Va. St parks and pet fee

[tarnold]

Do all of the Va state parks charge $5 for each pet?

[2012Coleman]

This is a state park system that already has rates that are of a level of private campground rates without the added amenities. Especially when you add the dog fee.

Maybe they should just raise taxes in the state and let residents pay for the irresponsible actions of SP guests.

As far as tree girding goes - look it up or not - ignorance is bliss 😛

[Deb_and_Ed_M]

Lantley wrote:
AS a pet owner I have no problem paying the fees. I enjoy bring my pet and have no problem paying additional fees it that is what it takes to bring the dog along.
I understand pets and irresponsible dog owners do cost the CG money in the long run. These cost occur in both state and private CG's.
In the end there will never be 100% compliance with the rules. More enforcement will only add to the cost of the operation, but will not magically make poor dog owners responsible.
We could discuss this issue for ever, (which we have) However each individual must decide what we are willing to pay for our camping experience and decide accordingly.
Are we willing to pay extra to bring our pet to VA parks?

I think this thread with the help of WRVPO has been very informative pros and cons and given valuable insight as to what the issues really are.

Nicely said - and I agree that this is probably the coming trend for ALL pet owners, thanks to the irresponsible ones. Will *I* pay $5 per night per dog (3 dogs)? Sure - if there's a compelling reason to do so. But most of the time, we're sightseeing and simply looking for a place to park for the night. If a private park down the road doesn't charge extra for pets - I'll go there first.

[silvercorvette]

In March of 2011 I had to drive to NY in my car because there was no time to pack and load the RV. Most motels between SC and NY were OK with dogs some charged nothing extra and others wanted $5 to $10 per dog. When I got to LI I must have called 20 motels and all of them refused anyone with dogs. One motel wanted $140 per night plus $100 per dog. I asked if the $100 was a refundable security deposit but it wasn't. I was desperate and too cold to sleep in my car and was almost ready to pay the $340 for a room but I made one more call and wound up paying $130 with no extra fee for the dogs. Besides being able to sleep in my own bed I love the fact that I will always have a warm place to sleep even if it may be in a parking lot or rest stop.

[wbwood]

2012Coleman wrote:
Way too much whining going on here. For the record, I have pets, but do not bring them camping too often. I am not against pets in CG's but people do not follow the rules. I've stepped in poop, and laughed as 2 or 3 little yappers locked up in campers bang on the shages yapping away at me as I walk by, and even when the owners are present and have them in pens, behind screen doors just yapping away. Westernrvparkowner has given a good perspective from a CG owner point of view and most of his examples can be applied to State CG's. If you don't like extra fees, just stay away. If you read the email from the VA ranger, their reasons are based on customer feedback, pet owners being in the minority. So they responded to what their customers wanted, which is what any good business would do. And since others have said that they are constantly booked shows that extra fees aren't hurting them in the least. Happy Camping!

For the record he is not ranger but the director of the state park system.

WRVPO has given a great prospective as a private rv park owner. But this is not a private park. This is a state park system that already has rates that are of a level of private campground rates without the added amenities. Especially when you add the dog fee.

I'm not saying I won't ever stay at one. We have always intended to go to somewhere like Grayson Highlands. But as the OP mentioned here, it's kind of alarming or unusual to see a state park system to do that. I don't really think dog owners are a minority. I think it is a revenue thing and has nothing to do with costs. After all, they said it was based on complaints. So $5 a day makes the complaints not worth much. They are basically saying to those complaining about the dogs, " yeah we hear your complaints, but we are still going to allow dogs". We are just gonna use this as an excuse to generate more revenue. I see two different things in the answer in the letter. People complained and we chose to charge more. So how does the money make the complaints better for the complainers? People are still bringing dogs, right? People are still going to complain. What will the director say then? Yeah, but we get $5 more a night.

[Lantley]

AS a pet owner I have no problem paying the fees. I enjoy bring my pet and have no problem paying additional fees it that is what it takes to bring the dog along.
I understand pets and irresponsible dog owners do cost the CG money in the long run. These cost occur in both state and private CG's.
In the end there will never be 100% compliance with the rules. More enforcement will only add to the cost of the operation, but will not magically make poor dog owners responsible.
We could discuss this issue for ever, (which we have) However each individual must decide what we are willing to pay for our camping experience and decide accordingly.
Are we willing to pay extra to bring our pet to VA parks?

I think this thread with the help of WRVPO has been very informative pros and cons and given valuable insight as to what the issues really are.

[westernrvparkow]

wbwood wrote:

Lantley wrote:
I see the tide has turned. Earlier post that proclaimed dogs do not cost the CG extra money. Have changed to the CG needs to implement more rules with a stricter more frequent enforcement policy.
That all sounds good on paper, however as WRVPO stated he's not running a prison camp. More rules,more enforcement equate to more cost more fees.
Before long he'll have to add per day pet fees to cover the additional cost of pets. 😉

If he's experiencing damage to his property perhaps there should be more patrol. How would he know it was a dog tied up to a tree that caused damage unless he saw a dog tied to the tree. Just as its not fair to charge a person that does not have a dog a fee, it's also not fair for responsible dog owners to have to pay more. Perhaps dog fees should be based on weight and size. Cause a little dog is likely to cause less damage than a big dog.

You are absolutely right. We should patrol more. I keep forgetting this the 21st century. Change has come to America. Don't blame the criminal, blame the victim. Our trees get damaged, it is our fault for not being more vigilant. If you get robbed, you should have been more careful.
FYI, a dog on a chain can girdle a tree in less than 5 minutes. The trees were Quaking Aspens, they are very beautiful trees, but they have soft bark, like many softwood trees. Guess it is also my fault for having the wrong kind of trees. Lantley is absolutely astute on his observation. Sure is funny how the discussion gave up on the idea that dogs don't cost any money, and turned to how it is the park's fault dogs cost money and how if the park would spend even more money, the problems would somehow end.

[2hams]

wbwood wrote:

Lantley wrote:
I see the tide has turned. Earlier post that proclaimed dogs do not cost the CG extra money. Have changed to the CG needs to implement more rules with a stricter more frequent enforcement policy.
That all sounds good on paper, however as WRVPO stated he's not running a prison camp. More rules,more enforcement equate to more cost more fees.
Before long he'll have to add per day pet fees to cover the additional cost of pets. 😉

If he's experiencing damage to his property perhaps there should be more patrol. How would he know it was a dog tied up to a tree that caused damage unless he saw a dog tied to the tree. Just as its not fair to charge a person that does not have a dog a fee, it's also not fair for responsible dog owners to have to pay more. Perhaps dog fees should be based on weight and size. Cause a little dog is likely to cause less damage than a big dog.

Give me a break. It is not fair for responsible dog owners to have to pay more. Ok, that makes sense. But a little dog less likely to cause damage? Come on. Now our 65# dog will chew up some sticks and maybe move them from woodpile to woodpile and perhaps shake water on you if you get to close after she has been swimming. She might also try to lick you to death, but that is a Golden Retriever for you. Just my observation but sure have seen lots of little barking dogs, few large barking dogs.

BTW, they also added a new elec/water horse camp loop at James River SP. The new loop at Douthat used to be a private campground that was acquired (and cleaned up) by the state.

[Cecilt]

Oaklevel wrote:
I am not saying that there are no costs with allowing pets but after talking with the local state park maintenance & rangers it appears they are against the fees as they are rarely full & the money this year instead of upgrading or maintaining the park campground (over $500,000) went to building a horse facility / parking with water & electric hookups, & a horse barn that is under used as well.......... & yes the park employees have to shovel the horse poop.............(Dogs don't make near the mess LOL) I wish we could camp there much bigger sites than in the campground....... but we still would go to the cheaper private campgrounds

Which park do you keep referring to that built the horse stables? I knonw Douthat closed a campground and turned it into stables. But, they built a new campground that is big rig friendly. Only downside is it is at the entrance to the park but the lake and all activitives are 3 miles inside the park so we continue to camp at the interior CG that remained opened.

[2012Coleman]

Way too much whining going on here. For the record, I have pets, but do not bring them camping too often. I am not against pets in CG's but people do not follow the rules. I've stepped in poop, and laughed as 2 or 3 little yappers locked up in campers bang on the shages yapping away at me as I walk by, and even when the owners are present and have them in pens, behind screen doors just yapping away. Westernrvparkowner has given a good perspective from a CG owner point of view and most of his examples can be applied to State CG's. If you don't like extra fees, just stay away. If you read the email from the VA ranger, their reasons are based on customer feedback, pet owners being in the minority. So they responded to what their customers wanted, which is what any good business would do. And since others have said that they are constantly booked shows that extra fees aren't hurting them in the least. Happy Camping!

[wbwood]

Lantley wrote:
I see the tide has turned. Earlier post that proclaimed dogs do not cost the CG extra money. Have changed to the CG needs to implement more rules with a stricter more frequent enforcement policy.
That all sounds good on paper, however as WRVPO stated he's not running a prison camp. More rules,more enforcement equate to more cost more fees.
Before long he'll have to add per day pet fees to cover the additional cost of pets. 😉

If he's experiencing damage to his property perhaps there should be more patrol. How would he know it was a dog tied up to a tree that caused damage unless he saw a dog tied to the tree. Just as its not fair to charge a person that does not have a dog a fee, it's also not fair for responsible dog owners to have to pay more. Perhaps dog fees should be based on weight and size. Cause a little dog is likely to cause less damage than a big dog.

[PamfromVA]

I would be upset to know that my dogs barked when we were gone. I meet the neighbors in front and/or behind the night before. Tell them we will be gone for the day. Leave emergency number on my camper and request they call us if they hear any barking. And I mean it...I want to know. Take my word for it, people with barking dogs know they have barking dogs and could care less. If I were king for the day, there would be a note on their door telling them to pack up when they return or provide proof the dogs were not left alone. Your campground - your rules.

[Lantley]

I see the tide has turned. Earlier post that proclaimed dogs do not cost the CG extra money. Have changed to the CG needs to implement more rules with a stricter more frequent enforcement policy.
That all sounds good on paper, however as WRVPO stated he's not running a prison camp. More rules,more enforcement equate to more cost more fees.
Before long he'll have to add per day pet fees to cover the additional cost of pets. 😉

[wbwood]

WRVPO....the trees were "girdled" and no employee say anything that was tethered to the trees? I'm no rocket scientist, but I would imagine it would take a lot of time for something to be tethered to a tree to the point of killing it. Perhaps a don't tie things to the trees in the rules and when or if your employees do a routine check around the park, that they will see things tied to the trees. Warn the camper. If it continues, then by all means kick them out. That is, if they are not packing up to leave then as it is.

Rangers and other employees (hosts) ride around at the state parks I have been to. If they see something against the rules, they will stop and let the camper know. Failure to obey the rules results in you leaving. Private parks should be no different. I would imagine that you have someone riding around and checking on things.

[westernrvparkow]

PamfromVA wrote:
We camp in VA state parks alot. The problem is VA has reduced their park staff so much that they do not have time to take care of complaints about dogs or anything else. They are too busy taking care of cutting the grass, trail maintenance, and the ranger led programs that they are leaving the camp hosts in charge. The camp hosts are busy cleaning bathrooms and fire pits so the sites are ready for the next user. We ALWAYS see someone who lets their dog run free and everytime we go for a hike we run across someone who is hiking with their dog off leash. A couple of months ago we had a dog hang out at our site for a couple of hours each day and the owners were not concerned since "their dog liked us more than them". Point is - there is no consequences to noncompliance of the rules. The dog fee is just added revenue for the state. And Westernrvparkowner - shame on you for not enforcing your rules and making the camping experience at your park better for all. As a dog owner, I know I get a little frustrated when I see these owners not following the same rules I am with my dogs.

I am not running a prison. I don't nanny check every guest, every minute. I don't know who or what or when dogs were tethered to the trees, I just know the trees were girdled and they died. It was obvious from the damage it was a chain or something very similar (much wider cut than a rope or cable would make). As for enforcing barking rules, first we have to know there is an offense. We don't have microphones throughout the park probing for noise violations. You have a dog, apparently, so you tell me, when should you be kicked out for a barking dog? First bark? 10th? 100th? I don't have an answer. I've posted before, the normal routine is we get a dog complaint, owner is not there, owner returns, we tell owner about complaint, owner apologizes profusely, swears it will never happen again. Then owner leaves dog next day, dog barks, owner returns late at night, we see that they are leaving next morning anyway, so we avoid messy eviction and wave goodbye in the AM. Do you have a better plan that would really work? We can't do anything until and unless the owner is there. Then our options are really kick out or believe what they say. But if you have a better plan, I am more than willing to listen.