RVs in the News
Sign up for a feed and get posts automatically.rss

Friday, April 13, 2007

South Dakota Takes Heat for Campground Upgrades


South Dakota State Park officials are busily building upgrades into the popular Custer State Park. Included in the remodel--pumping electricity to 300 RV campsites, and construction of new "camping cabins" for the non-RV set. But the state is taking plenty of flack for their trouble: Local RV park owners are squealing that their businesses will be hurt by what they perceive as a horning in on their turf.

In an article published in the Rapid City Journal, local KOA manager Josh Daiss complained, "The value of our campgrounds will essentially go down if we're losing business to the state." Daiss and other area park owners are lobbying to get a reduction in their property taxes to compensate for what they project will be losses in customer revenues.

But members of the public are skeptical. In a reader’s response section, a majority of those writing in say the private park owners are calamity howlers. One wrote, "For these private campground owners that claim to be hurt by this, have they looked at their own campgrounds? Who wants to camp there where every slot is right on top of each other and you can't have a campfire in most...plus you pay an outrageous fee to camp in that!"

Another writes, "To the private-owner whiners-get over it! I'm truly sick of your whining and complaining and your always standing in the way of any improvements at all to publicly-owned facilities. You are the ones always banging the drums for and championing the free market, well, let it work in this case! If people like what you have to offer,they'll stay at your facilities and if they don't, whose fault is that? No one forces people to stay at Custer State Park facilities, they make that choice themselves."

Whether you view this as progress or regression, either way, its an ongoing story. Check out the whole story in the Rapid City Journal.

Labels: , ,

posted by Russ and Tiña De Maris at 4/13/2007 03:23:00 PM

31 Comments:

  • We were just to Custer Park last fall.

    When trying to enter Custer Park, the friendly ranger at the gate said we would not fit in the campgrounds, tunnels and roadways in our 38 ft motorhome. He nicely directed us around the park to Heartland RV park in Hermosa. We paid $37 a night for a narrow parking slot surrounded in gravel, next to a busy highway, just like the article suggested. We were 10 ft away from the next camper and it was not camping to say the least. It was not pleasant, but the only place we could go!

    The next day we took a ride through Custer Park with friends in their tow vehicle. Lovely park and yes, the tunnels were too small and narrow for most any campers to reach some of the campgrounds. But other campgrounds also in the park might have been accessable by us if we came around from the other side. Next time we will know better.

    Electric was not available at the Custer Park campgrounds, so perhaps that is why the local private campground owners enjoyed the boon of extra business from the campers who prefer hookups. We can camp either way, so the presence of electric is not as important to us. But to some people it makes all the difference. The folks we were traveling with needed to use a C-pap machine at night, so the electric was a MUST for them.

    Oh... after being subjected to Heartland's price gouging for one night, we moved the next day to a nicer park near Crazy Horse Monument that was neater, roomier and cheaper, with trees and grass and horses nearby and very quiet. We saw wild deer, sheep grazing across the road, and a full scenic view of Crazy Horse Monument right from our RV windows. I think we paid $21 a night? Full hookups. Heritage Village RV park.

    But if we could have stayed IN Custer Park, we sure would have!

    We think it's GREAT that the Custer Park is making improvements and upgrades to utilize the investment we have all have made to our national park system!

    Karen and Steve Pfundtner
    Northwoods of Wisconsin

    By Blogger KarenInTheWoods, at 6:12 AM, April 14, 2007  

  • I think the upgrades are great too. And public campgrounds don't have rules as to the type of RV one must own.

    Some parks like to deny entry to camper vans (class b) and park owners are rarely as nice and accomodating as the state park employees.

    The park owners need to upgrade themselves or reduce their prices accordingly. But their attitude is to continually force people into their parks by stopping all other competition.

    How about they put that effort into customer service and actually treat people like they want them to return?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:39 AM, April 21, 2007  

  • We use county and state facilities whenever we can. Some are not assessable with long 5th wheels. We have found private parks that have not been updated to accommodate anything but the smallest rig. The state of AZ has a great park system for RVs. In most cases price is not an issue.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:21 AM, April 21, 2007  

  • For scenery and things to do,which are what we go for in the first place, we'll take the parks over Walmart any day. Maybe over night on the way TO the parks yes, but thats all. Thanks Don Indiana

    By Anonymous Don Kessler, at 5:29 AM, April 21, 2007  

  • I am pleased to hear of the upgrades being done at Custer Park. Many rvers prefer staying in public facilities over privately owned for the feeling of being in woodsy undeveloped areas and spaciousness of sites but many of us are unable to because of the type and size of our rv's. There are many reasons why a person has a larger rv - fulltimers who have no other home, others that are travelling a good portion of the time and also those who are claustrophic. There are also many reasons why people in these types of rigs might require electricity, whether for health reasons or not, if they desire to stay in state parks they should have that choice.

    By Blogger Mary, at 6:11 AM, April 21, 2007  

  • The really wonderful thing about our country is the ability to have freedom of choice. If we choose to camp at the improved state parks, then so be it. The owners of the private campgrounds have the freedom to improve their campsites to equal the campgrounds or be as nice as they can be. Too many times we see businesses letting everything go to he$$ in a handbasket because they have a monopoly. If they feel the competition of the state parks or the Walmart, then spend some of those earnings from the business and IMPROVE your campgrounds.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:54 AM, April 21, 2007  

  • I have to agree with the above comment. We've stayed at Custer State Park a number of times with a large class A motorhome. We know that there are certain roads that cannot accommodate large RVs but there are still a few roads that do allow access.

    We've always felt that Custer State Park was equal in caliber to most national parks, and even better than some of them. CSP has a great deal to offer and the South Dakota Park Service does an exemplary job of maintaining the park and providing interpretive services. It's a fine line between resource protection and public access and CSP seems to have nailed it perfectly.

    Many national parks have facilities that allow camping with hookups and I feel that Custer State Park should be in the same category. There will always be areas for primitive camping and for minimal services but adding a full hookup section will only help provide access to the park.

    In Yellowstone, both the in-park campgrounds and the neighboring campgrounds, such as Grizzly RV in West Yellowstone, are filled to overflowing. But these private campgrounds have something to offer. They have nice roomy sites with full amenities. Some of the campgrounds in Yellowstone are partial hookups while there is also a full hookup campground in addition to primitive sites.

    The neighboring campgrounds in the Custer State Park area are not in the same category. As the previous comment stated, they aren't much to write home about. In fact, we prefer staying at CSP just to get away from that crowded noisy scenario. Having some sort of hookups would definitely be a plus, and an additional way to bring increased revenue into the park. It'll also provide other campers, who rely on electrical power, the opportunity to enjoy this great park. Personally, I highly approve the decision to improve the sites at Custer State Park.

    By Anonymous Mark Quasius, at 7:51 AM, April 21, 2007  

  • We camped at Custer State Park last Fall, just before the buffalo roundup. When park rangers said there was no electricity at the camp site but would be in the future it was mentioned that the private campgound owners didn't want them to put electricty in the campgounds because it would hurt their business. The ranger said he didn't see how it would hurt them because the park campgrounds stay full, electricity or no electricty. You can only put so many people in the campgrounds.

    By Anonymous Don Stephens, at 7:58 AM, April 21, 2007  

  • I think the park owners can yell all they want, but they are outnumbered at the polls by the users of state facilities. They need to make themselves competitive. Overcharging for a shoehorn space is not attractive. Good for SD!

    By Blogger Elaine, at 8:30 AM, April 21, 2007  

  • I think RV Parks should make a profit,but,having competion will make the commercial parks get the price to a realistic cost. I am not buying the site ,just renting it for a night

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:37 AM, April 21, 2007  

  • Go for it SD. Crowded private campgrounds with marginal facilities will always lose business when a roomier place with better hookups, utilities and amenities are provided. The private one that wants to stay competitve better offer something better than a cramped space with low power and little else.

    O.J.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:52 AM, April 21, 2007  

  • Good for South Dakota and boo to the private owners. If they would upgrade/maintain facilities to justify the price, I would be more sympathetic. There will always be business for both types of campgrounds - but you have to earn it, as Custer State Park is doing. The private owners are the same ones who still charge full price, even if we only want to stop and sleep. Generate some lower prices for the stopper/sleepers, and you'll gain some of the WalMart folks. Quit whining.

    By Blogger Ken and Helen, at 10:10 AM, April 21, 2007  

  • To the campground owners...you complain about WalMart, you complain about truck stops, you complain about rest areas...yet you charge outrageous prices for somebody when all they need to do is sleep overnight...just sit down and shut the hell up.

    We’re all tired of hearing you whining…nobody cares about your crying anymore...you did it to yourself. Let the people decide where they want to go. You want to charge those high rates? Get your act together and charge a fair price...or you'll be charging them to an empty campground.

    I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it anymore!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:37 AM, April 21, 2007  

  • State Park(SP) versurs Private Park(PP)
    The difference is obvious: a State Park is A PARK.
    Most private facilities are rip offs.
    I'd rather pay $5 more in a SP with only power and water than Full Hook Up's in a PP. RVing is supposed to be enjoyable, that means if my front yard is exposed to my neighbors backyard with sewer lines 10 feet away from my chair and table I better stay at home.
    In fact, I moved up from a 26footer to a max 32 footer for the only prupose to fit in almost any SP and NP. Any RV larger that this built today has trouble getting into SPs. And I think that's good so. And the word "luxurious" must adorn it to be attractive to the "RV"community, rather than common sense features. The PP owner have to have a hard look at their endeavors: to charge 30,40 and more bucks per site adds up to 900/1200 and more $$$ per month for the RVer. This is not sustainable to a lot of people who want to travel or have gone fulltime. I've got myself a NM SP senior pass for this year and will stay more in NM. Next year Utah , and so on. It would be nice if the states could come to grips with each other and create, for a couple of extra $$$, a national pass.
    Gunny
    Taos,NM
    gurina@laplaza.org

    By Anonymous Gunny, at 11:58 AM, April 21, 2007  

  • Josh Daiss complains that his park value will go down. It has been my experience that KOA's (otherwise known as "keep on adding") charge a premium price for a substandard campground facility. They used to be an enjoyable place to camp and we always looked for them but, not anymore.

    By Blogger The 2 J's, at 1:10 PM, April 21, 2007  

  • The trouble is that it is ufair comptition. It's not free enterprise against free enterprise. The state parks are subsidized. As an RVer I welcome better public parks for RVs but we also need the private campgrounds and they shouldn't be run out of business. Proably housing developments would replace them with laws against RV's.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:17 PM, April 21, 2007  

  • Well, Boo Hoo to the private parks. If they offered more for less, they would be more competitive, but a lot of them are frequently full of seasonals, so they are not hurting. My wife and I use private parks in the summer, as most of state parks are full, and then we use state parks in the off season. If we had the choice we would use state parks all the time, simply cause it feels more like camping. If we had to, we would pay state parks more for that privelege. When I just overnite, I won't pay an outragous price for that privelege to park for a few hours.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:48 PM, April 21, 2007  

  • I have worked in the Black Hills for several years at a National Forest Service Campground. I have learned much about how the "system" works to appease the private campground owners. Rates in some NFS campgrounds in the Black Hills are directly connected to those charged at KOA. If KOA's raises their rates the NFS campgrounds rates go up too. Some campgrounds have restrictions on what type of campers can stay in their park because the local private park owner has complained.

    What bothers me, is campground owners have several ways to increase use of their parks. The one they seem to be choosing is to fight to get laws and ordiances passed to "force" campers into their parks. This talls me that campground owners donot know how to market their products. Campers keep telling them that the campers do not want the amenities the owners are trying to force down their throats. All they are interested in is charging top dollar so they can pad their own bank accounts. That is why they do not want to see: state and national parks improve their facilites; let these parks charge reasonable rates; or let Walmarts, rest areas, truck stops, and shopping centers allow over night parking. It is time for them to wake-up or campers like me will not be staying in their parks for even the long stays.

    By Blogger Marv, at 6:51 PM, April 21, 2007  

  • I have worked in the Black Hills for several years at a National Forest Service Campground. I have learned much about how the "system" works to appease the private campground owners. Rates in some NFS campgrounds in the Black Hills are directly connected to those charged at KOA. If KOA's raises their rates the NFS campgrounds rates go up too. Some campgrounds have restrictions on what type of campers can stay in their park because the local private park owner has complained.

    What bothers me, is campground owners have several ways to increase use of their parks. The one they seem to be choosing is to fight to get laws and ordiances passed to "force" campers into their parks. This talls me that campground owners donot know how to market their products. Campers keep telling them that the campers do not want the amenities the owners are trying to force down their throats. All they are interested in is charging top dollar so they can pad their own bank accounts. That is why they do not want to see: state and national parks improve their facilites; let these parks charge reasonable rates; or let Walmarts, rest areas, truck stops, and shopping centers allow over night parking. It is time for them to wake-up or campers like me will not be staying in their parks for even the long stays.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:53 PM, April 21, 2007  

  • Don't know why KOA is complaining. In our area, Kansas, the State and Federal campgrounds are more expensive if you stay for a week or longer than the private campgrounds. So, if they still offer a discount for the week, or month; they will probably still attract the same crowd...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:02 PM, April 21, 2007  

  • Two weeks ago we stayed at a pp in casper, wy. The live-in the park folks had over half the spaces taken. One was a truck slide-in camper sitting on the ground with junk all around. Very trashy looking. The rule about picking up after pets had not been enforced, so every time one of our dogs needed to go out, we had to take extreme caution to step in a "land mine". Most of the seasonal campers were smokers--we could never have a window open. We were within 12 feet of the camper next to us. They opened and banged doors closed 15 or more times in the am and pm. Now why would I want to stay in a State Park? Much more room, much cleaner, no one who"Lives there". Less trash and noise. And, in most cases---much much cheaper. For a full timer who is retired, with no chance of a pay raise, What should I choose. We paid $38 per night in Rapid City in the OFF-SEASON. This seems like a no brainer to me.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:10 PM, April 21, 2007  

  • We have been RVing for only 2 years and quickly gravitated to state and federal parks over most RV parks for all the reasons peviously stated when a choice was available. As a retired corporate lawyer I have spent 45 years trying to sort thru the issues of "fair competition" for a variety of clients, including not for profit organizations,[NFP} which include the state and federal governments that enjoy the no-tax advantage. The basic principle we have come to adopt in many cases is one that does not permit a NFP orgnization to compete directly in the delivery of goods and services with a tax paying entity, because of the cost advantage inherently enjoyed by the NFP which is not required to pay most taxes. However, that fact , in and of itself, should not be determinative since there are so many other factors affecting business success and failure, not the least of which is client service demonstrated in clean and spacious facilities reasonanbly priced. If the private business model does not allow for a profitable operation under those conditions, it should not be operating. With respect to the issue of amenities charged for but not used, they should be replaced with ones that are utilized, or more realistically, pricing for stay should be unbundled, as we do in so many other situations ,e.g. a base boon-dock nightly or hourly charge charge for the site of $xxx, and add on charges for every additional amenity utilized-electricity metered, water metered, sewer dump site, shower metered,internet access, cable access, pool, playground, rental equipment (fishing poles, bait,)You get the idea. On the subject of rebates for tax double ups as we call them. The RV park owner should get a real estate tax rebate on its property to reflect the monetary contribution that the RV park owner is making, through the tax levy, to finance the state park improvements with which it is in direct or indirect competition. Any comments so far?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:16 PM, April 21, 2007  

  • So let me understand what anonymous 11:16 pm is proposing. He wants those business people who can't or won't compete to get a tax break? Why, because they are inefficient, poor managers or greedy? Wow what a concept!

    Private park owners have some built-in advantages they can offer over public facilities. Pools, hot tubs, cable TV connections, paved roads etc all come to mind. If they don't improve thier facilities they will loose business. Some improvements most parks need are larger sites for the larger sized rigs. If park owners would spend more time and energy on improvements we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

    By Blogger Dad, at 7:56 AM, April 23, 2007  

  • I think this is a great idea. Everyone is always lamenting how state and federal parks are getting shut down or are declining in quality and use. Now, we have a state park that's working to improve itself, so we should be glad about that and hope others follow suit.

    I don't think the argument that it's unfair because state parks get govt. money is a valid one in this case. Each park has its own unique amenities according to its land and condition. Private CGs can offer things the park can't, and vice versa, just because of the amount of space they have and what their landscapes are like. They can all make their own places as appealing as possible based on the (non-monetary) resources and perks they have. Because their parks aren't identical to Custer, the camping sites aren't the only factor that determines whether people choose Custer or them.

    By Blogger Barb, at 11:21 AM, April 23, 2007  

  • I will just state what others are saying: Private campground's spaces are too small, there's no fire ring, picnic table, etc, and the prices are too high. Yes, we have free enterprise so they should determine what the public wants and reinvent themselves to offer those accommondations. If a camper just wants to park for the night, they could offer an area for this and charge a cheaper fee.
    WE DON'T STAY IN PRIVATE PARKS FOR THE ABOVE REASONS.

    MKR-Full timer April 24, 2007

    By Anonymous Marlene Richards, at 9:22 AM, April 24, 2007  

  • In the west, the private campground owners have also whined to the US Forest Service; until in some areas, they raised the cost of the Forest Service Campgrounds beyond all reason, saying the USFS campgrounds should be "competitively priced" with the private campgrounds. In some areas the prices has risen to as much as $20 or even more, for a small unlevel gravel site with a delapidated picnic table and a pit (non-flushing) toilet down the way. Where ever they can, the private owners also try to get boondocking sites shut down; or try to get the USFS to charge a fee for the more popular boondocking sites. Most people who stay at the USFS or boondocking sites want an entirely different kind of camping, out closer to nature, than what the private campsites have to offer. Often the private campground may get only one or two extra customers a night, if any at all. Overall, as a whole, the local town or area loses out on revenue from RV Tourism, because the RVers move on to find someplace more friendly to them.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:41 PM, April 24, 2007  

  • Most of you seem to think the initial investment in a park is the same for public and private parks. Obviously, the private parks have to pay for the property in the first place and then are paying property taxes, etc. to operate them (some of those taxes going to their State Park competitors!). The private operators are probably not making much on their investments (relative to shopping center owners, for example).
    The only thing that private guys have to compete is personal service: Enforcing park rules, minimizing the adverse impacts of full-time-stayers, and being generally appreciative of our business will go along way to making us feel better about paying the cost of a private park. (NOTE: I said 'cost' instead of 'charge' because I think most privates are just getting by.)
    Private parks will never be able to provide as much space per site compared to public parks and you know why: The have to buy the space in the first place (state parks don't have to)!
    Give the poor private guys a break and private guys: Give us some courtesy for our business!
    By the way - Should non-residents be required to pay a significant surcharge to stay in an other state's park (say double the price)?

    By Anonymous 'Spider' from Bremerton, at 3:47 PM, April 24, 2007  

  • We camped Conn. & RI. state parks in the summer of 2006 and paid double price because we were out of state campers. Really no complaint because they were nice parks with lots of room and still only cost around $20.00.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:45 PM, April 26, 2007  

  • If the state parks are going to start offering the same services as private campgrounds then the state needs to help out on taxes and utilities, being an ex. campground owner I have seen first hand, but also campgroung owners need to treat their campers as friends. c.b.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:01 PM, May 12, 2007  

  • My opinion private campgrounds are pricing themselves out of business. Prices getting higher while service is getting worse. My recommendation...either lead , follow or get the hell ou of the way. Bravo for the state campground.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:29 AM, May 17, 2007  

  • As a retired State Park Ranger, who worked my complete career in parks with RV sites, I know that at least 40% of Washington SP offer larger sites for the RV up to 70'. There is no Cable TV provided with the fee, but each year the fee goes up to match local fees - basically to keep the neighbors happy. The biggest reason we got campers over the private was size of lots, spacing, camp fires allowed, and privacy, not cost. My wife and I camp now, and find we are willing to pay the extra for what SP offered, maybe the private RV park should copy State Parks, then add the cable TV, laundry, stores, swimming pools, etc. We gave up on the larger corp. RV parks due to crowded sites - I hate hearing the person next door fart in their RV and we can hear it like they were sitting next to us.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:13 PM, June 16, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home