Impromptu Campers Not Welcome

[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!”

We’ve written of the plight of the Impromptu Camper in this Forum before. Replies have been varied - - from acknowledgment and sympathy to “it’s not really a problem” - - with a myriad of solutions of varying efficacy offered.

But it is a problem. The “reservations-only” virus has spread like wildfire. And the huge covid-induced surge in camping popularity has exacerbated the dilemma here in our home state of Michigan, for example, where the once-safe ‘pre-Memorial/post-Labor Day’ periods are no longer assured - - especially on weekends.

After several fruitless years of personally debating every campground administrator whom we could personally lay eyes upon, we decided to take our cause, in writing, to those ‘in charge’. The following letter was sent by US mail to nearly one hundred state and federal campground administrators and organizations:

BEGIN LETTER


April 22, 2021

Mr. Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Park Manager
Priest Lake State Park
314 Indian Creek Park Road
Coolin, ID 83821

A PROPOSAL TO IMPROVE THE CAMPGROUND RESERVATION
SYSTEM TO INSURE ACCESS TO ALL TYPES OF TRAVELERS

Dear Mr. Xxxxxx:

The comparatively recent and widespread adoption of the ‘on-line reservation model’ for allocating public campground spaces has unintentionally altered the balance between contending ‘user classes’ to the extent of virtually excluding one such user class. This class is the Impromptu Traveler which class includes those who wander and explore as well as those whose circumstances do not permit advance planning. It is the purpose of this letter to draw attention to this ‘altered balance’ and to suggest a realistic modification to that system intended to restore public campground access for all.

No one can argue the important benefits of the on-line reservation system for the working-family vacationer and others who know the dates and destinations of their future travels. The ability to ‘lock-in’ a campsite is a huge advancement that the reservation system makes possible. However, lost in the associated ‘rush to reservations’ is an appreciation that not all travelers plan their adventures in advance.

The Legacy & Legitimacy of Impromptu Travel

While some have belittled the non-planning, impromptu segment as unworthy of consideration, this class has always been a part of our traveling culture and, as importantly, there are legitimate reasons for its existence (and protection). Some simply don’t have the option to ‘forecast’ and plan their future. Demands of family (e.g. responsibilities for aged parents or disabled relatives), work, or personal health issues represent just a few examples which force travel flexibility and require a travel or ‘camp-as-camp can’ approach.

Further, there is the significant group - - often retired seniors - - who have finally ‘earned their freedom’. After a lifetime of regimentation and scheduling in the working-world, they have been released - - free to roam, free to wander, free to explore this great Nation and beyond. There is great enjoyment and merit in wandering without a rigid schedule. The Impromptu Traveler often discovers unexpected treasures, the exploration of which only a flexible schedule permits. We trust it was never the intention of the reservation system to force this group to schedule their retirement, months in advance, with the ‘day and place’ precision required by a 100% reservation system.

The Past and Continuing Role of ‘First-Come, First-Served’

Prior to ‘reservations’, most campground ‘slots’ were allocated on a ‘first-come, first-served’ basis. No question that the ‘first-come, first-served’ model has limitations. For example, it places all campers at risk of arriving at their target campground and finding no available campsite. But one important aspect of ‘first-come, first-served’ is its even-handed application. Both the Planner and the Impromptu Traveler have the same and equal access to our national heritage and its campsites.

Holidays & Weekends
A Special Problem For the Impromptu Traveler

Holidays and weekends are especially difficult for all camper classes. There aren’t enough sites to meet demand. Yet it is in this context that ‘first-come, first-served’ intervenes to protect and offer the Impromptu Traveler a chance to compete for a campsite.

‘First-come, first-served’ operates on the principle that once a camper has found an available site, that site ‘belongs’ to that camper until they abandon it (with certain maximum stay limits set by most campgrounds). As Impromptu Travelers know that local campground demand can exceed availability over weekend periods - - they can employ the “its mine” feature of ‘first-come, first-served’ by arriving early (e.g. Thursday) to secure a site on which they may remain Friday and Saturday. Today, a review of the ‘reservation book’ of ‘reservation-only’ campgrounds reveals that virtually all Friday/Saturday slots are taken months in advance. Without ‘first-come, first-served’, the Impromptu Traveler is effectively locked-out of these campgrounds.

Conclusion with a Solution

We do not question the efficacy of the on-line reservation model nor the huge advantages it offers to many campers and campground administrators. We seek, only, to re-enfranchise a class of prior users who, by operation of the “full” (100%) reservation system, are now effectively excluded.

An obvious and straight forward solution would be to return a percentage of the available campsites ‘to first-come, first-served’ status (a compromise under which many campgrounds successfully operate). Our suggestion would be to designate 25% as ‘first-come, first-served’ with, hopefully, these sites representing a fair cross-section of the campground’s fare - - not merely the least desirable in the park.

We appreciate your consideration of this matter.

Your very truly,

R. Winston Slater

END LETTER

We have received several responses ranging from ‘encouraging’ to “too bad, so sad”. Depending on the tone and flow of responses to this Post, we may latter add some of the responses including the one from our home state of Michigan falling into the “too bad, so sad” category.

The purpose of this Post is to renew the discussion of this problem and - - in realizing that one voice cannot alter our current course - - to raise a small army of similarly opinioned souls to join our ranks.

[booster]

I fought a long hard battle with Minnesota DNR when the went all reservations a few years ago. As they were getting ready to it and taking input I listed all the regular issues like all the good parks you will never get in, what about travelers coming through, etc and got the old "there are always empty sites in all the parks, even the popular ones". Of course there weren't once in place, so I sent the Park Service people I had been dealing with copies of availability grid, for several popular parks, every week for a whole summer until they had be blocked from sending them. Everything was long reservation ahead availability at first, but they wound up, as we told them they would, having people reserve a bunch of prime times and cancel the ones they didn't use at the last minute, so the sites sat empty. They now hold some sites until IIRC 3 weeks before check in so people who can't reserve far ahead at least have some chance, but still really shaky on ever getting a drive up.


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.

[GeorgeRa]

We recently travelled for a few weeks from Portland OR to northern California along gorgeous West Coast, stayed in state, national and national forest campgrounds only. Many campgrounds still have none reservable campsites, so without reservations we had absolutely no issues. Summer will be different, so we will make reservations.

[mkguitar]

I worked for Parks Canada in my early 20's.
Monthly meetings for all staff would address the connection between visitors = funding = employment

The goal was to encourage visitors to have a great experience, the rest follows.
( For them who have been to Citadel Hill, I worked on the restorations, picked up trash and wound the clock)






We have had horrible experiences with the contracting firm many States use for reservation systems


One put us in a campground adjacent to a military live fire range, refused refund or even credit to the other nearby campground they administer for the state
A recent trip to join friends at Organ Pipe found that all the trails are now signed no dogs- which is odd. we won't return


these are quibbles which reduce public support- some administrators and staff seem resentful of visitors.
and lack the condition, interest or accountability of a commercial campground.



Kudos to Oregon State who in our experience keep a % off the reservation system and have some first come campgrounds-



We've had great experiences and crap experiences in all States, but if it says reserve america, we pass on by.


we calculate our financial impact on an area to be about $60 a day.


cheers, Mike

[Winston]

Minnesota was one of our letter 'recipients'. Don't think we received a reply, however.

[CSG]

Campgrounds have been mostly places I won't go near for decades now. Living out west, there are plenty of opportunities for boondocking which is what I prefer to do anyway. However, I'm not a camper per se, I'm a journeyer who hates hotels so I'm never in a place more than a night. Here in Idaho, it's hard to convince myself to go anywhere else these days. I've been to all the western national parks multiple times going back to the 60's and the experiences I had then are nothing like what they are today so they're pretty much out of my thinking anymore. Fortunately, most western NPs are adjacent to forest land and the camping experience is much more pleasant in those places.


The above said, I think I'm unusual compared to the average RVer, even B owners. Campgrounds are overcrowded because people like to go to them, set-up, and stay for a week and do whatever it is they do for activities.

[rowiebowie]

First Winston, my appologies on behalf of Texans for the a-#ole Ranger's response. We are the same type of travelers as you, so I agree with your letter completely. I don't expect things to change, but thank you for trying.

I can tell you from personal experience that most Texas Park Rangers I've dealt with (not all, maybe 60-70%) are neither knowlegeable nor helpful; though not a down-right rude as your encounter. Try entering a Texas Park near closing time or even 30 minutes before and you'll likely find they closed and left early. This was before covid, and it continues.

Our last stay was at Cleburne State Park (TX) Thursday, a week ago. We arrived precisely at closing time and the Ranger was walking out of the office as we arrived. At least he stayed until closing time, but never looked up or spoke; just walked to his car and left. Now he had taped our reservation paperwork on the window before he left, but still, he wouldn't take an extra second.

For these reasons, I always suggest you consult a Park Host. Almost without exception, I have found them to be the opposite of the Rangers; friendly and helpful. State and National Park Hosts have gotten us in to many parks when the signs out front read "FULL". (Big Bend, Morro Bay are some). This is no guarantee, and probably not possible on Fridays thru Sunday, but always drive in and at least ask. Their responses have ranged from "The front office doesn't know what they're doing" to "We had a last-minute cancellation." to "We always keep at least one site in reserve in case of water or electrical problems at another site".

We long ago decided to accept the axiety of where we were going to spend the night, over the axiety of pushing ahead to "make" our reservation dates and perhaps miss some things along the way. This means a Walmart or Cracker Barrel stay occassionaly, but still worth it. However, it's the impromptu stays like at Goose Necks State Park (UT) that take your breath away with spectacular views at the edge of the canyons carved by the San Juan river.

[Belzar]

Root issue isn't the reservation systems but rather a shortage of public campsites. RV sales have been booming for several years, exploded this past year and I don't see many states investing in expanding parks and facilities. Off-season now doesn't start until November and ends in May - best time for those of us who like to travel without plans, but even off-season travellers need to plan for popular parks and weekends.

[rowiebowie]

Originally Posted by Belzar

Root issue isn't the reservation systems but rather a shortage of public campsites. RV sales have been booming for several years, exploded this past year and I don't see many states investing in expanding parks and facilities. Off-season now doesn't start until November and ends in May - best time for those of us who like to travel without plans, but even off-season travellers need to plan for popular parks and weekends.

While I agree with you that the root problem is not enough new campsites are being added, based on my experiences, the immediate problem is an under-utilization problem due to the aforementioned reservation "no shows". The many "Full" campgrounds I've stayed at have never been full. Averaging more like 70% to 80% actual occupancy.

[avanti]

Originally Posted by Belzar

Root issue isn't the reservation systems but rather a shortage of public campsites.

I agree. There is going to are no good solution to the shortage except more campsites and/or fewer campers. I honestly don't see how reserving a few campsites for first-come-first-served helps anybody. The numbers are likely to be too small to help much. At least with on-line reservations, you can do your searching on your phone, rather than driving all the way to a park only to find out that it is full. Most of the systems now support same-day reservations, which helps.

Now, I do agree that there are some tweaks to the reservation system that can help fight the folks who are willing to reserve sites that they never use. For example, a policy requiring a phone or text re-confirmation from anybody checking in after, say, 4:00 PM. No confirmation, the site opens up. There should also be an enforced system-wide prohibition of multiple reservations for the same night under a give email address. Not perfect, but it would help.

[booster]

One thing that we have mentioned at many campgrounds and sent email suggestions to several states, is if you have all reservations and (of course) no shows and cancellations are leaving empty sites, then you need to have a wait list so you can contact campers to fill the those occasions. Every one of them said that would not do that. Maybe it has to do with the contract reservation companies they all use now, but to not have wait lists is, IMO, just plain silly and dumb.

[Belzar]

I've seen on-site self-service reservation systems where some sites are reserved for same-day reservations. If a walk-up registers an available site at the self-service machine, the online reservation
system is updated in real time so "travellers" can see if any same-day sites are still available.

[Winston]

Wow, what a difference a "site" makes. Now to explain.

We're a member of just a couple of Forums, this one and the PromasterForum. Somewhere along the line, we joined a third forum, IRV2.com. We elected to post our 'protest' on all three forums.

As our computer was 'still open' on the IRV2 forum, we started our review of comments and responses there. If we didn't have 'thick skin', we'd be in tears now. Only hours after posting, there were already 28 responses - - virtually every one hostile. One commentator, noting that today's post was only our 2nd, felt that we did not have the right "to complain" on their "National Forum" that, in his paraphrase, "other campers are getting the spots" that we wanted. Fully a third of the responders criticized our letter as being too long (actually, we carefully trimmed it to be no more than two pages) with at least one saying he didn't even read it and all suggesting that campground administrators were probably laughing as they threw the unread letters in the trash.

Numerous others accused us of being 'anti-competitive', that it was a "bad business practice" to hold-back any sites from reservations. That we were being unreasonable and selfish was at least implied by many of the responders.

We were, therefore, apprehensive of visiting the second of the forums to which we'd posted our "complaint", this Forum. What a pleasant surprise. No, we probably haven't recruited many ardent followers to our proposed "army", but the responses have been civil, even-handed and thoughtful.

Maybe, like people, forums have personalities. And maybe, subconsciously, we sensed the aggressive personality of the IRV2 forum in our first visit there and this is why our total posts thereto now number just 2.

We hope this 'debate' hasn't ended. We're looking forward to other additions to the thread.

In the meantime, yes RowieBowie, we, too, stumbled across Goosenecks State Park and were similarly awed - - it's an example of the kind of experience we would likely have missed had we been on a rigid schedule.

[rowiebowie]

I have left forums before where the daily sport was to invicerate opinions other than theirs. Just opinions, not even facts.

Facts can be wrong (which is certainly a different matter). But in my view, someone's opinion cannot be wrong, it is simply their thoughts on the matter. But same make it their responsibility to try and make it wrong.

[Snowy]

What is the agenda of the people making the policy? If their goal is to get maximum occupancy, then your argument should address how your proposal will maximize occupancy. Alternatively, if their agenda is not served by your proposal, it is a lost cause.

[booster]

Originally Posted by rowiebowie

I have left forums before where the daily sport was to invicerate opinions other than theirs. Just opinions, not even facts.

Facts can be wrong (which is certainly a different matter). But in my view, someone's opinion cannot be wrong, it is simply their thoughts on the matter. But same make it their responsibility to try and make it wrong.

Every forum develops it's own personality, some good, some not so good, just like people. Without what sometimes feels like heavy handed moderation, the trolls and antagonists seem to quickly turn many forums into "mean girls" cliques or ones that feel obligated to disagree with everything anybody says and then escalate it to a major confrontation. RV.net used to be a very popular B site, but a few confrontation types pretty much drove everyone away and it is now a ghost town.


The idea of if facts and opinions can be wrong or right will be discussed by researchers and great thinkers forever, I think. It probably will never be finally settled because you have to use the two items you are settling to determine the settlement....

[Davydd]

Arizona state parks allow overflow camping in their parking lots and if a site opens up you can get in. Of course it is dry camping or boondocking, but at least you are in the park and can stay. That's one reason I designed our van to be totally self sufficient and never needing hookups. Most campsites are not very desirable anyway as they are just parking lots. If you have ever been to Alaska most all are just parking lots with hookups.

One good thing about Class B campervans are they can be way more flexible than other RVs and you can camp overnight in more places that Class As, trailers, etc. would not think of including real camp sites like Natural Bridges National Monument in Utah that has a true 25 foot limit for RVs including the tow vehicle for trailers.

I also find BLM lands out west, Corp of Engineers campgrounds, national forest and other sites tend to be easier to get into. I'm not adverse to the Walmart, Cabelas, Cracker Barrel parking lot routine in a pinch or through traveling and I welcome the Harvest Host idea. I parked in a deadend alley in Newport, RI and a couple of restaurants with permission of the owners. I have street and driveway boondocked at several friends and relatives homes.

There is no such thing as truly stealth but I think on first look I will have the look of a passenger van. More importantly, I have designed a van without inside conversion to stay up or to sleep. I can jump in the driver's seat and go if I have to.

It is what it is for campgrounds. They are not building many sites to keep up with the demand. When I first got into campervans just a short 16 years ago there was no thought of reservations and of course no smartphone app to look up campgrounds or maps. Plan ahead was a AAA Triptic not Google maps. You were dependent on a paper book and map. Times have changed.

[jrobe]

I remember a popular National Park campground last summer that was all first come, first serve. There was a long line of campers at the entrance at least a quarter mile long when I hiked past at 6:00 AM waiting for someone to check out. One guy told me he got in line at 3:00 AM and still probably had no chance. That was a fun vacation day for all of them. If I was running that park I would immediately switch it to the reservation system and eliminate that circus.

[pnwkayaker]

Originally Posted by Davydd

That's one reason I designed our van to be totally self sufficient and never needing hookups. Most campsites are not very desirable anyway as they are just parking lots. If you have ever been to Alaska most all are just parking lots with hookups.

Hey David, I've been looking at the pics of your next van ("Mies") since it has a very interesting layout (hope that you'll post pics of the completed van soon), and your comment piqued my attention: does that mean you're going with a cassette toilet instead of a black tank?

[Davydd]

Originally Posted by pnwkayaker

Hey David, I've been looking at the pics of your next van ("Mies") since it has a very interesting layout (hope that you'll post pics of the completed van soon), and your comment piqued my attention: does that mean you're going with a cassette toilet instead of a black tank?

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...