOL!

Sounds like they are focused on preventing drunkenness.

Honestly, I wouldn't avoid an otherwise nice campground because of the banning of alcohol. Now if I were in one park for a season, then it might make a difference; but for a few days to a couple weeks, there are many other factors I'd put higher on my list.

[lamopar]

Living in Oregon I was surprised to see these rules. I have seen posting for city parks but I do not remember seeing them at state parks. I know it is stated at the dunes no alcohol but when camping on the dunes the rangers don't seem to care at all. I know it really helped reduce the number of bad accidents from drunk ATV riders. I know the police or rangers are not after people who are not causing problems. One day at a lake waiting on fireworks after dark several boats were lined up with multiple people on them and drinking, music playing and the sheriff stopped at each one. They pulled up in front of mine and it was just me and my dog, grill going on the back and I was sitting with a Bud Light. They just waved and went on. I know there are some LE out there that have a power problem and need to enforce to support their ego but they are very few. I firmly believe if you drink responsibly you are 99% assured of not having a problem. I do have to say I may steer clear of Texas after hearing all these posts about it. LOL!

[Grit_dog]

jplante4 wrote:

drsteve wrote:
Really? Preventing drunk morons from raising hell in the campground is government overreach?

Punishing everyone else for the morons' actions instead of giving the rangers the authority to deal with morons on a case by case basis is what I consider overreach.

From the posts in this thread you can see how this particular rule is used. In general, campers ignore the rule and rangers don't enforce the rule unless they have to. Except for a couple of members here, this seems to make sense to everyone.

Can you imagine the row here if the issue was people who don't pick up after their dog and banning pets from all state parks?

Yup, there's a few folks here who could nuke ANY thread.

[toedtoes]

jplante4 wrote:

drsteve wrote:
Really? Preventing drunk morons from raising hell in the campground is government overreach?

Punishing everyone else for the morons' actions instead of giving the rangers the authority to deal with morons on a case by case basis is what I consider overreach.

From the posts in this thread you can see how this particular rule is used. In general, campers ignore the rule and rangers don't enforce the rule unless they have to. Except for a couple of members here, this seems to make sense to everyone.

Can you imagine the row here if the issue was people who don't pick up after their dog and banning pets from all state parks?

They are able to deal with morons on a case by case basis. They put the rule in place because the rangers spend so much time dealing with those morons on an individual basis they can't do the rest of their jobs.

Same reason why places have put so many restrictions on dogs at Parks - because the number of moronic violators outweigh the folks who have common sense and follow the rules to a reasonable point (i.e., picking up after their dogs, not letting their dogs run at other campers, etc.).

When the gross violators overwhelm the system, they establish the rules.

[jplante4]

drsteve wrote:
Really? Preventing drunk morons from raising hell in the campground is government overreach?

Punishing everyone else for the morons' actions instead of giving the rangers the authority to deal with morons on a case by case basis is what I consider overreach.

From the posts in this thread you can see how this particular rule is used. In general, campers ignore the rule and rangers don't enforce the rule unless they have to. Except for a couple of members here, this seems to make sense to everyone.

Can you imagine the row here if the issue was people who don't pick up after their dog and banning pets from all state parks?

[JaxDad]

drsteve wrote:

jplante4 wrote:

irishtom29 wrote:
Obey the rules. I see much rationalization here for not obeying the rules that betrays a selfish sense of entitlement. I understand that sometimes some people simply need a drink, in that case be a pantry drinker.

What some people see as rules to live by others see as government overreach.

Really? Preventing drunk morons from raising hell in the campground is government overreach?

Preventing drunk morons would probably not constitute overreaching, closing the place to campers because there were so many drunk morons ignoring the ban might be.......

[toedtoes]

wnjj wrote:
Law is anything but absolute and this isn't even a law we're discussing but a policy or administrative rule.

There is the concept of case law which changes somewhat with time and is where judges and juries decide what the law really means.

What this means to me is that sometimes laws and policies may not apply as the letter of the law but if I choose to ignore one I do so at my own peril. Those in charge may decide to disagree with my version and I'll accept the consequences.

Hence, while you could get in trouble for a single beer in your campsite you likely won't and that is kind of the point of the rule.

It's also a tool available to those in charge to take action without claims of discrimination. Rules are rules they can claim...until someone says they enforce then unequally. 😉

Exactly.

[drsteve]

jplante4 wrote:

irishtom29 wrote:
Obey the rules. I see much rationalization here for not obeying the rules that betrays a selfish sense of entitlement. I understand that sometimes some people simply need a drink, in that case be a pantry drinker.

What some people see as rules to live by others see as government overreach.

Really? Preventing drunk morons from raising hell in the campground is government overreach?

[wnjj]

Law is anything but absolute and this isn't even a law we're discussing but a policy or administrative rule.

There is the concept of case law which changes somewhat with time and is where judges and juries decide what the law really means.

What this means to me is that sometimes laws and policies may not apply as the letter of the law but if I choose to ignore one I do so at my own peril. Those in charge may decide to disagree with my version and I'll accept the consequences.

Hence, while you could get in trouble for a single beer in your campsite you likely won't and that is kind of the point of the rule.

It's also a tool available to those in charge to take action without claims of discrimination. Rules are rules they can claim...until someone says they enforce then unequally. 😉

[hotpepperkid]

tim1970 wrote:
I have noticed around Texas that the majority of the public campgrounds (especially State Parks) have a policy of no alcohol. The signage varies from the strict "No alcoholic beverages of any kind permitted", to the less strict "public display or consumption prohibited".

Now, my wife and I are at the age where we have grown kids (and grandkids), and have no desire to have loud "parties" while we camp. However, we both do enjoy having an adult beverage while sitting around the campfire.

I am not trying to start a debate about drinking. I am just looking for advice from people that do like to have a responsible adult beverage while camping.

Do you feel like the signs are posted to give authorities the ability to control any loud and crazy campers that are disturbing other campers? Or do you feel like they are really trying to prohibit any and all consumption, even though it might be done responsibly?

A lot of campgrounds in their rules have no alcohol and firearms. None of them have ever ask about either. Just put it in a Solo cup. One GC in CO said no alcohol but 3.2 beer was ok. 3.2 is kind of like near beer takes a hell of a lot of it to get you drunk

[jplante4]

irishtom29 wrote:

jplante4 wrote:

irishtom29 wrote:
Obey the rules. I see much rationalization here for not obeying the rules that betrays a selfish sense of entitlement. I understand that sometimes some people simply need a drink, in that case be a pantry drinker.

What some people see as rules to live by others see as government overreach.

Talk about rationalization. Are you implying that people who sneak drinks where not allowed are doing so in order to uphold a political principle? How noble.

Follow your reasoning to it’s anarchistic conclusion.

Not rationalizing at all. I'm merely pointing out that there are rules that are just begging to be broken by the nature of the particular idiotic government agency that set the rule. The speed limit is the perfect example. I drive on a 2 lane US route every day where the speed limit is 55 mph. That same road as a state route is 60 mph and later 65. The.same.road. An oh by the way, the cops won't even bother to pull you over until you hit more than 10 above the limit. SO, if the cops don't care about the limit, why should I? Two lane roads in Mass are rarely set above 50 MPH. I drove a 2 lane road in Texas with a limit of 70.

They passed a "wipers on, lights on" law here a couple of years ago. A local TV station did a story and found that after 2 years, no citations have been issued for scofflaw rain drivers. Why? Well you could say that most cars already turn on the headlights when the wipers are on. The real reason is that it's not worth the time for the trooper to get out of his cruiser in the rain to write a $25 ticket.

I consider the alcoholic beverage rule to be in the same class as the speed limit "suggestion" and the 10 year old rule. It's a tool to use because the park rangers do not have the authority or the desire to do their job properly and need an excuse to bring order to their domain.

[irishtom29]

jplante4 wrote:

irishtom29 wrote:
Obey the rules. I see much rationalization here for not obeying the rules that betrays a selfish sense of entitlement. I understand that sometimes some people simply need a drink, in that case be a pantry drinker.

What some people see as rules to live by others see as government overreach.

Talk about rationalization. Are you implying that people who sneak drinks where not allowed are doing so in order to uphold a political principle? How noble.

Follow your reasoning to it’s anarchistic conclusion.

[fj12ryder]

MFL wrote:

fj12ryder wrote:
Like my dad, the old contrarian, once said: "Rules are made to be broken". I think of him every time I'm on the bike doing 75 mph in a 70 mph zone. 🙂

If you are riding your FJ1200, and only going 75 in a 70 zone, that is being pretty upstanding, in my motorcycle mind!:) That hardly qualifies as breaking the rules. Ya, I know, it was just an example.

Makes me think about riding my bike, but nope, another snow storm tomorrow.

Jerry

Well, I used to go much faster in my younger days. 🙂 I'm mostly riding a 1999 Honda VFR nowadays. About the same amount of horsepower in a slightly smaller package. I remember I was buzzing up the interstate about 75 mph, and came upon a large number of cars backed up in the right lane. I slowed down to about 73 and passed them all, and lo and behold, there was a Hiway Patrol car running right at 70 mph. I passed him at 73 mph and waved, he just smiled and waved back. 🙂

[jplante4]

irishtom29 wrote:
Obey the rules. I see much rationalization here for not obeying the rules that betrays a selfish sense of entitlement. I understand that sometimes some people simply need a drink, in that case be a pantry drinker.

What some people see as rules to live by others see as government overreach.