Detour » Should State Parks Favor Residents? [BONUS EPISODE]
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 вер 2024
- This week, we welcome all of UA-cam to our DETOUR episodes, the bonus episode we do each week for our Mile Marker members. Welcome! rvmiles.com/mi...
Join us as we discuss state park camping and the preference being given to residents. Will this help? Is this a bad economic decision? Let us know what you think, and if you like this more relaxed approach and want to see more consider becoming a Mile Marker member for as little as $7 a month, or $70 for a year.
Mile Markers receive a weekly DETOUR episode which you can on UA-cam or listen to on your favorite podcast app. Mile Marker members also receive a lifetime digital subscription to RV Today Magazine, a discount to our upcoming HOMECOMING rally this October, a private Facebook group, a monthly live stream with Jason and Abby and so much more.
Learn more and become a Mile Marker member today at: rvmiles.com.mi...
You hit the nail on the head, state parks and state park campgrounds have not kept pace with population growth nor the growing market for outdoor activities and we need MORE! It's hard to argue against some favoritism for in-state residents, but I'd like to see this coupled with a more nuanced reservation system that allows the campgrounds to make the most of available spaces during times of heavy traffic and incorporates an assigned-position wait list and notification system to fill cancelations in an orderly and fair manner. Lastly- Thank You, RV Miles, for fostering conversations like this each week!
I am 100% for each state (i.e. their own residence) having a say in how state parks are run and how they charge state residence vs non-residence. Each state is different, and you are right in saying there are a lot of factors involved. Residence of a state that pay taxes have a constitutional right (and duty) to vote and influence their state representatives as to the best way to manage state land. Things such as laws and regulations, change according to the will of the people of each state. Usually issues like this are discussed and debated in the general public over a year before being brought up as a policy change. This is the kind of process that should happen in each state and in each state's legislative body before being voted on. Now I can't speak for all states, but I can speak for the state of Idaho.This is exactly the process they followed. Therefore, I can confidently say that the will of the vast majority of Idaho residents was properly followed in this case.
I can see where you feel that this is inherently unfair to non-residence, but objectively how can you make such a judgement call? It comes across to the casual viewer that you have a better feel for what's right or wrong on this issue than most of Idaho residence. I am one who did vote for it without apology. So let's please dispense with some wrong assumptions I heard from you guys.
First, the state of Idaho as a whole doesn't depend on tourism. It loves tourism, and certain locations in Idaho are tourist oriented like Sun Valley, Idaho. Nevertheless, tourism is not critical to Idaho's economy.
Second, state parks do not exist to boost tourism from out-of-state people. They are primarily for state residence even though they are open to the general public.
State Parks are paid for and managed by the state , which means the residents of Idaho that pay taxes - especially property taxes. It is therefore not only understandable, it is quite reasonable for residence to be provided better rates than non-residence, and like some states are doing, giving state residence first dibs...a time period ahead of non-residence to make reservations. After the time period, all reservations then become first come, first serve.
Third, just because other states aren't raising rates for non-residence doesn't mean that it's inherently unfair or wrong for Idaho (or any other state) to do as they see fit. It's called State's Rights. Again, each state is different. They have different rules and laws, regulations, and fees than other states. That's the way it's been for many, many decades. And there is no moral imperative that rates stay low.
Forth, let's not forget the long standing precedent of many things that cost more for non-residence of a state... like tuition costs at colleges or universities, fishing licenses, hunting licenses, etc. Many times, the costs of fees are way more than twice the cost for a resident. And as far as I know, this occurs in most (if not all) states.
Fifth, you have no idea how much the overall cost of living - especially the cost of real estate and renting - has gone up in Idaho. Most people live here because they love outdoor recreating... not just in their perspective towns, but in county and state parks. For many, that's all they can afford. Some bypass the parks all together and 'boon-dock' at remote/cost free locations by tent camping or via a cheap RV type setup. Giving priority to residence makes this more feasible.
Sixth, presuming that a rate increase to twice the fee for residence doesn't make much of a difference in out-of-state usage is clearly not accurate or true. It hasn't stopped all usage, but it has hindered enough to meet the goal of providing considerably more availability for in state residence.
Last, I would like to add that the presumption that paying a higher price in Idaho should automatically come with commensurate amenities (like a nice KOA) is at best wishful thinking and not in line with reality. Again, I need to remind you of the extreme increases in overall costs of living in Idaho that are a key factor. But even if it wasn't, every state has a right to charge what they see fit for use of its parks - whether you or I like it or not.
So the bottom line is - if you don't like or agree to the price, simply don't come... or find some other place to stay. There are plenty of affordable options. Especially in neighboring states. :-)
I have no issue with states giving residents early dibs on sites or a lower price than non-residents. We tent camp in New England and have found most states only have a $10-15 difference. But, Massachusetts is crazy! They want $50 a night for non-residents for tent camping and no water at the site. I was able to book a private campground right outside the state park and hiking trail for $45 a night and that included water/electric at the site. We generally prefer state park campgrounds, but this instance was a no brainer for us!
I think state parks that push costs like what you described will find they are helping the private campground industry and not competing with it.
We full time and my preference is always a state park often even over a thousand trails which is "free" for us. We are camping in Michigan right now for $42 a night with electric only. . What I didn't realize was I also had a $10 per night fee per vehicle or a $40 annual pass. In my case that took the cost of our stay here to $62 a night with no water or sewer. Next time we're in this part of Michigan I'll stay private across the street and leave the park for the locals...
For a lot of families, camping is THE affordable family vacation option, and access to in-state campgrounds fit within their budget (out of state travel is not even an option). Early access makes sense. However, steep prices make a camping trip impossible for a lot more people - residents and non-residents.
I have no issue giving residents early access to their state parks. Being a resident should give you some perks. Jacking the rates up for non-residents is stupid though. Love our NM State parks
How does one become an honorary NM resident? Asking for a friend…
100% agree! If I drive to your State to spend my tourism money, I should be REWARDED, not insulted and charged MORE. Dang.
Proud Mile Marker member. ❤👍
I think if you live in a state that has great state parks, you should have a benefit.
The days of $10 a night camping is over. But some state and county parks are way overpriced
KOA, Encore, SUN Outdoors are all big $$$. Also, they don’t care if the campground is empty. It’s a corporation, no one cares.
I remember back before Covid 2019. I told the worker at the Narrows Too Campground in Trenton, Maine. That the price increase for the next year was outrageous. No one is going to pay $150/night, she told me that they don’t care. Now, that site is $210/ night. Encore doesn’t care if the sites are empty. We drove thru this year July 4th week, the campground was almost empty. (High Season)
The sad part about Henry’s Lake for us was that the dump station had been out of order for over a year with no date set when it will or ever will be functioning again. So while we love staying at State Parks it be really nice if they were at least functional as do pay to stay there.
Recently stayed in state parks (during the week) in OK, MO, IL and IN. Costs in the $25-30 range. Some nicer than others. We didn’t need electric or water hookup and found plenty of spaces available each night without reservations. If just passing through an area we’ll do that instead of paying twice as much at a KOA (or similar private campground ). No need to pay $60-80 for amenities like swimming pool, mini golf, laundry, store etc that we won’t be using anyway. Besides quite often the scenery is better and it’s quieter in a state park then at other places)
We’ve stayed in some beautiful state parks and do love the privacy and connection to nature they can offer.
Many states don’t have city and county parks much less ones that have campgrounds.
We Idaho residents spend tourism dollars near our state parks as well. But for families who have stationary jobs and usually only travel 2 to 3 hours away, not being able to get into our favorite parks any longer is heartbreaking. We have grown up with Yellowstone and don't camp at Henry's Lake for the park. For us it is about access again.
We have run into state parks in Colorado where non-resident fees brought the cost to that of KOA. I would rather be in a state park, but I don't want to pay for FHU site not even have Electric or water. I agree with Abby.
MA state parks charge over triple for non-residents! Over $60 for an electric-only site. Some of the state parks are better than others, but most are nowhere near worth that price.
I understand why states are two-tiering everything from early booking to lower fees. It’s an easy way to boost revenue a bit without residents feeling that hit. I don’t mind paying slightly more as an out of stater (i.e., up to $10 more)…but what kills me is the one month lag. For us as full timers, the net effect has been to drastically reduce our use of uber popular sp’s like Florida…they were already hard enough to get before the one month change. Instead, we are are gradually trying to increase our use of Boondockers Welcome’s, Elks, and anything Federal.
It will be interesting to see if the occupancy rate of state parks changes. When state residents have early access to reservations they suck up all the weekends. So when I want to visit your state i’ll have to find someplace else to get the dates I need while I’m traveling. Will this leave a lot of unoccupied days during the week?
Interesting point, Tom and one I hadn’t considered. Be curious to see how that and the last minute cancellations/no-shows, plays out. -A
In the majority of my state's campgrounds the sites are already empty during the week as the are primarily used by weekenders (in-state and out of state). For those in tourist areas like the coast in season they are more commonly filled on a weekly basis and out of season many aren't even filled on weekends.
I don't think you can make the blanket statement that restricting out of state campers will kill tourism. Based on many of the state campgrounds we've camped at it is weekenders that drive economy local to the park not so much out of state tourists. Our favorite state park where it is near impossible to book a site under 6 months out is a good example. It is relatively close to Virginia but not near anything special in North Carolina other than I-95. The park is a smaller one with around total 30 campsites, 10 RV sites with electricity, where most sit empty from Sunday through Thursday. It is frequently filled with weekenders from SE Virginia who based on conversations we've had over the years prefer to go to this park because of a lower price and nicer facilities. It also sees its share of I-95 overnighters who pull-in on Friday or Saturday night and leave by sunup the next day. The result is a prime weekend night is left open that could have been utilized by a resident. I guarantee no local businesses are going to lose money as there are no local businesses in the area. Adding more sites is not feasible due to the size of the park. Even if new sites could be added or upgraded I don't think you could justify the cost of adding enough to meet the weekend demand by residents and non-residents. I think this campground would be a good candidate for NC residents to receive preferential treatment.
I'm generally for residents getting preferential treatment. Whether that is via availability preferences or via overnight fees I'm open. I think the reason you see some states trying high non-resident fees and others working from reservation preferences no one is sure what will work best in balancing residents needs against non-residents. Adding campsites or opening new parks could help but the reality is you don't create a new park on a whim and many existing parks don't have the room to add sites. I also have concerns when it comes to adding sites about overpopulating the park. Back to our favorite state park, one thing we like is it isn't jam packed with people on the trials so we can get back to nature in peace. I have doubts that adding campsites would fix the problem for any length of time. Much like adding a lane to a highway where traffic grows to fill it I see the same thing with campsite demand growing to fill the additional campsites. That pretty much leaves finding ways of suppressing demand from non-residents.
As to camping at county and city parks. From my experience Illinois, like in many other ways, is an outlier in that regard. Here in NC and much of the south it is rare to find a county park that has camping. That all comes under the purview of the state where it is not uncommon to hear a legislator say "I don't camp so why would I pay for it?".
FYI my wife and I are from Illinois and her family still lives there. Kane County is more than happy to charge me a higher fee to camp in their parks as a non-resident plus my in-laws pay taxes so one could say it is only fair play to return the favor. 😁Though I agree Idaho's fees seem exorbitant.
I love my FL stateparks. Plus getting a extra month to reserve. I feel the FL parks should give 30% off for the senior non residents, because they use it more than residents.
Massachusetts does this as well, higher pricing for out of staters 😡
More States should develop new campgrounds to accommodate the camping boom.
👆this!
Is that a RSVT shirt? They are awesome
It’s a Target shirt but J had a RSVLT one too and they’re great!
TOURISTS are by far the highest % of campers at all of Alaska’s State, National and private RV parks. They have already paid SO much just to get to Alaska. WHY would we discourage them from coming by gouging them in the pocketbook?
Tourists keep our campgrounds busy, which keeps our small town shops, stores and restaurants busy. Our State Parks here in Alaska are NOT fancy. Few of them even offer hook-ups. Private parks cost more and offer more.
Alaska residents get a small discount at some local campgrounds, but I get the most benefits at our National and Federal Forest service campgrounds using my America the Beautiful card.
It was the adventure of a lifetime exploring and camping in your beautiful state! ❤️
Idaho cost deters us. $65 is ridiculous. Best to give residents early access instead.
I live in SE Alabama. I’m an hour away from our favorite GA SP and and two hours from our favorite FL SP. I spend more money camping in those two states than I do in my own. Sadly our state parks do not even compare, most of them. Florida started this residents book early, then Georgia followed and now Alabama. It sucks in my opinion! I reached out to the GA SP system and was told they did this because Florida did. 🤷🏽♀️🤦🏽♀️😳. So that’s your reason, unreal!
Surprised Alabama was so blunt and honest and didn’t try to spin some kind of long winded explanation. Lol.
Ohio state parks are a gem, and that's what my taxes pay for - so I should get a small discount as a state resident. I have no problem paying more as an out-of-state visitor, as long as I get value for my buck. I prefer full H/U's, and those also should be priced higher than just W/E sites or electric only. If Illinois state parks (or any other state parks) are dumps, then those citizens need to complain to their elected officials to get more return on their tax dollars. That is how things work in this country. Otherwise, stay in a private campground, which is not supported by public funds. And I will still support the local businesses with my own money. (BTW, college tuition is also higher at state schools for out-of-state residents, for the same reason)
I think the residents look at the fact they are paying taxes to help keep the state park campgrounds going. They want first dibs. Tourist are always getting the extra taxes.
We live in Virginia but end up going to North Carolina a lot. We have not seen their fees different from in state versus out of state. Their sites are still reasonable. Now I'm knocking on wood! Take care.
Virginia and North Carolina state parks are lovely. What a great part of the country to enjoy camping in. Fingers crossed for you!
Why not have the State Parks reserve a percentage of the sites for State Residents only. If they don't get booked then make them 1st Come 1st Serve. With the advent of "site finder" apps, they should still stay booked but also allow the residents to book. We also need to be making a point NOT too book the campgrounds who are so obviously gouging. Of course we need to do that with all goods/services that are being overpriced right now. We, personally, don't want the "amenities" such as pickleball courts or weight rooms, we want affordable places to stay or we would rather stay at a a hotel (which, btw, have free breakfast, pools and weight rooms).
Very interesting idea about the percentage! Thanks for sharing! -A
I've become reluctant to travel to states which charge non residents more. Too bad for them. Their neighboring states will get my business!
I think you guys are going overboard in your condemnation of preferential access or fees for residents at state parks. "Killing state parks", really? What evidence do you have that park utilization is declining because of preferential access or fees? I don't know what Idaho actually does, but suppose their park management sees that their parks are full and being dominated by visitors from California, Oregon, or Washington? I think preferential access would be fine. (BTW, I live in California.)
I agree that tourism benefits local economies, but visitors from other parts of a state will benefit the local park area economy. Yes, out of state visitors will bring money to the state as a whole, but that is something for the state governments to decide.
I also agree that increasing park capacity where feasible is a good idea, but a separate idea and not in conflict with preferential access. I say where feasible because increased camping capacity also increases general crowding and potential overuse.
I agree with Jason that blanket non-compete fee policies are stupid. OK to not undercut for similar facilities, but charging commercial full hookup rates for dry park sites is just an RV park industry money grab.
nice discussion,
Alan Lillich
Thanks for the comment. Resident or non-resident, the rise in state park fees has the potential to make camping unattainable for persons in lower financial brackets. That is what kills state parks, federal parks, country parks, etc. When you become a destination only affordable to a certain demographic you cease to be a park for all the people in your state and beyond. Take care and thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I agree that State Parks should not charge extra for out of state residents. However, I do like the idea of State Parks opening up reservations to in state residents before out of state residents. I live in Arizona, and it's practically impossible for me to get a reservation in an Arizona State Park in the winter, because they are full of snowbirds and out of state, (and out of country) residents. I think States should open up reservations a few days early for in state residents.
Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts, Wendy! Arizona is a beautiful state to camp in, especially in the winter months, but I can see as a resident how frustrating that could be. Appreciate the kind and insightful comment! -Abby