Interesting Michigan reservation policy

[booster]

I have never been a fan of the newer reservation policies that allow 6-12 month reservations ahead of time for most or all of the sites in the nicest parks as it makes it tough on a large section of campers that don't have the option to reserve that far ahead. Those with funds to tie up and the willingness to absorb cancellation fees reserve up everything months ahead and then cancel when close to the times if they don't want to go.


Many people have complained here in Minnesota as your only hope is to constantly watch for a late cancellation as there is no wait list.


Michigan seems to have the same issues and is trying to address them by having a progressively higher cancellation fee the further before the reservation use time that you make that reservation. Very interesting idea, I think, and I hope more areas take notice and follow.


Here is the schedule they use for cancellations.

[rowiebowie]

You raise an issue that irks me to no end. We travel in off-season and routinely stay in half-empty parks that are "Full". I guess state and national parks are "fat & happy" to have all their sites paid for. Yet it is counter-productive to camping to have 1/3 to 1/2 the slots go unused.

I would rather all campgrounds be "first-come/first-served" than the way things are now. Realistically however, making the changes mentioned are a good first step.

[booster]

Originally Posted by rowiebowie

You raise an issue that irks me to no end. We travel in off-season and routinely stay in half-empty parks that are "Full". I guess state and national parks are "fat & happy" to have all their sites paid for. Yet it is counter-productive to camping to have 1/3 to 1/2 the slots go unused.

I would rather all campgrounds be "first-come/first-served" than the way things are now. Realistically however, making the changes mentioned are a good first step.

Yep, and sometimes I think they don't even get any money off the empty sites because reservations can be cancelled up to as close to 24 hours before arrival many places. People cancel at the last minute and nobody knows the site is available. Some places charge one nights stay and a cancellation fee, and will leave it empty that night, but the next night and on it would be unpaid if nobody happens to find it available.


In the big picture of people that have big recreation budgets, you could make 20 reservations for the one of the most desirable sites in the most popular and sold out parks and have one available every weekend or week of the summer. If there is a $10 cancellation fee, and maybe $30 first night, the most you would lose would be $40 a week. Most of us would find that preventative, but it appears that lots of people don't.


As you said, the Michigan idea is decent start to address it, and I think some places have started to hold some of the sites open and then release them at 3 weeks prior, 2 weeks prior, 1 week prior, or such and that would also give those who can't schedule time off way ahead at least a chance of getting in.


When Minnesota put in the new system a number of years ago, I got in huge email exchange with the second in charge at the state parks department of the DNR. I told him that lots of residents whose taxes are paying for the parks will not be able to camp at them, particularly on the North Shore of Lake Superior, Itaska, etc. He insisted there will always be some opening left for drive ups or late reservations. Of course he was wrong. I made a point of sending him the booked up reservation calendar screens from their reservation website, for all the North Shore campgrounds, every week for an entire summer to prove the point, which he really didn't like.


They really do need to do something about it all if they really want the parks to be for all the citizens and not just those with lots of resources and extra time. But, I really wonder if the just want easy and profitable and don't care much at all.

[rowiebowie]

We've gotten into several state and nat'l parks by seeking out the Park Hosts (who are often more knowledgeble, more friendly, and more helpful than paid park staff). Sometimes they'd say the paid staff didn't know what was available, sometimes, they'd say they hold one or two sites in case of electrical or water problems, and sometimes they'd say nothing at all. But they'd mostly still get us into a site.

In Texas State Parks (with whom I'm most familiar), the paid staff are supposed to be on duty from 8:00am - 4:45pm 365 days a year. We'd often pull in without reservations at various times before 4:45 and the offices are closed. Thank goodness for Park Hosts.

On very rare occassions when we'd get in late and were too tired or bad weather prevented us from going on, we'd take a "Reserved" space and try to pay on our way out the next morning. Sometimes they'd have to back-date our stay in order to find an open date to apply the payment to.

In the above rare instances, we were never kicked out of a slot during the night by a late-arriving reserved guest, but again, there were many empty park sites available to move to. I don't recommend this, but it can be done.

[Jon in AZ]

First-come, first-served would pretty much make public parks more than a couple of hours away inaccessible for those of us with full work-school schedules and very limited vacation time. Traveling with kids and not knowing whether you will have a place to camp is a non-starter for me at least. I do favor leaving a portion available on a first-come, first served basis.

However, I agree abuse of the reservation system is widespread and also excludes people from equitable access to a public resource. Michigan's policy may help a little, and I support it. We've occasionally benefited from cancellations, and encouraging people not to hold reservations until the last minute is good.

I'd also like to see systems that block people from making multiple reservations for the same night, limit the total number of nights you can book in a year, and identify and "blacklist" people for repeated no-shows and last minute cancellations. Money alone will not deter everyone.

The larger problem is increasing demand and limited supply. Anybody live in a state with new or significantly expanded state park campgrounds in the last 5 years?

[rowiebowie]

Originally Posted by Jon in AZ

The larger problem is increasing demand and limited supply. Anybody live in a state with new or significantly expanded state park campgrounds in the last 5 years?

A good point. With the continually increasing volume of campers, the parks have not kept pace with new sites. I know there is an intitial investment, but I would appreciate even primitive sites without ammenities which would cost little to add.

At Kartchner Caverns State Park in AZ, they allow overflow to stay in the Caverns parking lot. Even that is much appreciated.

[booster]

The part of all this that has baffled me since the beginnings is if they are counting on cancellations and basing the number of drive ups on that (if they even have drive ups), why is there not a wait list for those that won't reserve long ahead of time. Maybe make the wait list max of two weeks before reservation time or such to limit the same reserve, or wait list in this case, lots of stuff with no intentions of using them all.


A properly designed wait list system could help equalize park use disparities a lot, I think, including the folks, as mentioned by Jon, that are not able to do drive up for whatever reasons.

[Davydd]

The last time we camped was in Banning State Park in Minnesota a couple of weeks ago. We snagged two nights in the middle of the week, the only two nights in the park so the reservation system said. In just our limited view of 5 sites, three sites were empty one night.

In July we camped at Winnie Dam on lake Winnibigoshish, a federal campground of I think 22 sites. When we made the reservations there was only one site available yet quite a few sites were unoccupied. The reservation system sucks.

Tomorrow we are going up to Trails End CG, a federal forest CG, on the dead end 60 mile Gunflint Trail and camping on a lake which is part of the BWCAW. That's about as remote as we can get. I bet there are several empty sites that the reservation system says were full. No electrical and it is turning cold for the first time this season.

[rowiebowie]

My Wife just told me the parks should do what Hotels have done forever. You lose your spot by a given time (6pm or so) unless you've paid for "late arrival" which should include a much stricter no refund clause.

[ikanode]

I can't plan a 6 week cross country trip visiting specific festivals, friends and family, without a 12 month reservation window.

Michigan's cancellation policy is half a solution. The other half is to also reduce the refund by how much notice is given. Here's one campgrounds policy (it's for a festival so it's too harsh for most campgrounds). I'd make the minimum period to give notice and get a refund as one week.

5-6 Months from Arrival: 80% Refund
4-5 Months from Arrival: 70% Refund
3-4 Months from Arrival: 60% Refund
2-3 Months from Arrival: 50% Refund
1-2 Months from Arrival: 30% Refund
<1 Month from Arrival: No refund

I like the idea of a blacklist for too many last minute cancelations but don't see how it could work with different reservation systems. And leeway for provable good excuses.

I'd have two black marks because we once had to bypass two reservations to outrun a wind storm that impacted the southwest from TX to CA. One was at 10am the day of, the other for the next night. We drove for 24 hours stopping for naps at rest areas.

[booster]

Originally Posted by ikanode

I can't plan a 6 week cross country trip visiting specific festivals, friends and family, without a 12 month reservation window.

Michigan's cancellation policy is half a solution. The other half is to also reduce the refund by how much notice is given. Here's one campgrounds policy (it's for a festival so it's too harsh for most campgrounds). I'd make the minimum period to give notice and get a refund as one week.

5-6 Months from Arrival: 80% Refund
4-5 Months from Arrival: 70% Refund
3-4 Months from Arrival: 60% Refund
2-3 Months from Arrival: 50% Refund
1-2 Months from Arrival: 30% Refund
<1 Month from Arrival: No refund

I like the idea of a blacklist for too many last minute cancelations but don't see how it could work with different reservation systems. And leeway for provable good excuses.

I'd have two black marks because we once had to bypass two reservations to outrun a wind storm that impacted the southwest from TX to CA. One was at 10am the day of, the other for the next night. We drove for 24 hours stopping for naps at rest areas.

Michigan's policy does reduce the amount refunded by how much notice is given, unless I read it wrong? What would you change in it?

[ikanode]

Originally Posted by booster

Michigan's policy does reduce the amount refunded by how much notice is given, unless I read it wrong? What would you change in it?

It's confusing, but to me the penalty is only based on how long the reservation was held and not how much notice was given.

In any case, we seem to agree that the penalty should take it account both factors. How early it was made and how late it was canceled.

[booster]

Originally Posted by ikanode

It's confusing, but to me the penalty is only based on how long the reservation was held and not how much notice was given.

In any case, we seem to agree that the penalty should take it account both factors. How early it was made and how late it was canceled.

I think they are trying to protect those that didn't speculate with intent to cancel vs those that did speculate. If someone makes a reservation 5 days ahead and has to cancel it is highly likely not a speculation thing, but if someone holds a reservation for 6 months and then cancels with a couple day before it is pretty different, I think, so they shouldn't both lose most of the refund. Perhaps a ratio of length of time since reserved vs time before it is for would work, but I think it would get complex pretty quickly. The Michigan policy seems to be very directly targeting a specific behavior, I think.

[Winston]

Originally Posted by Jon in AZ

First-come, first-served would pretty much make public parks more than a couple of hours away inaccessible for those of us with full work-school schedules and very limited vacation time. Traveling with kids and not knowing whether you will have a place to camp is a non-starter for me at least. I do favor leaving a portion available on a first-come, first served basis.

. . . and identify and "blacklist" people for repeated no-shows and last minute cancellations. Money alone will not deter everyone . . .

The larger problem is increasing demand and limited supply . . .

Jon, we’ve often pondered those uncertainties and difficulties facing working families in the years before campground reservations. Maybe there was less demand with a corresponding increased likelihood of finding a site upon arrival? But we suspect there are many like yourself who chose not to gamble and, for them, it, too, was a “non-starter”. You were, in essence, being locked out of these more distant campgrounds.

Obviously reservations are a huge boon to the class of campers, including the working family, that can plan their vacations months or even a year in advance. Because of these huge benefits, we strongly support the reservation system.

But one solution does not fit all.

There are host of legitimate reasons why some do not have the luxury of advance planning and, in addition, there are people such as ourselves who, after years of being tied to a rigid work/life schedule, are finally ‘released’ - - free to roam and wander, to discover America on our own unique terms. It is not reasonable to require this class of traveler to plan the remainder of their lives with the exact ‘day and place precision’ required by the Reservation System. The Reservation System has ‘altered the balance’ for campground access. At least, in the past, all ‘had a chance’ of obtaining a campsite. Today, the itinerant traveler is effectively ‘locked-out’ from an increasing set of the best campgrounds. Here’s a personal anecdote from Texas to illustrate.

As an itinerant traveler - - and one aware that weekend demand can easily overwhelm availability - - we deliberately arrived at one of the many fine Texas State Parks late Thursday afternoon: “Sure,” the attendant responded, “we have lots of sites.” And naively applying the principles of ‘first come, first served’, we continued: “we’ll be here until Sunday.” “NO YOU WON’T,” came the attendant’s instantaneous retort, “we’re completely booked tomorrow and Saturday.”

After a few additional exchanges, we asked the attendant, “we’re from Michigan visiting Texas, what do you suggest we do for tomorrow?” The attendant reflected on our question, then - - these were the exact words - - "maybe you should go home!”

So in Texas, and, now, in many other full Reservation jurisdictions, you are welcome to visit - - but only during the week.

And, indeed, many of the comments made in this thread evidence a willingness to camp ‘mid-week’ or scour the reservation books for that often rare day or two opening. While these solutions may represent an acceptable solution for those, ensconced at home, who are looking for a short camping stint nearby, they leave long distant, longer duration travelers with an increasingly smaller set of options.

Jon, we’re happy that you appreciate that ‘one solution does not fit all’ and that you understand the roll of first come, first served. It is such an obvious solution - - divide all campgrounds into two parts: Reservation and First Come, First Served - - something for everyone, without disadvantaging any traveler class.

And, yes Jon, you are so correct - - especially obvious in this (first?) year of covid - - ever increasing demand against a more or less fixed supply is exacerbating the problem. We see evidence of some new campgrounds being built, but the reality is, we can’t build another Grand Canyon or Yosemite. We’re going to have to live with the scarce set of resources that currently exist. And State and Federal administrators, as stewards of these scarce resources, should be doing everything they can to maximize utilization efficiency, not tolerate policies that assure that a percentage of our limited natural resources shall lay fallow every day.

To this end, we’re suggesting a change of ‘mindset’. Make the Reservation System a PRIVILEGE not a RIGHT. Take MONEY out of the equation to the extent that, as so many campground administrators have said to us, “they paid for it, there’s nothing we can do.” In essence, what these administrators are saying is, “if you pay for it, you can waste it.”

Incredibly many campgrounds will protect a reservation for the total duration of the reservation even though the site has remained vacant for days. This happened in Big Bend National Park where we finally poached a site that had three days remaining of an unused 7 day reservation. Similarly, this summer we fought with the Idaho State Parks “FULL” campground administration only to discover that they were refusing to ‘re-let’ a site that had been vacant for 5 days due to the fact that, as they put it, “the reservation holder had paid for it and could still show up.” Even that Michigan ‘anti-abuse’ policy ‘saves’ (wastes) reservations for two days.

And, finally, even the ‘most attentive’ campground/park administrators will allow sites to remain vacant the first night. The bottom line is that Reservation campgrounds ALWAYS have wasted sites.

We agree with the poster who suggests that sites get released on the first day of the reservation if not occupied by 6pm (or 4 or 8pm?) unless a “late arrival” fee is paid. But noting that money means nothing to many, maybe we could require campers who know they will arrive late, to reconfirm on the day of their scheduled arrival. How many campers can’t find a phone or internet connection sometime during the day of their late arrival to confirm?

Most of this country’s reservations are handled through ReserveAmerica or Recreation.gov. It seems that the ‘blacklist’ concept has merit. If you abuse your reservation privilege, that privilege will be suspended. And while we can envision a flurry of ‘work-arounds’ (the simplest being to reserve in someone else’s name), the mere ‘publishing’ of an anti-abuse policy with the threat of enforcement could be an important first step.


We invite concurring members of this Forum to join us in a campaign, at the very least, of returning a portion of our campgrounds to first come, first served status. To this end, we’re preparing a letter which we hope to send to as many state and federal officials as we can identify. So if you’re not inclined to become a letter-writer, but have name, rank and address of appropriate administrators and officials, please forward and we’ll pop for the postage to get more visibility to this dialog.

[booster]

Well said, Winston, but I wouldn't hold my breath on being able to influence much, based on my experience here in Minnesota. I hope I am wrong, though.



When they were announcing and implementing the system here, I contacted everyone at the DMV that I could, state representative and senator for our district, the governor and lt governor. All I got were platitudes and assurances it would be great for all, with plenty of non reserved sites available in all the parks, including the popular ones. The all were totally wrong as was incredibly obvious to anyone who had dealt with any other state's similar policies.



They do seem to be getting more complaints and doing some minor things, but nothing really significant. Hopefully, you are correct and we can influence things, but we will see. Never hurts to try, though.


We just made reservations for a June trip to Custer State Park in SD, but we have no idea of the virus will be handled by then or if something else comes up like ????? It pains me to even do it that way, but the campgrounds there are already getting all the nice sites reserved, and this is in one of the less busy campgrounds. They just switched from doing an all sites for Custer open for reservation on January 1, to a rolling 12 month ahead program, which we didn't know until I saw it on an email from them. We were lucky to get one of our favorite sites even this far ahead of time. The campground we reserved in has one site marked for "local sale only" and it is commonly referred to as the "beg and whine" site by the employees as it is usually saved for those that come in very late with no reservation or place to go, so not a true drive up.

[Jon in AZ]

I’ve thought about the blacklisting. Certainly people will try to reserve in someone else’s name. But in California at least, they check ID and plate number when you check in.

Like Booster, I’m not holding my breath. Park administrators, already budget-strapped, probably prefer some unused sites every night for labor and utility savings.

And yes, when I was a youth, my family traveled all over the country, largely without reservations. They were not even an option for many state and national
parks in the 70’s. There were a few places where we reserved spots in a private campground due to heavy demand during peak season- Florida during spring break and Acadia National Park in summer. In transit we carried a Woodall’s .

The world has changed.

[ikanode]

Parks that hold a reservation past the first night are dumb! The exception would be if they're contacted to explain the arrival delay. e.g., Equipment breakdown, etc.

With demand so much greater than the supply, I doubt that keeping some unreserved spots would help much.

Seems like there are two problems: people not showing up after making reservations, and not enough camping spots.

[rowiebowie]

Winston - Many good observations. And I appologize for the snarky Park employee on behalf of the state of Texas, but unfortunately, I'm not surprised. My best advice is to always seek out the Park Host. They are rv'ers like us and I've never had a bad experience with them. Plus, they've more often than not gotten us into a spot. (And don't be above showing them the sad puppy eyes.)

I agree reservations have completly skewed the camping sceen to the point of crushing the gypsy traveler. If the unused "Reserved" spots were only 5-10% , I might say ok. But with my limited observations (albeit mostly off-season), the empty camp sites are usually 33% on average. Always above 10% and sometimes close to 50% even when all sites are tagged as "Reserved".

I suggest we keep a statistic & picture diary of parks & dates, them present them to our Park Administrators & elected officials. If nothing else, it may alert them to the fact that all existing parks sites are fully paid for and spur them to add more sites. At least I can dream.

[rowiebowie]

Winston - Many good observations. And I appologize for the snarky Park employee on behalf of the state of Texas, but unfortunately, I'm not surprised. My best advice is to always seek out the Park Host. They are rv'ers like us and I've never had a bad experience with them. Plus, they've more often than not gotten us into a spot. (And don't be above showing them the sad puppy eyes.)

I agree reservations have completly skewed the camping sceen to the point of crushing the gypsy traveler. If the unused "Reserved" spots were only 5-10% , I might say ok. But with my limited observations (albeit mostly off-season), the empty camp sites are usually 33% on average. Always above 10% and sometimes close to 50%, even though all are tagged as "Reserved".

I suggest we keep a statistic & picture diary of parks & dates, them present them to our Park Administrators & elected officials. If nothing else, it may alert them to the fact that all existing parks sites are fully paid for and spur them to add more sites. I'm not about to suggest they care about us, but they do care about money.

[Belzar]

Things could be managed much better but there is no funding for systems or staffing. In many places, each morning a ranger would verify the day's reservations, remove tags from unoccupied sites etc. so that walk-up sites were available. Now, its often unstaffed self-serve and computer reservations - often can't tell if sites are booked or, unless have cell service, even book an empty one. Sites then remain unused and wasted. Very few new public parks and campgrounds are being funded and developed. Rustic/boondocking areas are being closed due to lack of staff to monitor/clean/remediate usage. What's likely in the future is what we usually do in this country - ration by price. (Imagine what a prime Yosemite campground could bring to a federal concessionaire if they use a demand-pricing or auction model.) Rationing by price is essentially happening already for those who can afford to "game" the reservation systems.