Impromptu Campers Not Welcome

[RossWilliams]

I have been to a number of parks with overflow sites Most of them are informal use of parking that is already there for a different purpose. But if I understand crrecty, the original poster had a site for their first night. The problem was that site was reserved for the weekend along with everything else.

Again, this is not a question of reservations but how they will be reserved. I have not seen anyone is suggesting that sites be set aside for only one night. Instead people want sites set aside that have to be reserved in person rather than by phone or on-iine.

My experience in Minnesota when a sites were "first come first serve" was that popular parks were full by early Friday afternoon on busy holiday weekends. The reservation system is not only fairer but it prevents people from driving 200 miles with the expectation they will find a campsite when they get there.

As for pricing, state and national parks are already too expensive for some people. .

[Kegan]

Originally Posted by tgregg

I think the 20% set aside would go unused most of the time. .........

Agreed, I think 20% is probably way too high. I picked some numbers for illustrative purposes. Actually, retaining one or two spots might be practical.

[Davydd]

I boondocked at Kartchner Caverns in their parking lot. I don’t need hookups anyway. Not as nice as a campsite but if you arrive, you don’t get turned away and have to scramble otherwise, and it is better than Walmart. Most Arizona state parks have that policy and it works for me. You are right there first in line if there are cancelations.

[Winston]

Originally Posted by RossWilliams

Again, this is not a question of reservations but how they will be reserved. I have not seen anyone is suggesting that sites be set aside for only one night . . . My experience in Minnesota when a sites were "first come first serve" was that popular parks were full by early Friday afternoon on busy holiday weekends. The reservation system is not only fairer but it prevents people from driving 200 miles with the expectation they will find a campsite when they get there.

Our proposal is that some percentage of available sites be made "non-reservable". A person obtains one of these sites, not by reserving it, but by 'appearing' and parking their camping unit on an unoccupied non-reservable site. Payment can be tendered in a number of ways including telephone, paying an attendant in person or through a "payment kiosk" of the type often found in unattended parking lots/garages.

The camper may stay as little as one night, or up to the limit permitted by the park (often, 14 days). When the camper vacates the site, it immediately becomes available to others.

And you are correct, whether all sites are reservable or whether some are held back as non-reservable 'first-come, first-served' . . . by Friday afternoon they will be gone. Our proposal does not create more camping spots, it only provides an opportunity for the "Impromptu Camper" to obtain a camping spot.

The Impromptu Camper is aware of the demand for our limited campsite resources and compensates by arriving early - - say, as in our example, Thursday afternoon. The critical distinction between these non-reservable campsites and those that are reservable is that the Impromptu Camper (if successful on Thursday in obtaining a campsite - - no guaranties, of course), gets to keep his site through, Friday and Saturday nights if he choses.

If you look at the reservation books for many (maybe even most) reservation-only campgrounds, you will discover that every single weekend campsite is booked months in advance. In short, those who do not have the luxury of advance planning and those who chose to wander on a flexible schedule, are effectively locked-out of these campgrounds. We see little that is "fair" about the total exclusion of a class of campers.

We do not disagree that driving hundreds of miles only to be confronted by a "No Vacancy" sign is unacceptable. But fortunately, we are not advocating a total return to the 'first-come, first-served' model. We have repeatedly argued our incredulity at those earlier times when reservations were not possible - - pondering, as you have, the chaos of embarking with ones family on a family vacation with no certainty that there will be a resting spot at the destination. The reservation system will remain with only a minor diminution of capacity for all the working families and others that need its corresponding certainty.

To use your term "fairness" - - there will be a small reduction in reservable sites, but this seems a small price to pay in order that we avoid utterly excluding a whole class of users. To be fair, we must have a system available to all.

[avanti]

Originally Posted by Winston

Our proposal is that some percentage of available sites be made "non-reservable". A person obtains one of these sites, not by reserving it, but by 'appearing' and parking their camping unit on an unoccupied non-reservable site.

Would I be allowed to hover at a site whose occupant looks like he or she is getting ready to leave?

Could I "orbit" round-and-round the campground hoping to pass by a site at the moment that somebody leaves? (This is how street parking in many parts of NYC works)

Would the park establish a centralized parking "line" where hopefuls could wait in order of arrival for an opening? If so, how early in the morning would I be allowed to enter this line?

Meh.

[Winston]

Avanti,

Woven throughout the several 'campsite allotment' threads of which we have participated are a litany of observations on abuses, along with assorted suggestions for implementations and improvements. It is our hope at this juncture to take a 'macro, big-picture' view of the goals and objectives associated with the administration of our public lands and to leave the nuts and bolts 'how to' discussions for another time and thread.

Winston