Impromptu Campers Not Welcome

[jrobe]

Good luck asking them to save Super Bowl seats, concert seats, highly desirable campsites etc etc etc so you can walk in at the last minute. That is a battle you aren’t going to win.

[rowiebowie]

Originally Posted by Davydd

Got our new van. Spent Friday night in ARV’s parking lot. Saturday night at a Harvest Host winery and tonight at a different winery. Our fourth night will be at an RV friends house driveway before moving onto Indianapolis and another driveway at my sister’s house. I don’t know when we will get to a pay campground.

On our way to Ohio from Minnesota we had planned to overnight at a Cracker Barrel in Elkhart, IN but in checking Indiana Dunes SP there were 37 available RV sites so we made reservations in route. Great park with level concrete pads.

Congrats!

Let's hope your wife never tires of climbing in and out of the upper bunk.

[Winston]

Originally Posted by jrobe

Good luck asking them to save Super Bowl seats, concert seats, highly desirable campsites etc etc etc so you can walk in at the last minute. That is a battle you aren’t going to win.

Thanks for your understanding and charity.

[booster]

Originally Posted by jrobe

Good luck asking them to save Super Bowl seats, concert seats, highly desirable campsites etc etc etc so you can walk in at the last minute. That is a battle you aren’t going to win.

I think the OP made clear he doesn't expect sites to be saved for last minute walkups, and I don't think that is necessary anyway to get things more fair to all. There are things that can be done to make the systems more inclusive and include the folks that don't have the luxury of reserving months ahead.



IIRC, there already have been rulings against some of the ticket selling venues about access to tickets and such but that is all in the political arena and we can't/shouldn't go there for most of the above venues, which by the way are private enterprises except for the campsites in state and national parks. Those parks are supported by the payments of taxes by the people that are being excluded, so it is a different scenario, IMO.


As I mentioned, Minnesota has done a little to address it to this point, but not nearly enough to make a difference.

[InterBlog]

Originally Posted by avanti

That would be fine.
....

It would be "fine" if everyone who MIGHT run late, or who simply doesn't know, was compelled to call in to confirm their reservations? Let's unpack that, too.

Just as one example, Garner State Park has 372 campsites. If everybody who runs a risk of running late needs to re-confirm manually, somebody in that park would need to receive huge numbers of unscheduled phone calls (Texas is a huge state, and MANY people show up late to parks because of the vast driving distances involved). Staff would need to talk to the reservers, obtain their information, then they would need to look up and manually enter each confirmee's information into the computer.

This represents a significant amount of paid personnel time that cannot simply be absorbed via existing employees who are already run ragged due to thin staffing. Let's do the thought experiment and run some numbers.

Entry level park rangers make about $39,000 per year in base salary, plus fringe, plus overhead / general and administrative. I don't know what the multiplier is in Texas, but let's use 1.8, which is a common reference number. Each one of those employees is therefore costing the Texas taxpayer approximately $190 per day.

So, OK, let's say that on any given Friday which is peak load day, 5% of Garner's sites are no-shows. It could be more, but given the access pressures on that particular park, I doubt it.

Superficially, if that employee could dedicate their Friday to taking (and/or making) a hundred or more phone calls to ferret out and re-sell those 19 +/- no-show sites without having to refund the original reservation fees, (s)he could bring in an additional ~ $475 for the park on that day, thus covering more than twice what the effort cost via direct and indirect labor.

The problem is, that same employee's costs are incurred 365 days a year, and the same would not be true of every day - not by a long shot. As mentioned in other posts, the access problems occur disproportionately on weekends (as this thread's OP himself confirmed).

Bottom line:

Texas went to an electronic reservation system because the labor costs of manual reservations were incredibly high. And for other reasons such as access fairness, but cost management had a great deal to do with it.

Playing devil's advocate in the "phone to confirm" context, what motivation would Texas have to not only revert to a manual process, but to bear going forward the combined costs of both electronic AND manual processes, which is what you are suggesting?

Why would Texas do that? The only people who would benefit would be a handful of disgruntled surge standbys, in exchange for a net labor cost to the state.


Informally, some parks do what you are suggesting - when the staff has time, and when they can fit it in.

An example is Sam Houston Jones State Park in Louisiana. I don't call them - they call me to confirm that I am intending to actually arrive per my reservation. But that park only has 35 campsites - tiny! - so such an effort represents a much more manageable absorb for the staff.

[InterBlog]

Originally Posted by MsNomer

The problem with this discussion is that every poster is correct from their own viewpoint—blind men and the elephant.

....

Who else on this thread is debating as a long-term heavy user of the Texas state park system, which is the context in which the OP opened this thread?

MY viewpoint doesn't count for diddly squat, and on this issue, I don't even have a viewpoint, because at this juncture, I do not see a viable alternative to what has been instituted as a reservation protocol.

I am not arguing from my viewpoint - I am arguing as a person who has years of first-hand observations on how the Texas system actually works in practice.

Not in theory - in practice.

Any sensible suggestion on how to further improve that system must account for the issues that arise in practice. Theoretical magic-wand-waving is not enough. That's my message.

[booster]

You know what, I just can't put my arms around why policies should be tailored to compensate for people that can't be on time or bother to call if something happens. Trying to obscure the above with stories of crapped pants, cell phone issues, not knowing phone GPS doesn't work without phone connection, scenarios based on everyone being late, yadda, yadda, yadda is just plain silly, IMO.


Buck up, be on time, or call. Not hard to do.


Or just admit you are OK with the groups of people being squeezed out of the campgrounds and don't want it to change for whatever reason. Endless strings of endless made up "what ifs" are as mentioned earlier are diversion, distraction, and delay so the actual issue doesn't get addressed, again IMO.

[MsNomer]

The day before my doctor's appointment, I get a reminder text. "Please respond with 'Yes' if you plan to keep the appointment."

[avanti]

Originally Posted by MsNomer

The day before my doctor's appointment, I get a reminder text. "Please respond with 'Yes' if you plan to keep the appointment."

Yes.

I am pretty much out of this discussion, but, to your point, I did want to emphasize the obvious fact that any "confirm or lose it" policy is easily automated--no harried folks in smoky the bear hats spending all day on the phone.

[InterBlog]

I never reply to unsolicited robo-texts. And my appointments are never cancelled via such an unreliable method. Doctors sometimes try to stimulate compliance by threatening loss of co-pay if a confirmation reply is not received and the person is not able to make the appointment, but I am unaware of any cases where they were successful in collecting. I don't think insurers would tolerate fee for no service.

Now, back to the subject of practical real-life options, and speaking further of bots:

People who are concerned with campground availability, and who do not enjoy the restriction of planning and reserving ahead, could try their luck with Campnab, which was narrowly tailored to ferret out camping cancellations.

Its algorithms are predicated on cancellations, not no-shows, but at least it's something. I have not tried it, because I am not that person who doesn't wish to reserve in advance like the overwhelming majority of the other 10 million annual Texas state park visitors are willing to do.

If anyone has used Campnab and has insight into it, pros and cons or whatever, please comment here.

[InterBlog]

BTW, this thread has reminded me of something I hadn't thought of in many years, a day that illustrates the chronic nature of park access limitations.

Here's a pic below of a bunch of us lined up outside my favorite state park in America - Johnson's Shut-Ins, which I fell in love with during my grad school years.

Look at that old car ahead of me!! This pic was taken almost thirty years ago!! Long before the internet was even imagined. Long before cellular technology was invented. When this pic was taken, personal computers running on DOS with extravagant 20 MB hard drives were all the rage.

And what the pic shows is a bunch of people lined up outside the state park gate, because it was already full, and the rangers were only admitting one car in for every car out. No matter how early I got to JSISP in those years, I tended to end up in lines like this. It was just a fact of the situation.

A bunch of people sitting patiently, waiting for hours for their turn to enter, the guy in front of me asleep in his car with his socked foot sticking out of his car. Waiting out of respect for those who had gotten there first. This is not a new phenomenon, nor a new protocol.

Texas recently added a day pass reservation module because of line-ups much worse than this one. In many parks, you will need a reservation for daily access whether or not you attempt to book a campsite.

[Jon in AZ]

Yes, I remember those days when all parks were first-come-first-served. We had to time our artival in the early afternoon to have the best chance of getting a spot.

Reservations, though increasingly hard to score, at least allow us to enjoy the drive and take our time getting there.

The only impromptu camping left seems to be local spots on tribal land.

[booster]

The day pass reservation opening of 30 days will certainly squeeze out a large number of the people that are already squeezed out of the camping system, so that can't ever enjoy a park for a day without camping.

[InterBlog]

Eating my lunch, doing a bit of research, because this topic is interesting and very relevant, and nowhere near fully explored on this thread.

Arizona hits upon a reasonable compromise as follows:

"Campers who do not show up by 12 noon the day following the first night’s reservation will forfeit all payments and campsite will become available for first-come, first-served or new reservation."

That is much more supportable than an unrealistic policy of clawing back reservations from those who cannot show up earlier in the day, before many people have even left their place of work. The argument can be more safely made that they truly are no-shows under AZ's approach.

[avanti]

Originally Posted by InterBlog

That is much more supportable than an unrealistic policy of clawing back reservations from those who cannot show up earlier in the day, before many people have even left their place of work. The argument can be more safely made that they truly are no-shows under AZ's approach.

No, it isn't. Not at all. It is conceptually exactly the same thing. As I said twice, you can set the confirmation time anywhere you like: 4PM day of, 24 hours prior, noon the second day, whatever. They are all doing exactly the same thing with only quantitive differences. ALL of them represent what you choose to pejoratively label as "clawing back" of some kind of supposed property right. ("How DARE they take away the last day of my five-day reservation just because I am four days late. I PAID for that day...")

Honestly, I am starting to think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. The made-up stories, shifting bogies, and convoluted arguments against perfectly reasonable compromises are just silly.

[InterBlog]

Originally Posted by avanti

....

Honestly, I am starting to think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. The made-up stories, shifting bogies, and convoluted arguments against perfectly reasonable compromises are just silly.

I'm "arguing for the sake of" acknowledging centuries of English common law. To me, what is silly is denying that those centuries exist, and have an overriding impact on how we conduct business today.

I question whether public buy-in would be achievable for a policy which defies the bedrock expectation that, when you buy a good or a service, it becomes yours, and the transaction cannot be retroactivated based on whatever convenient excuse happens to get conjured up by the seller (such as, they took exception to the fact that you weren't actively kowtowing by 4 p.m. on a day of their choosing).

Even in those cases where an institution, by its rarefied nature, is not subject to universal contract precedents, every effort is made to acknowledge the buyer's rights. E.g., air carriers impose contracts tailored to their service, and they routinely bump people, but when they do it, it's always done as a last resort and with compensation, usually in the form of free tickets redeemable at a future time.

I suspect that the public would not accept the terms you are proposing that the state park systems adopt. Once the sale is made, it is incumbent upon the seller to negotiate terms to buy that commodity back, if it so desires. It is not incumbent on the buyer to defend their purchase rights.

The exception being, when the commodity is proven to be truly abandoned. Take a look at what California has established - it parallels Arizona. I chose to look at California because it's yet another high-population, high-pressure access state, much like Texas. And here again, we see an intrinsic acknowledgement of the buyer's rights. That purchased campsite belongs to the buyer, until such time as either (1) the seller has renegotiated terms acceptable to the buyer, or (2) a reasonable person would agree, based on the evidence, that the buyer has abandoned it.

[booster]

So now we are going to be arguing the minutia of old English law precedents and "common law"? as they apply to campsites?


I am not a lawyer, but AFAIK lots of unpopular stuff gets done every day in purchases of things and services and are held up by the courts. I will give one example to keep it short.


When you buy a whatever the warranty papers that come with it often have a statement of your agreement to arbitration in any disputes, no lawsuits.



I don't see how campgrounds would not be able set whatever rules they want concerning cancellations.


I think this whole thing has gotten to the point of throwing "stuff" at the wall to see if anything sticks, or more likely when everyone gets sick of smelling it and gives up.

[MsNomer]

I am a lawyer and the English Law argument is the weakest yet.

[hbn7hj]

Hotels figured this out long ago, I think. We will end up copying them.

I confess to giving up, installing an off grid system and becoming addicted to free which we can get away with out west. I travel east in the shoulder seasons which we haven’t done in several years. Looking forward to trying it again. Sounds like I’m in for a bit of a surprise and some wayside overnights.

I did have a lapse in judgment and tried for a Telluride reservation. Two seconds past the opening bell the space was open, put in my dates, went to pay, two of the dates were taken, said delete the dates then pay. By then I was toast and gave up. Dispersed camping it is.

[Belzar]

Perhaps campgrounds will do what hotels do and go to "demand pricing". Market prices and non-refundable deposits would equalize supply and demand. Unfortunately, market prices could be exorbitant - lots of people would be willing to pay $150+/night for a site in Yosemite in summer.