Reservations about Reservations in USFS campgrounds

[mockturtle]

I recently pulled into a beautiful Forest Service campground in UT and found that all but two camp sites in the loop were reserved for three days, including the day I arrived. This was not on a weekend. I noticed that the dates on the reservation cards were the same but the names were different. So I felt fortunate to get one of the remaining sites and expected campers to start pouring in later in the day. It never happened. And when I left in the morning I noticed that only two of the sites were occupied (of about twenty). This is not the first time I've seen 'reserved' sites remain empty. I try to choose campgrounds with a 'no reservations' policy for this very reason but it seems to be more common now for USFS to allow them.

[2gypsies1]

mike-s wrote:
Sometimes people want the flexibility to extend a day at one location, and get in late to the next - not everyone wants to be locked into an exact schedule. Sometimes things happen (e.g. breakdowns) on the road, and you don't get to where you expected to on time. Or maybe they just wanted to come in before checkout time the next day and be assured a spot.

These were 18 sites on which folks didn't show up!!!

Totally inconsiderate.

[RKB]

Very common for campgrounds to have a 6month or year limit to book beforehand. I know several friends who have started booking the sites a day early to get the spot for the whole weekend...not saying I agree, but the time limit for booking popular spots on popular weekends often causes these work arounds.

[seaeagle2]

I listen to a Canadian radio station, they had a big deal in BC last season where a company that rents RV's to Europeans had an office where when reservations for BC Provincial Parks opened at midnite, they would have a bunch of staff to call and book sites so they could bundle the sites with the RV rentals, the company caters to Europeans who want a Canadian camping vacation.

[mike-s]

USFS policy it to cancel the reservation if they don't show up within 24 hours: "No Shows:
Reserved campsites and group overnight facilities will be held until check-out time on the day following your scheduled arrival. " - https://www.recreation.gov/marketing.do?goto=/acm/resPolicies.htm

Sometimes people want the flexibility to extend a day at one location, and get in late to the next - not everyone wants to be locked into an exact schedule. Sometimes things happen (e.g. breakdowns) on the road, and you don't get to where you expected to on time. Or maybe they just wanted to come in before checkout time the next day and be assured a spot. Just because they weren't there when you left in the morning doesn't mean they were no-shows. I think the policy above is a perfectly reasonable compromise.

[wnjj]

Dutch_12078 wrote:
I agree it's inconsiderate, and many parks do have a "no show" rule that forfeits the rest of the fee paid and releases the site at check out after the first night. But lacking that policy, the point is the site was paid for and held, so whether it was occupied or not is irrelevant to those denied the usage of it.

Sorry, but I disagree. Policy shouldn’t have to direct every aspect of humany decency. Would it be ok for someone to rent every spot in a popular, public campground just to have it to themselves? How about renting spots in 3 or 4 campgrounds for the same weekend so they could choose on a whim. Perhaps a little extreme examples but people renting more than they use of limited public resources is not OK, regardless of policy. The more polices in place to govern the jerks, the more likely it will affect that one rare case who really wasn’t the target.

[mockturtle]

I understand about having reservations about reservations. Unfortunately, for those of us that have to be "weekend warriors" it's the only way to get a camp site in preferred campgrounds in Colorado.

I totally understand that. Maybe reservations should be reserved (:)) for weekends.

[PawPaw_n_Gram]

Did anyone show up after the first night and pull the reservation tags?

Sounds to me like you got in a campground without an active host, or frequent ranger visits.

It is a bit of work to keep up with the reservations tags in a busy campground. Mostly done by volunteers, and many USFS locations have trouble attracting volunteers. I would not volunteer for a multi-month long camp hosting position without full hookups.

In a couple weeks we start a swing through northern Wisconsin and the upper peninsula of Michigan- 5 USFS campgrounds over 24 days. I certainly would not attempt such a schedule without being to have confirmed reservations at each place.

[beemerphile1]

I also prefer first come - first served or walk-up campgrounds. I have gone in to some campgrounds on a weekday and then been forced to leave on Friday because all sites are reserved for the weekend.

[DRTDEVL]

I go to the other extreme... I only camp in USFS campgrounds that are free (first come, first serve, obviously). This usually ensures solitude, as everyone thinks they are less desirable.

[Dutch_12078]

CloudDriver wrote:

Dutch_12078 wrote:

pasusan wrote:

fj12ryder wrote:
I can kind of see your point, but consider that without reservations, those sites might have stayed vacant anyway, and no income would have been produced at all.

Boy, do I not agree with the idea of being happy about the CG making money on folks that do not show up. The important thing about this is that it cuts down on the available campsites for those that do show up.

OP - I have the same reservations.

If the folks that paid for the vacant sites did show up, the other folks would still be out of luck, so nothing would change...

While this is true, the fact is that people don't show up and don't cancel their reservation, thus denying others the opportunity to camp. Just another example of inconsideration for others that is so prevalent in this day and age.

Perhaps what is needed is a "no show and didn't cancel fee" tacked on to encourage these folks to be more considerate.

I agree it's inconsiderate, and many parks do have a "no show" rule that forfeits the rest of the fee paid and releases the site at check out after the first night. But lacking that policy, the point is the site was paid for and held, so whether it was occupied or not is irrelevant to those denied the usage of it.

[scrubjaysnest]

Some times the reservation was canceled but USFS had no one to go pull the reservation tag. Other USFS cg's have a policy if you haven't showed up or cancled then the reservation tag is pulled and the person who made the reservation is hit with an extra day camping fee.

Like mockturtle we always try to get first come first serve cg's. We also avoid the more popular cg's.

[Thom02099]

goducks10 wrote:
Some of the CG's we go to have a time limit to show up. One in particular states that if you don't show up on the 2nd day of your reservation by checkout then you forfeit the site.
At least that opens up the site for someone else.

The USFS sites that I go to in this area of northern Colorado (Roosevelt NF) have a similar policy. Just got back from a trip to a USFS CG between Allenspark and Ward CO, and all of the sites that had been reserved were filled; no no-shows. They maintain several first come/first served sites as well, and those remained empty for the entire weekend.

I understand about having reservations about reservations. Unfortunately, for those of us that have to be "weekend warriors" it's the only way to get a camp site in preferred campgrounds in Colorado. When I was working full time, I worked a 40 hour week, but had Sun/Mon/Tue off. Perfect days to go camping and not have to make reservations. Going up on Sunday while everyone else was coming down. Frequently had campgrounds to myself. Ahh...those were the days... 🙂

[goducks10]

Some of the CG's we go to have a time limit to show up. One in particular states that if you don't show up on the 2nd day of your reservation by checkout then you forfeit the site.
At least that opens up the site for someone else.

[CloudDriver]

Dutch_12078 wrote:

pasusan wrote:

fj12ryder wrote:
I can kind of see your point, but consider that without reservations, those sites might have stayed vacant anyway, and no income would have been produced at all.

Boy, do I not agree with the idea of being happy about the CG making money on folks that do not show up. The important thing about this is that it cuts down on the available campsites for those that do show up.

OP - I have the same reservations.

If the folks that paid for the vacant sites did show up, the other folks would still be out of luck, so nothing would change...

While this is true, the fact is that people don't show up and don't cancel their reservation, thus denying others the opportunity to camp. Just another example of inconsideration for others that is so prevalent in this day and age.

Perhaps what is needed is a "no show and didn't cancel fee" tacked on to encourage these folks to be more considerate.

[Dutch_12078]

pasusan wrote:

fj12ryder wrote:
I can kind of see your point, but consider that without reservations, those sites might have stayed vacant anyway, and no income would have been produced at all.

Boy, do I not agree with the idea of being happy about the CG making money on folks that do not show up. The important thing about this is that it cuts down on the available campsites for those that do show up.

OP - I have the same reservations.

If the folks that paid for the vacant sites did show up, the other folks would still be out of luck, so nothing would change...