I know a guy (let’s call him Fred) who got sick and tired of never having access to a great camping spot at a local NFS campground. The campground takes reservations (80%) but the best sites are non-reservable and all sites here are in high demand. So, to solve the problem, here’s what Fred did….

Fred took an ad out in the local newspaper asking if anyone wanted to start a camping club at this particular campground. The intention was not for everyone to camp together but rather to secure or “tie up” one of the campground’s best spots all Summer long so nobody else could have access to it except for those members of the club. Here’s how it works….

Fred arrives in the early Spring to stay two weeks in one the campground’s best non-reservable sites. He works nearby so he's there only on weekends but the nightly rate is low and he can afford it. On the site, he erects an elaborate picnic table cover complete with a heavy duty stash of firewood and other misc camping gear and supplies. People might wonder why Fred goes to such elaborate efforts for a maximum two weeks stay but Fred is not worried about that.

Fred is forced to leave the spot at the end of two weeks (per NFS guidelines) but he holds the spot for the next member of his club to arrive precisely at the 2:00 PM checkout time. He then hands the non-reservable site off to that person for their pre-agreed upon two week stay. Fred doesn’t even bother to dismantle the elaborate picnic table cover nor collect the other misc. camping items. He leaves them for all members in the club to enjoy.

At the end of the new person’s two week stay, the next member of the club takes over and the process continues as all members rotate the spot giving nobody else in the world access during the entire camping season.
What this means is that 4 families are legally allowed to tie up (all Summer long) one of the best national forest campsites built by the tax dollars of all US citizens.

Fred knows that a 100% national reservation system would put a stop to him being able to do this and that’s why he’s strongly against it. He also feels that the $168. he pays 4 times a year during each of his two week stays is well worth him having a guaranteed and permanent spot at the campground. All other members in the club feel the same way.

Since the start of Fred's club, other locals have formed similar clubs so now at least 6 sites are off limits to anyone else.

If those of you against national reservations can tell me how this is fair, I would love to hear your opinion.

Thank you,

A previous poll taken in these forums seemed to indicate that the majority responding felt that 50/50 reservable & non-reservable sites was about right.
As far as being against nat'l reservations, here's the way I feel;
Many of us head out for an extended period of time with only a general idea of where we are going and with no dates on the calendar other than an approximate return home date. I spent my whole working life meeting deadlines and if I had to resort to being at a certain campsite on a certain day, I would be doing a lot less camping. Arriving at a campground on Wednesday, for example, and finding that I cannot stay more than 2 nights because all the sites are reserved for the weekend seems just plain wrong to me. On the other hand, I see that many people, particularly those still working, do have time constraints and need the security of having a reserved campsite . Hence my acknowledgement that some reservations are necessary, albeit a necessary evil.

Ed

Right on, Ed!

What a novel idea, however, but couldn't it fall into the category of hording? I think in this hypothetical scenario, the club should have rules that limit the number of sites eligible for the club in any given CG. For example, if there are just five non-reserveable campsites in a 20-site CG, then maybe none would be eligible or just one, perhaps. If the club had no rules/ethics limiting the number of campsites, then it's likely it could be accused of hording. Further, the FS could do one of two things - make all the campsites reserveable or implement a rule that would bar or limit such activity.

Whether nealw is serious or not, intellectually, I find the idea interesting and worthy of discussion - lots and lots of pros and cons

Fred

A novel idea, here perhaps, but it's been going on for a long time, not only in NF but State Parks as well, to be frank, it stinks.

OK, bukhrn, please enlighten us; I can't smell anything from here . . . Fred

The fact that this, "hording" or what ever name you wish to attach to it, is allowed to go on, is what stinks, I've been on the short end of this deal, not being able to get one of the best sites because a, family, or group of friends lock them up all season.
The only way to stop it is to go to 100% reservations, but that stinks equally as bad.

OK, understand your frustration, bukhrn. On the surface, as you said, there are significant issues on both sides of the coin. How about some more thoughts out there . . . Fred

Barring a sudden epidemic of considerate behavior and ethics, there is no easy answer to this. That does not mean there are no answers, but I think it means that any solution would be costly. The national reservations idea would probably be the costliest of all. The reservation system itself would have to be reworked to accommodate all facilities, all facilities would have to staffed to make the system work...that means more work for volunteer hosts, more staff for concessionaires, more Forest Rangers etc. etc. And you know who would have to pay for all this! Then those who were willing to pay $25 (?) a night would demand a lot more for their money...like full hook-ups at every site, hot showers at every campground, paved and manicured campsites; in essence the Forest Service would be in the RV Park business. Is this what you want for your National Forests?
A system that seems to work in the Maricopa County Parks System might have the seeds of something that could work in NF CGs. There are no reservations and sites are assigned by the hosts when you arrive. If the CG is full, you have to line up at the gate by 7 am and 'take a number'. In numerical sequence, you get your pick of available campsites. All very cumbersome and one reason I don't camp at these parks in peak seasons, but they avoid the problem we are talking about here. Also very costly.
Nealw's idea of more NF campgrounds might be the least costly of all!

Ed

Regarding the scenario, The 14 day stay limit should include removing everything from the site at time of departure. To expand, why not pull in a camp model and have your "club" use it all summer. By requiring 100% site vacancy, at least you make it a little less inviting. I don't believe you can stop people from holding a site for their friends.

The scenario has little or nothing to do with the reservation system...a similar type of "space hogging" happens on the reservation system with locals reserving the best spots for the entire camping season. (I've been to campgrounds where a "reserved" site was left empty for the entire time it was reserved...locals who had reserved that space for each and every weekend during the camping season, and who don't bother showing up each and every weekend. As far as I am concerned, if the space is still empty by 6 PM on the first day it is reserved, it should be made available to someone else.)

What should not be allowed is a space taken up with no one there...if "Fred" isn't going to camp there each night of the 14-day period he's paid for, he should be made to relenquish his site on the first night he's not actually...physically...present.

The problem with this is that there is unlikely to be anyone around to stop this type of thing.

Restrictions:
Campers must occupy their campsite the first night and all following nights.
No more than 8 people per single campsite. No more than 12 people on double campsites.
This is from the Sherando Lake site, in the George Washington NF, sounds pretty clear to me, now, if anyone enforces it, is another story.

Yes, those rules are posted in many USFS campgrounds. However, unless there is a camp host on site who is actually willing to enforce the rules, people get away with the scenario posted by the OP.

The opportunity to manipulate a reservation system and monopolize camp sites is a loophole that should be closed, but I doubt if it will be. The problem is not only one of poorly-written regulations and a whole lot of people with overdeveloped senses of entitlement, but, as others have pointed out, one of enforcement.

In my experience, it's a rare camp host who will take the initiative to try to enforce the stay limit rules, particularly when they feel they have little or no backup from their concessioner employer or from the FS and are literally on their own when confronting "site hogs".

Yes, this stinks -- bigtime! But, when there's nobody "in charge" and the system permits the abuses, one should expect the situation to remain "business as usual."

Definitely an interesting topic. We have some creative people out there. I think the key is enforcement w.r.t. to the rule that the site must be completely cleared and it has to be occupied each night.

I like the other idea about more sites even better!

Just returned from working in a large Forest Service Campground trying to enforce the 14 day limit. There it was called "Flipping". Our solution was that the campsite had to be cleared by the 14 day limit...ie, all trailers, wood piles, etc GONE. It then became the Camp Host duty to clean the site and it could not be re-rented until cleared by them. All payments are made at the entrance gate therefore the site will not be re-rented until the Host assured that it was cleared and cleaned. This worked for us and even in Reservaion sites which were often "reserved" by the same Family or group for the entire summer. The site had to be cleared & Cleaned!