Impromptu Campers Not Welcome

[Rocinante]

Originally Posted by Davydd

i just posted a photo of my toilet in the thread about cassettes. It is an upflow toilet commonly used in yachts and sailboats because the discharge has to go up and over the back axle to a black tank. The flushing button is mounted on the vanity face. The black tank is 24 gallons which I believe is the largest anyone makes in a Class B and there is a side by side grey tank which is connected by a valve so theoretically I can fill up to 48 gallons. I doubt I will have to. One other thing is the freedom to place a toilet optimally instead of where the black tank can be placed. This the teak floor is a 30" x 31" space with the toilet intruding with another 8" for the vanity where your elbows are for showering. Pretty good for a shorty Sprinters. I'm picking up the van Friday. Here it is again...

I see the image link when I "quote" your post, but I can't see the image without doing a copy/paste of the URL. As toilets go, it looks nice.

Anyway, this sounds very interesting indeed. Given it's a marine toilet instead of an RV toilet, I'm hopeful it'll have better quality mechanicals, though I do worry about possible failure when pumping sewage uphill instead of depending on gravity. Even so, I look forward to a photo or video tour of your new van when you pick it up on Friday! Ask ARV to do their typical YT treatment and post it so we can all see!
Once we've been camping enough in our Airstream Interstate as we've customized it, we'll know a whole lot more about what we really want in a Class B, and maybe someday we'll be ready to spend ARV-type money to get what we really want in a quality unit. Maybe by then the new Eco-boost 4x4 Transit will also be more available, and we'll also be able to use that for a platform instead of the Sprinter. We shall see!

[Davydd]

That’s interesting. When I posted I saw an image. Now it is gone not even the IMG url. I put it on Sprinter-source.com, same software as this message board but a newer version. I’m at my limit here so I couldn’t post it to the library here. So, I guess my image posting days are over here. Facebook is it. Much easier to post images there.

[Winston]

Not wanting to sidetrack our own thread, but we thought we'd add one last 'punctuation' to the IRV2.com forum story.

When we returned to the IRV2 Site today to see what further 'commentary' might have been posted, we were greeted with the following:

"Post removed
Your post deleted for the following reason:

Vendor Dispute

“This forum is not intended to be a mechanism for people to solely vent frustrations about services, products, vendors, or sales. Please settle your differences with the seller, provider, manufacturer, or dealer through other means but not through our community.”

Please read the rules and keep future posts within these guidelines.
Community Rules

Thanks for understanding,

Site Staff"

[rowiebowie]

Originally Posted by Winston

Not wanting to sidetrack our own thread, but we thought we'd add one last 'punctuation' to the IRV2.com forum story.

When we returned to the IRV2 Site today to see what further 'commentary' might have been posted, we were greeted with the following:

"Post removed
Your post deleted for the following reason:

Vendor Dispute

“This forum is not intended to be a mechanism for people to solely vent frustrations about services, products, vendors, or sales. Please settle your differences with the seller, provider, manufacturer, or dealer through other means but not through our community.”

Please read the rules and keep future posts within these guidelines.
Community Rules

Thanks for understanding,

Site Staff"

Translations: You unknowingly and unintentionally set off a thread topic that went off the rails. Site staff used a "one size fits all" violation (only it doesn't seem to fit in this case) to shut down the thread so they'd no longer have to deal with it.

Kudos to our site staff who are gentle on the reins when they can be, give warnings before shutting off topics, and often only remove the offending posts to avoid shutting down the entire thread.

[booster]

So on the IRV2 you can only chit chat about stuff you liked and not even mention/warn about stuff that doesn't?

I would bet one can go to that site and find a bunch of reviews that aren't positive or a comparison between a replacement vs original items. I can't imagine any RV site without a "this vs that" discussion in it.


This would certainly explain the response from the members if that is all that is allowed.


This entire discussion would not be allowed there either, i guess.

[markopolo]

I suspect that naming the park, when the encounter occurred and also attributing a quote to park employee all contributed to tripping the safety switches. Neither the park nor the employee can respond with their side of the story. Winston has a good reputation on this forum but is unknown there so I can see how it does look like a post by a frustrated customer airing a particular grievance.

I think his post is seen more as a general state of affairs comment here rather than targeting a specific park and park employee.

[@Michael]

Originally Posted by booster

It is turning camping into a hobby for the people with flexible schedules and who have enough money to eat a bunch of cancellation fees. The less well off hourly working family that can't reserve vacation time months ahead is out of luck.

The Minnesota park rangers that I talked to about this said that with walk-ups they had problem where campers would head for the park after work on Friday, only to find the park full and no place to camp. With the current system, you know you have a site before you pack up and head to the campground. The reservation-only system means that campers have to monitor the reservations and either pick a campground with fewer campers or try to snag a cancelation. Either is better than driving for hours and not having a campsite.

If combined with a strict cancellation policy to limit abuse, I think the reservation-only system works.

I don't think that taxpayer supported State Parks should favor itinerant out-of-state travelers. The residents of that state are the ones who built the parks and should be the prime beneficiaries of the parks. Wanderers like me can drive another hour to a park that has room.

[booster]

Originally Posted by @Michael

The Minnesota park rangers that I talked to about this said that with walk-ups they had problem where campers would head for the park after work on Friday, only to find the park full and no place to camp. With the current system, you know you have a site before you pack up and head to the campground. The reservation-only system means that campers have to monitor the reservations and either pick a campground with fewer campers or try to snag a cancelation. Either is better than driving for hours and not having a campsite.

If combined with a strict cancellation policy to limit abuse, I think the reservation-only system works.

I don't think that taxpayer supported State Parks should favor itinerant out-of-state travelers. The residents of that state are the ones who built the parks and should be the prime beneficiaries of the parks. Wanderers like me can drive another hour to a park that has room.

That is what they told me also, but they never put in any strict cancellation rules or limits on how many times you can cancel. I think you always had been able to call the campground or reservation site if they reserved some sites before you left home and book a site paid by credit card so that excuse they give is really bogus, as we used to do that on occasion. We also did that while traveling before all reservations. IMO, if someone is too lazy to call, or thinks if they whine enough somehow they will get in, they deserve to be turned away. The moving of some sites to closer to use date helps some of those unable to plan way ahead, but not all, and does nothing for travelers unless it gets to a day or two ahead.


I only kind of agree with out of state traveler theory as if all states did that you would never get into a state campground anywhere. Higher fee, absolutely, and buying a park pass besides, sure. I think all the local Chamber of Commerce folks, plus local businesses would really go nuts if out of state people were somehow squeezed out of state parks. Rural Minnesota would die without tourism from other places.



My biggest point probably doesn't really even apply to most of us here, but it does apply to a bunch of the people whose taxes did help pay for the parks. Those would be the family that doesn't have money to spare on throw away reservation and whose work schedules, usually two to coordinate, don't give more than a day or two notice of being able get time off. They will never get into one of the more desirable parks in Minnesota like Itaska or most anything on the North Shore, unless they get very, very, lucky and are on the reservation site when a cancellation gets put back on and that is truly unfair IMO. A wait list, that you could only get on at a close time to use date would solve so many of the issues, but they won't even consider one, probably because the reservation contract companies don't want to do it.


We had to make our reservations for this year at Custer State Park in South Dakota the day they opened up many months ahead or we would not get in. Only once for Custer, which is one of our favorite places, did we happen on site on short notice, as we were going to be passing through the area on the way west and planned a couple of days and Wind Cave National park as it fairly close and all drive up. A couple of days before we left I just kind of decided to see if anything had opened up in Custer and as it turned out, one of the times I checked that day had one open up while I was on it looking. We got 3 days when essentially nothing else had showed up, by luck, in our favorite campground. First time ever for us to have that happen.


I don't where this is going to end up long term, but it is starting to look like state and national parks are going to be playgrounds of the well off with a lot of others unable to get much use of them.


How about they just let everyone reserve any time they want so there could be many reservations for the same day? Do a lottery the day before the date and let the winner know. That way everyone would share the hassle of not knowing if you could get in.

[MsNomer]

How about $0 cancellation fee, but a $100 fee if site in your name is empty overnight and not cancelled by 3pm the day before?

[InterBlog]

Originally Posted by Winston

We arrived late on Thursday (but early enough to avoid the weekend crowd) at one of the Texas State Park campgrounds. “Yes,” we were informed, “we have plenty of campsites.” “Good,” we responded, we’ll be here until Sunday.”

By this time we weren’t really surprised by the state park employee’s response: “No you won’t, I said we had plenty of sites for tonight, but we’re completely booked for tomorrow and Saturday.”

What we didn’t expect was this official’s response to our next question: “We’re from Michigan, what do you suggest we do for tomorrow and Saturday?”. After a moment of reflection, she calmly suggested: “Perhaps, sir, you should return home!”

.....

PRO TIP: Learn your target environment before you enter it, out of respect for it. We have 30 million people in Texas and a finite state park system. People routinely wait as long as 330 days for a weekend state park campsite in this state.

Yes, you heard that correctly - there's no typo. Three hundred and thirty days (for Garner State Park specifically, is the example I'm using here).

What on earth makes you think that you can waltz up to a state kiosk and expect to claim a spot ahead of the people who planned their camping trip as much as a year ahead of you?!

SMH.

This has nothing to do with COVID - our access pressures existed years ahead of the pandemic-related surge in camping interest. And our pressures pale in comparison to what exists at some popular federal parks.

It's just the way it is. By all means, petition lawmakers for changes to the system. But don't expect to be treated differently than every other person who also would like to get a spot. The state park attendant may have treated you flippantly, but they get tired of a constant stream of people with unrealistic expectations who don't do their homework. Texans have zero tolerance for would-be line cutters. Even a hint of such an aspiration raises hackles and tempers.

[ilmor]

I've always planned ahead and reserved throughout the years and as such have had no issues like this.

[Winston]

Originally Posted by @Michael

The Minnesota park rangers that I talked to about this said that with walk-ups they had problem where campers would head for the park after work on Friday, only to find the park full and no place to camp. With the current system, you know you have a site before you pack up and head to the campground.

Michael, we are well aware, and have acknowledged, the huge benefits afforded by the reservation system . . . one of which is the dilemma that you pose: arriving “only to find the park full”. Yes, with the reservation system “you know you have a site before you” leave. Our proposal only marginally alters this benefit - - campers who require the guaranty of a reserved site will have it.

We have a slightly different view of “the current system”. What “we know . . . using the current system . . . before we pack up and head to the campground” is that, with utter certainty, we will never be able to camp in many campgrounds. Maybe most campers are able and willing to plan their visits to out-of-state venues with precision a year in advance, but requiring this of all campers seems, to us, to be as outrageous and unreasonable as, apparently, our desire to “waltz up” and expect a last minute site, seems to InterBlog.

Originally Posted by @Michael

I don't think that taxpayer supported State Parks should favor itinerant out-of-state travelers. The residents of that state are the ones who built the parks and should be the prime beneficiaries of the parks. Wanderers like me can drive another hour to a park that has room.

Michael, you raise an interesting point. We are often "reminded" by state park officials that the parks are funded by the state's residents which justifies reduced fees and the de facto local-preference reservation system. We can accept this - - if a state wants to provide recreation for its citizens it certainly has the right. But that's not the message we see from our home state, Michigan. Michigan 'beams' its "Pure Michigan" tourism slogan hundreds of miles outside the state in its attempt to lure non-Michiganders to our attractions. And recently we've observed numerous similar solicitations by Minnesota and North Dakota. As a consumer, we're uncertain how to interpret such mixed signals.

Originally Posted by MsNomer

How about $0 cancellation fee, but a $100 fee if site in your name is empty overnight and not cancelled by 3pm the day before?

MsNomer, in our attempt to keep our letter to a manageable length, we omitted many observations and thoughts we had relating to the 'abuse' of the reservation system. While several of the 'naysayers' in our now-deleted IRV2 thread suggested that it would be an irresponsible business decision to hold back any sites for 'first-come, first-served' as these sites might remain vacant and result in a loss of revenue, our observations reveal that where both reservation and non-reservation sites co-exist, generally the non-reservable sites are all occupied, early, while each night, several of the reservation sites remain vacant. It seems that the park administration doesn't care as, it is true, these unoccupied reserved sites have been paid for. But as stewards of scarce state and federal natural resources, we think the 'higher goal' should be full occupancy, that the realities of the budget, while not insignificant, should take a back-seat. In any event, MsNomer, your suggestion appears to be a frontal assault on 'reservation abuse' which we wholeheartedly support. We've often thought that we should 'incentivize' cancellations (by not penalizing legitimate cancellations). But your idea of financially penalizing the abuse of ‘non-cancellation’ may be pure genius. At the very least, it is time that we rethink ‘reservations’ - - let’s treat reservations, not as a right, but as a privilege. If you abuse your privilege, there will be consequences - - maybe financial as you have suggested, maybe modifying the reservation software to document ‘uncancelled’ no-shows with a future restriction ‘time-out’ for those who repeatedly abuse their privilege.

Originally Posted by InterBlog

. . . We have 30 million people in Texas and a finite state park system. People routinely wait as long as 330 days for a weekend state park campsite in this state . . .

What on earth makes you think that you can waltz up to a state kiosk and expect to claim a spot ahead of the people who planned their camping trip as much as a year ahead of you?!

It's just the way it is. By all means, petition lawmakers for changes to the system. But don't expect to be treated differently than every other person who also would like to get a spot.

InterBlog, under the ‘old system’ of first-come, first-served everyone had the equal opportunity to compete for the limited campground resources. We suspect that Texas has never had sufficient inventory to meet demand and therefore there will always be unrequited demand. Our proposal will not solve this shortfall.

What our proposal will do is again open the doors of Texas campgrounds to all classes of users. We might ask: “What on earth makes you think you can exclude a whole class of travelers?” “What makes the impromptu wanderer undeserving of Texas (and so we don’t raise the ire of those who oversee this Forum, let us be clear that this is an issue that is not unique to Texas - - we just ‘pick-on’ Texas at this moment as InterBlog has chosen to engage in this, hopefully civil, discussion.)

InterBlog, we view our position not as demanding special treatment, to the contrary - - we consider ‘making room for all’ to be equal treatment.

[Kobieta]

Wow! Wisconsin resident here. We're also having a difficult time finding spots. But that response? We traveled as far as Idaho/west and Portland, Maine/east. I've always told my husband I have little interest in seeing Texas. Now I have none.

[Waterwoman]

I'm wondering if the response from the staff in Texas had more to do with covid and stay at home orders/suggestions than the reservation system? Different states may be less welcoming of out of state travelers than was the case in the past. This is the situation currently in Canada. Even if intra provincial travel is allowed, it's not encouraged. Just a thought.

[RossWilliams]

I think most state and national parks see themselves as destinations with campgrounds available for their visitors. They are not travel lodges for people passing through. We often treat them that way - arriving late and leaving first thing in the morning. For people who want to visit a park having a reserved campsite is a boon with no downside.

That said, empty campsites serve no one. We were at the Grand Canyon this winter and I mistakenly made a reservation for a night when we were going to be hiking below the rim. There was a $10 fee for cancelling the $9 reservation. There were a lot of empty sites in the campground while we were there, even though the website said they were booked. I am sure part of the reason for the fee is to avoid book and cancel reservations. But it may be having the opposite effect where people plan on staying only one night.

The problem may be not enough campsites. But we stayed in an awful lot of empty campgrounds this winter. But not on weekends. The problem is that everyone wants to use campsites at the same time. We are just going to have to adapt to traveling during off-peak days. Sort of like not driving during rush hour.

[booster]

Originally Posted by RossWilliams

I think most state and national parks see themselves as destinations with campgrounds available for their visitors. They are not travel lodges for people passing through. We often treat them that way - arriving late and leaving first thing in the morning. For people who want to visit a park having a reserved campsite is a boon with no downside.

That said, empty campsites serve no one. We were at the Grand Canyon this winter and I mistakenly made a reservation for a night when we were going to be hiking below the rim. There was a $10 fee for cancelling the $9 reservation. There were a lot of empty sites in the campground while we were there, even though the website said they were booked. I am sure part of the reason for the fee is to avoid book and cancel reservations. But it may be having the opposite effect where people plan on staying only one night.


The problem may be not enough campsites. But we stayed in an awful lot of empty campgrounds this winter. But not on weekends. The problem is that everyone wants to use campsites at the same time. We are just going to have to adapt to traveling during off-peak days. Sort of like not driving during rush hour.

I guess I would see excluding a large portion of folks that don't have the ability to reserve months ahead as a significant downside of reservation only. Here in Minnesota they will likely never be able to get in a park on the north shore of lake Superior to camp.

[RossWilliams]

InterBlog, under the ‘old system’ of first-come, first-served everyone had the equal opportunity to compete for the limited campground resources.

Reservations are still first-come, first serve. What you are arguing is that people who plan to come in advance shouldn't be given a site so that people who didn't plan in advance will have one available if they just show up.

[booster]

Originally Posted by RossWilliams

Reservations are still first-come, first serve. What you are arguing is that people who plan to come in advance shouldn't be given a site so that people who didn't plan in advance will have one available if they just show up.

They aren't first come first serve for those that don't have the ability to plan that far out, they are come if you have the ability and the resources no way to be first or last if you don't have the ability and resources so totally out of luck.



It is possible to do both reservations and walk up and/or opening sites to reserve much closer to the use day. Even Minnesota has started to realize that and is opening some stuff closer, it appears from the press releases.


Unless it has changed, which is entirely possible because it has been a number of years since we were there, even Galveston Island state park had the gulf side campground as all reservation, but the bay side campground non reservation.

[GeorgeRa]

Sometime you can get lucky, it was November of 2014, we were coming back to Oregon from San Francisco and decided to swing by our favored park from our California times - Yosemite. We took Old Priest Grade shortcut being within weight limits, (grade steepness 18 percent or higher in a couple spots).

Getting reservations in Yosemite is practically impossible with many months advanced registration. So, we tried, if we could not get anything in the valley Tioga Road was still open so we could go east. Well, park had many vacancies, there was a major storm a day before and folks left. So, you can get lucky.

[Winston]

Originally Posted by Waterwoman

I'm wondering if the response from the staff in Texas had more to do with covid . . .

Our Texas experience predated Covid.