Ram Promaster Forum banner

Impromptu Campers Not Welcome

15K views 116 replies 41 participants last post by  Sather 
#1 Ā·
We arrived late on Thursday (but early enough to avoid the weekend crowd) at one of the Texas State Park campgrounds. ā€œYes,ā€ we were informed, ā€œwe have plenty of campsites.ā€ ā€œGood,ā€ we responded, weā€™ll be here until Sunday.ā€

By this time we werenā€™t really surprised by the state park employeeā€™s response: ā€œNo you wonā€™t, I said we had plenty of sites for tonight, but weā€™re completely booked for tomorrow and Saturday.ā€

What we didnā€™t expect was this officialā€™s response to our next question: ā€œWeā€™re from Michigan, what do you suggest we do for tomorrow and Saturday?ā€. After a moment of reflection, she calmly suggested: ā€œPerhaps, sir, you should return home!ā€

Weā€™ve written of the plight of the Impromptu Camper in this Forum before. Replies have been varied - - from acknowledgment and sympathy to ā€œitā€™s not really a problemā€ - - with a myriad of solutions of varying efficacy offered.

But it is a problem. The ā€œreservations-onlyā€ 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 ā€˜pre-Memorial/post-Labor Dayā€™ 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 ā€˜in chargeā€™. 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 ā€˜on-line reservation modelā€™ for allocating public campground spaces has unintentionally altered the balance between contending ā€˜user classesā€™ 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 ā€˜altered balanceā€™ 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 ā€˜lock-inā€™ a campsite is a huge advancement that the reservation system makes possible. However, lost in the associated ā€˜rush to reservationsā€™ 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 donā€™t have the option to ā€˜forecastā€™ 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 ā€˜camp-as-camp canā€™ approach.

Further, there is the significant group - - often retired seniors - - who have finally ā€˜earned their freedomā€™. 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 ā€˜day and placeā€™ precision required by a 100% reservation system.

The Past and Continuing Role of ā€˜First-Come, First-Servedā€™

Prior to ā€˜reservationsā€™, most campground ā€˜slotsā€™ were allocated on a ā€˜first-come, first-servedā€™ basis. No question that the ā€˜first-come, first-servedā€™ 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 ā€˜first-come, first-servedā€™ 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 arenā€™t enough sites to meet demand. Yet it is in this context that ā€˜first-come, first-servedā€™ intervenes to protect and offer the Impromptu Traveler a chance to compete for a campsite.

ā€˜First-come, first-servedā€™ operates on the principle that once a camper has found an available site, that site ā€˜belongsā€™ 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 ā€œits mineā€ feature of ā€˜first-come, first-servedā€™ by arriving early (e.g. Thursday) to secure a site on which they may remain Friday and Saturday. Today, a review of the ā€˜reservation bookā€™ of ā€˜reservation-onlyā€™ campgrounds reveals that virtually all Friday/Saturday slots are taken months in advance. Without ā€˜first-come, first-servedā€™, 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 ā€œfullā€ (100%) reservation system, are now effectively excluded.

An obvious and straight forward solution would be to return a percentage of the available campsites ā€˜to first-come, first-servedā€™ status (a compromise under which many campgrounds successfully operate). Our suggestion would be to designate 25% as ā€˜first-come, first-servedā€™ with, hopefully, these sites representing a fair cross-section of the campgroundā€™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 ā€˜encouragingā€™ to ā€œtoo bad, so sadā€. 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 ā€œtoo bad, so sadā€ 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.
 
See less See more
#3 Ā·
Yeah, me too.

@Winston - "...to raise a small army of similarly opinioned souls to join our ranks."

Sounds good but it appears the main issue is the already incredibly LARGE army of weekend warriors, along with the increasingly HUMONGOUS army of new campers hitting the road. Federal and state agencies are unlikely to increase capacity as they are already slammed with everything overcrowding brings, along with the mountains of trash left by the current super-glut of campers.

What's probably needed is a BIG (way BIGGER than we likely imagine) increase of 'reasonably-priced' private campgrounds popping up everywhere. With the sue-happy nature of the general public the insurance cost alone will likely nip that in the bud and we might even expect to see a decrease in such enjoyable spots currently dotting the landscape. Didn't want to do it but I see I'm going to have to install at least a basic electrical system to facilitate boondocking, although even those spots are often already taken in most areas (where there is no open federal land) and parking behind Cracker Barrel or in truck stops and other parking lots, can only convey a limited feeling of adventure.
 
#4 Ā·
What really sucks is that many of these sites are "reserved" by scalpers, and WON'T be occupied - if the scalper cannot resell the site, they will cancel the reservation at the last minute (or just eat the cost - they make enough that they can afford the occasional loss).
IMHO what can be done to help this is:
1) don't put all the sites up at 00:00 hours each day - stagger the ability to reserve them, preferably with a bit of randomness so the scalpers cannot as easily snipe them all.
2) Take 2x the cost of the site, and place that as a reservation on the credit card booking the site. IF the camper shows up at the site, refund the excess. If they don't show up, they lose it all. Again, this will discourage the scalpers by making it harder for them to make money.
3) Have a cancellation fee for cancellations within 48 hours of the event, and no refunds for 24 hours. Again, make it harder for the scalpers to make money.
 
#6 Ā·
Well written, Winston! By way of comparison, many of BC's provincial and national park campgrounds have been reservable for years during the summer (mid-May thru Labour Day). But since COVID made everyone and their dog camping crazy, sites are now booked solid months in advance. Many of the popular campgrounds are now 100% reservable and 100% booked. Others have retained a few first-come sites. Many also assist drop-ins by posting daily lists at the gate of available sites, reflecting last-minute cancellations, etc.

@h1k3rb, besides state and national parks, don't forget camping options that may be under the radar of COVID-crazed novice campers. For instance, USFS/BLM/WMA, city/county, public utilities, HarvestHosts, BoondockersWelcome, etc.
 
#35 Ā·
Yes Well Written @Winston !!

As @SteveSS wrote, it has been this way in BC for as long as I can recall.

This is a major reason why we choose a DIY Camper Van over buying a travel trailer to tow behind our truck.

We love the flexibility that our ā€œImpromptu Travel Vanā€ brings us. As our preferred overnight stay would be at a beautiful State Campgrounds @ the drop of a hat without booking (ie just rolling up & taking an unoccupied spot), we have found this sometimes unrealistic. In those cases we are very thankful for our self-contained Travel Van & find a spot to overnight. We just consider this the reality of our choice to not pre-book everything & the cost of wandering.

We have started to take note of overnight spots we can take advantage of in our 21ā€™ long van.

Good Luck with your Endeavor !!
 
#7 Ā·
@SteveSS - Good point. Yes, have stayed at many forest service and other sites and most are really nice, aside from some of those with 'less-serviced' pit toilets. ;-) Like KOV, I never reserve a site (as my plans often change along the way) but have had to register online (even while standing in the campground) since all US federal campgrounds (Forest Service, BLM, Corps of Engineers, etc) , even those WAY off the beaten path only accept online registration now. Even if there's a camp host on site they've actually removed their capability to register campers! Have been caught in the middle of nowhere without a signal (or a host) at one of these and since I didn't know which sites were already reserved I moved on.

Overall, with my largely 'un-built van' I have a loosely enforced 3-day limit on "boondocking" with no showers, toilet, etc but given the current situation I'm beginning to see a need for adding house power to possibly extend that indefinitely.
 
#9 Ā·
Winston,

Glad to hear you and VJ are well and out enjoying your Promaster.

I appreciate your concern about a lack of 'non reserveable campsites' when trying find a place for the night. And although you have written a thoughtful and polite letter expressing you're problem with 100 percent reservations, I think you're missing the point.

State and Federal campgrounds aren't trying to punish impromptu travelers, but faced with increased pressure on fixed or shrinking budgets, they're just trying to maximize utilization of their resources.

If, as you suggested, they set aside a percentage of sites that can't be reserved, how many of those sites would ever be rented? How many people trying to make a reservation would be turned down when the reserveable sites were taken and how many would risk driving several hundreds of miles on the chance that one of the non reserveable sites would still be free?

I would guess the percentage of sites set aside actually utilized over a year would be very small. Essentially a campground would have to raise it's fees by the same percentage as the the number of sites set aside to make up the lost revenue. Thus penalizing an entire class of users to benefit a small number of wanderers.

You might consider making a small change to your approach. First, I think you'd have better luck at Federal campgrounds. State parks cater to state residents especially local state residents who live close by and use the park as an extension of their personal living space on weekends. They're not particularly interested in the plight of 'foreigners'. Especially if our experience at the state park in Holland, MI is indicative of how out of state campers are valued.

At least federal campgrounds consider all citizens as their constituents. (Although I have seen locally residing federal campground hosts treat their friends and neighbors as VIPs.) And while many Federal campgrounds are very nice and well appointed, many are located out of the way for the local weekenders and don't always have all the amenities that the locals on a schedule are looking for. Especially our favorites, National Forest campgrounds.

Personally, we try to wander Sunday through Wednesday and as we approach the busy weekend we look for a place to make a reservation online where we either rest and recover or take day trips to explore the surrounding area and return to our 'reserved' site Thursday, Friday and Saturday night. Then we're ready to start wandering again Sunday morning.

Good luck in your fight against the establishment and happy wandering,

Tom and Charlotte
 
#10 Ā·
I appreciate your concern about a lack of 'non reserveable campsites' when trying find a place for the night. And although you have written a thoughtful and polite letter expressing you're problem with 100 percent reservations, I think you're missing the point . . .

State and Federal campgrounds aren't trying to punish impromptu travelers, but faced with increased pressure on fixed or shrinking budgets, they're just trying to maximize utilization of their resources . . .

If, as you suggested, they set aside a percentage of sites that can't be reserved, how many of those sites would ever be rented? . . .

You might consider making a small change to your approach. First, I think you'd have better luck at Federal campgrounds. State parks cater to state residents especially local state residents who live close by and use the park as an extension of their personal living space on weekends. They're not particularly interested in the plight of 'foreigners'. Especially if our experience at the state park in Holland, MI is indicative of how out of state campers are valued.

Personally, we try to wander Sunday through Wednesday and as we approach the busy weekend we look for a place to make a reservation online . . .
Tom and Charlotte,

Nice to hear from you two, too. We recently discussed the fact that we hadn't spoken or seen you guys in awhile and should contact you . . . expect a phone call.

Returning to the Impromptu Camper problem, we don't disagree with several of your points except for the financial consequences of removing sites from the reservation system.

First, we are not talking about commercial campgrounds whose principal 'raison d'exister' is the 'making of a profit' - - we're discussing our limited state and national treasures - - as Ken Burns called them: "America's Greatest Idea". And, as stewards of these "Great Ideas", we think our federal and state conservators must look beyond "profits", even 'breaking-even' - - their goals should be to preserve and make these treasures available to all who seek them. If there is a financial burden in achieving such ends, then we must find a solution that does not exclude whole classes of users.

Yes, we have heard from many campground administrators that the reservation system has flattened and stabilized their revenue stream. As our letter hopefully makes clear, we're huge supporters of the reservation system - - our proposal would only 'disrupt' a quarter of the presumed guaranteed revenue stream. But our observations suggest that the actual disruption of revenue would be far smaller, indeed, maybe non-existent.

An example which we've seen play-out often was a recent visit to Dunewood - - a federal campsite in the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. We arrived one evening to be advised by the ranger that all sites were taken. This campground has two loops of equal size, one reservations only, the other, first-come, first served. The ranger further advised that the 'first-come, first-served' sites had been fully occupied since early afternoon with dozens of would-be campers such as ourselves arriving thereafter looking for available sites. He noted that the demand exceeded the availability and that the first-come, first-served campground rarely had unoccupied sites. So where, really, is the loss of revenue?

As an interesting aside, we drove through the reservation-only loop and, as is commonplace, found 5 unoccupied sites. The ranger would not "permit" us to occupy these sites as they had been paid-for, although by then, it was dark and getting late. After the ranger left, we occupied one of those sites and, in the morning, surveying the remaining other four - - we found all remained unoccupied. By the way, we attempted to pay as this campground had an automated kiosk for fee payment. "Unfortunately", the kiosk would not allow our payment as it, too, believed these sites were unavailable.

Your suggestion that we look for federal, as opposed to state, campgrounds is not without merit. But in our area and to the east the collection of federal sites is limited. But maybe it is you who have missed the point? There is a trend - - that trend is toward the "full-reservation" model. Yes, maybe today you can still find some federal facilities open to the last minute non-planner - - but what does the future portend? And maybe, more importantly, should those who cannot plan in advance, or who chose to roam and not plan - - should we be relegated to second-class citizen status? Should all of the really choice campgrounds be off-limits?

Why not, with a fractional return to the past, to allow all a chance at participation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Harberneiley
#99 Ā·
We are seeing that, Virginia is very short on parks, everyone is booked every weekend. They just open a new state park on the York River. You can not see the river or water at all, there are beaches and you are not allowed to walk or step on them. There is a pier to launch kayaks and that is the only access. Now the baths are great, no gender. lol. What happen was they use VMRC (Virginia Marine Resources Commission) who serve as stewards of the Commonwealth's marine and aquatic resources, and protectors of its tidal waters. But here is no way to enjoy this beauty of a location.
 
#12 Ā·
Maybe the campground administrators and organizations don't view us impromptu campers as their constituents. I wonder if enough sent such letters to their legislators and executives, federal and state, this might put some pressure on the campground administrators from their bosses. OK probably not, but might be worth a try.
 
#13 Ā·
I think it is very worth while to write to legislators and ask for "more" camp sites to be installed.

More - meaning - ask for 10 x as many as now, and 2 x as large of camp sites. That "might" result in 2x or sites and slightly larger, but who knows - lots of money being throw around by government agencies.

If the actual number of accommodations increases by 10x, then the "reservations" vs "last minute" problem will be reduced anyway.

I will admit that I have had zero success in getting our state and federal representives to actually do anything useful but you might have more luck.

Keep in mind that the park services are being run by back packers, not van owners or 4wd off road jeep owners.

The paperwork and hearings costs more than actually building the sites.
___

Part of the "challenge" is that we are headed for ~ 20% of the US population either voluntarily or unvoluntarily living in vans or RVs.

Yes, that is my SWAG number but it is what I believe is happening, and this is not business as usual.
 
#15 Ā·
I partially agree with you and partially not.

A 159 size promaster plus stuff hanging off of it is a lot longer than the typical mini SUV or even dodge minivan that people drove to a tent camp ground in the past, so a longer parking space is very handy.

Van owners are mostly self contained - and yet it is quite handy to have a 120 vac plug to recharge when possible.

Van owners are mostly self contained bathroom wise - but a shower and normal bathroom is quite handy.

I do completely agree that vans / class B / C are not the same as class A RVs.

The thing that I really do like about the access to a 120 vac 30 amp service is that it makes it much less likely for people to turn on their generators.

It isn't all that expensive to run 30 amp / 120 vac service to a camp site, tent or small camper.


I don' t mind vans, class Bs and Cs around at all - with some distance for privacy.

Even class As don't bother me when I tent camp.

And I love air conditioning.

But I don't love generator noise and am very happy to trade a plug in hook up site to avoid it.
 
#16 Ā·
All camp grounds need to add 1000 more camp sites more roads more street lights this should be enough for a year or two unless your in Texas where they get snow birds that don't work and can show up at day break for a camp site. But Texans that have to work the daily grind don't have that option. They have to plan in advance and make a reservation. But if your smart without a reservation you would show up at the end of check-in time and maybe there will be a no show. I remember the 70's no reserve camping a bunch of drunken youth high on drugs roaming the camp grounds with no regard for rules man those were the days.
 
#27 Ā·
I agree that the population increase had impacted the availability of camp sites.

Yes, I remember the 60's and 70's campers. I also feel that even these drunk teens had greater concern for the site than most I have met in the past 20 years. The mere idea that a vehicle reaches some of the places I loved to visit on foot appalls me. The reduction in 'site' to see and increase in license plates to see is depressing.

However, relate to the proposal of expanding sites and roadways to them...
- How far from the main 'attraction' of a site is acceptable? With the wider roads and more sites this means less actual forest. If you are traveling to see a park, wouldn't it be nice not to need to pay for a shuttle to get to it after 'camping' in a site with nice wide roadways?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Harberneiley
#17 Ā·
Scalpers? good grief, right off the bat that crap needs to be stopped by the Parks themselves. I often wondered why high capacity campgrounds had multiple un-occupied campsites.

One of my favorite places to ride and motocamp is Moab. All the BLM campgrounds along the Colorado are/were first come first serve and even in Sept they are fully occupied fri/sat/sun. Being a hammock pitcher, I have shared tent sights with other riders out of necessity and it usually works out ok. But, the biggest problem is too many people and limited resources which is now exacerbated by the 'rona. The ripple effect from this is going to wreak havoc on the campgrounds for years to come. I'm not giving up my tricks, but you/we are all going to have to get very creative when it comes to finding a place to sleep while on the road.
 
#18 Ā· (Edited)
Oklahoma State University runs a campground with the policy "First Pay, First Get," that is worse and better than the other alternatives. I called on Thursday asking for a site Sunday night. To reserve, I would have to pay for Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, even though someone else occupied the site the first three nights. Instead, I showed up Sunday afternoon and got the best site in the park. I suspect scalping is not an issue.

kilwerbzz, the last thing I want to see in a campground is street lights. The only time I ever cover my windows is to protect from @#$&* lights.
 
#19 Ā·
We observe many reserved sites go unoccupied. It seems a policy of use it or loose it would help. Check in by 7 PM or something. The status quo leaves a public resource (campsite) wasted and unused while others are sent packing. To make matters worse, reserve America often charges to cancel. Only our government can so well engineer reverse incentives.
 
#20 Ā·
I have seen it in Texas where one comes in sets up a tent and some chairs thur or fri and then leave and then the whole family comes back for sat an sun. It's the only way to get a state park camp site. In TX spring break is staggered for the month so as not to over crowd the resorts but with 30 million people It just does not work and any thing close to a holiday for get it and a day off work is a holiday in TX. A lot of the swimming holes are now reservation only. Just too many people.
 
#23 Ā·
People are talking about "scalpers" in this thread -- from what I can tell, they don't exist. Campground reservations aren't like a ticket, where anyone holding the ticket can attend the event. Here's a pretty exhaustive list of policies and most of them are "no transfer".


Certainly there's no site like Stubhub that I could find to create a secondary market for campsite reservations. That's probably because the few campsite reservations I've made required my license plate and rig description, so any ranger paying attention can stop you from using a scalped site.

Anyway, I think it's important to talk about the real problems rather than imagined, and scalping, as far as I can tell, is an imagined problem. Completely reserved campgrounds is the real problem.

I think we underestimate the perceived value of having a reservation but not using it, or maybe just leaving the pad empty isn't much more expensive than calling to cancel. For example, Dunewood at Indiana Dunes is going to cost you $45 to ditch a reservation ($25 fee + $20 penalty) and $35 to call and cancel ($25 fee + $10 penalty).

I agree with the idea of making 25% of reservations same-day, but I would add that they should be reservable via an app or few park agencies will buy in on same-day reservations. Imagine the number of calls that they would field every day Or maybe 20% same week, 10% same day.

Finally, as with many other COVID-related things, I've pretty much come to accept that the long-term travel I'm planning to start in this Fall (rather than last Fall) is going to come with more planning and hassle finding campsites, and more boondocking on less desirable sites, due to the glut of new RVers on the road.
 
#24 Ā·
People are talking about "scalpers" in this thread -- from what I can tell, they don't exist. Campground reservations aren't like a ticket, where anyone holding the ticket can attend the event. Here's a pretty exhaustive list of policies and most of them are "no transfer".


Certainly there's no site like Stubhub that I could find to create a secondary market for campsite reservations. That's probably because the few campsite reservations I've made required my license plate and rig description, so any ranger paying attention can stop you from using a scalped site.

Anyway, I think it's important to talk about the real problems rather than imagined, and scalping, as far as I can tell, is an imagined problem. Completely reserved campgrounds is the real problem.

I think we underestimate the perceived value of having a reservation but not using it, or maybe just leaving the pad empty isn't much more expensive than calling to cancel. For example, Dunewood at Indiana Dunes is going to cost you $45 to ditch a reservation ($25 fee + $20 penalty) and $35 to call and cancel ($25 fee + $10 penalty).

I agree with the idea of making 25% of reservations same-day, but I would add that they should be reservable via an app or few park agencies will buy in on same-day reservations. Imagine the number of calls that they would field every day Or maybe 20% same week, 10% same day.

Finally, as with many other COVID-related things, I've pretty much come to accept that the long-term travel I'm planning to start in this Fall (rather than last Fall) is going to come with more planning and hassle finding campsites, and more boondocking on less desirable sites, due to the glut of new RVers on the road.
Old, looks like the Park Svs has addresses this particular problem:


New:

 
#25 Ā·
the issue from what I can tell:
-campsites are cheap, many people get the reservation and no big deal if they dont show, its less than $20 nite for most federal land campsites (FS, BLM, etc).

The cost to offer the "service", in this case a campsite to the public is much more than the price of the campsite reservation, this is so that camping can be accessible to as much as the public as possible. There absolutely needs to be a security deposit fee charged at time of making reservation and refunded when the reservation holder shows up for their reservation or cancels within specified time period.

One problem is that most federal lands campgrounds are run by a concessionaire (ie. thousand trails company here in CO). The concessionaire loves it if people pay and dont show, its less work for them and the same amount of money.
 
#33 Ā·
We arrived late on Thursday (but early enough to avoid the weekend crowd) at one of the Texas State Park campgrounds. ā€œYes,ā€ we were informed, ā€œwe have plenty of campsites.ā€ ā€œGood,ā€ we responded, weā€™ll be here until Sunday.ā€

By this time we werenā€™t really surprised by the state park employeeā€™s response: ā€œNo you wonā€™t, I said we had plenty of sites for tonight, but weā€™re completely booked for tomorrow and Saturday.ā€

What we didnā€™t expect was this officialā€™s response to our next question: ā€œWeā€™re from Michigan, what do you suggest we do for tomorrow and Saturday?ā€. After a moment of reflection, she calmly suggested: ā€œPerhaps, sir, you should return home!ā€

Weā€™ve written of the plight of the Impromptu Camper in this Forum before. Replies have been varied - - from acknowledgment and sympathy to ā€œitā€™s not really a problemā€ - - with a myriad of solutions of varying efficacy offered.

But it is a problem. The ā€œreservations-onlyā€ 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 ā€˜pre-Memorial/post-Labor Dayā€™ 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 ā€˜in chargeā€™. 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 ā€˜on-line reservation modelā€™ for allocating public campground spaces has unintentionally altered the balance between contending ā€˜user classesā€™ 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 ā€˜altered balanceā€™ 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 ā€˜lock-inā€™ a campsite is a huge advancement that the reservation system makes possible. However, lost in the associated ā€˜rush to reservationsā€™ 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 donā€™t have the option to ā€˜forecastā€™ 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 ā€˜camp-as-camp canā€™ approach.

Further, there is the significant group - - often retired seniors - - who have finally ā€˜earned their freedomā€™. 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 ā€˜day and placeā€™ precision required by a 100% reservation system.

The Past and Continuing Role of ā€˜First-Come, First-Servedā€™

Prior to ā€˜reservationsā€™, most campground ā€˜slotsā€™ were allocated on a ā€˜first-come, first-servedā€™ basis. No question that the ā€˜first-come, first-servedā€™ 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 ā€˜first-come, first-servedā€™ 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 arenā€™t enough sites to meet demand. Yet it is in this context that ā€˜first-come, first-servedā€™ intervenes to protect and offer the Impromptu Traveler a chance to compete for a campsite.

ā€˜First-come, first-servedā€™ operates on the principle that once a camper has found an available site, that site ā€˜belongsā€™ 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 ā€œits mineā€ feature of ā€˜first-come, first-servedā€™ by arriving early (e.g. Thursday) to secure a site on which they may remain Friday and Saturday. Today, a review of the ā€˜reservation bookā€™ of ā€˜reservation-onlyā€™ campgrounds reveals that virtually all Friday/Saturday slots are taken months in advance. Without ā€˜first-come, first-servedā€™, 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 ā€œfullā€ (100%) reservation system, are now effectively excluded.

An obvious and straight forward solution would be to return a percentage of the available campsites ā€˜to first-come, first-servedā€™ status (a compromise under which many campgrounds successfully operate). Our suggestion would be to designate 25% as ā€˜first-come, first-servedā€™ with, hopefully, these sites representing a fair cross-section of the campgroundā€™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 This problem is one of the reasons "boondocking" has become popular. Several free apps are very helpful.

We have received several responses ranging from ā€˜encouragingā€™ to ā€œtoo bad, so sadā€. 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 ā€œtoo bad, so sadā€ 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.
 
#34 Ā·
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.
Winston, I really like what youā€™re trying to accomplish, but think that questioning and/or criticizing the reservation system is unlikely to achieve the needed results.

Advocating for a solution based on setting aside a percentage of sites for ā€œimpromptuā€ use will likely be unsuccessful in my opinion. Itā€™s not that I disagree with you, but human nature being what it is, I expect decision makers will blow off your (our) request as self serving, and that it will reward those who donā€™t make an effort to plan ahead at the expense of those who do. I would make an effort to avoid ā€œus against themā€ arguments.

Perhaps a completely different and indirect approach requesting change that doesnā€™t involve the reservation system can be more successful longterm. It may take longer, but Iā€™d request change more likely to benefit wanderers without actually bringing up their specific needs. The ā€œreasonā€ for change/request would need to be more generic for it to get traction. Just my 2 cents.
 
#44 Ā·
Winston, I really like what youā€™re trying to accomplish, but think that questioning and/or criticizing the reservation system is unlikely to achieve the needed results . . .

Perhaps a completely different and indirect approach . . .
Chance, thanks for your comments. We circulated our draft letter to a number of acquaintances for their comments - - in the expectation of refining the 'logic' while avoiding potentially offensive phraseology - - prior to posting. That said, we're not sure how to respond to your suggestions . . . mostly because we're uncertain, in the absence of commenting on the reservation system, how such an argument would be structured.

We are, of course, hoping to inspire others - - such as yourself - - to pick up pen and add their comments and logic to the discussion at the park administrator level. Perhaps you have some more specific ideas?
 
#37 Ā·
We arrived late on Thursday (but early enough to avoid the weekend crowd) at one of the Texas State Park campgrounds. ā€œYes,ā€ we were informed, ā€œwe have plenty of campsites.ā€ ā€œGood,ā€ we responded, weā€™ll be here until Sunday.ā€

By this time we werenā€™t really surprised by the state park employeeā€™s response: ā€œNo you wonā€™t, I said we had plenty of sites for tonight, but weā€™re completely booked for tomorrow and Saturday.ā€

What we didnā€™t expect was this officialā€™s response to our next question: ā€œWeā€™re from Michigan, what do you suggest we do for tomorrow and Saturday?ā€. After a moment of reflection, she calmly suggested: ā€œPerhaps, sir, you should return home!ā€

Weā€™ve written of the plight of the Impromptu Camper in this Forum before. Replies have been varied - - from acknowledgment and sympathy to ā€œitā€™s not really a problemā€ - - with a myriad of solutions of varying efficacy offered.

But it is a problem. The ā€œreservations-onlyā€ 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 ā€˜pre-Memorial/post-Labor Dayā€™ 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 ā€˜in chargeā€™. 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 ā€˜on-line reservation modelā€™ for allocating public campground spaces has unintentionally altered the balance between contending ā€˜user classesā€™ 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 ā€˜altered balanceā€™ 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 ā€˜lock-inā€™ a campsite is a huge advancement that the reservation system makes possible. However, lost in the associated ā€˜rush to reservationsā€™ 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 donā€™t have the option to ā€˜forecastā€™ 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 ā€˜camp-as-camp canā€™ approach.

Further, there is the significant group - - often retired seniors - - who have finally ā€˜earned their freedomā€™. 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 ā€˜day and placeā€™ precision required by a 100% reservation system.

The Past and Continuing Role of ā€˜First-Come, First-Servedā€™

Prior to ā€˜reservationsā€™, most campground ā€˜slotsā€™ were allocated on a ā€˜first-come, first-servedā€™ basis. No question that the ā€˜first-come, first-servedā€™ 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 ā€˜first-come, first-servedā€™ 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 arenā€™t enough sites to meet demand. Yet it is in this context that ā€˜first-come, first-servedā€™ intervenes to protect and offer the Impromptu Traveler a chance to compete for a campsite.

ā€˜First-come, first-servedā€™ operates on the principle that once a camper has found an available site, that site ā€˜belongsā€™ 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 ā€œits mineā€ feature of ā€˜first-come, first-servedā€™ by arriving early (e.g. Thursday) to secure a site on which they may remain Friday and Saturday. Today, a review of the ā€˜reservation bookā€™ of ā€˜reservation-onlyā€™ campgrounds reveals that virtually all Friday/Saturday slots are taken months in advance. Without ā€˜first-come, first-servedā€™, 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 ā€œfullā€ (100%) reservation system, are now effectively excluded.

An obvious and straight forward solution would be to return a percentage of the available campsites ā€˜to first-come, first-servedā€™ status (a compromise under which many campgrounds successfully operate). Our suggestion would be to designate 25% as ā€˜first-come, first-servedā€™ with, hopefully, these sites representing a fair cross-section of the campgroundā€™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 ā€˜encouragingā€™ to ā€œtoo bad, so sadā€. 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 ā€œtoo bad, so sadā€ 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.
Wonderful letter. I am retired and ready to explore the country. I am hoping the first come, first served is available and I'm concerned as a solo traveler I am not spending all my time into the night searching for a place to rest. I want to enjoy my last years not be stressed out. Is there a petition we can sign to get our army? Hope my dreams don't turn into a nightmare.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top