You finally snag a campsite at a popular park. After weeks—maybe months—of trying, you’re in. You pull in, get set up, and take a look around. The campground is full. Really full. And it makes you wonder… who’s getting these sites, and is there a better way to manage the demand?
That question is popping up more lately, especially after British Columbia introduced new surcharges for out-of-province and foreign campers at some of its busiest parks. If demand is sky-high and locals are struggling to get reservations, should non-residents pay a little more?
Supporters say it makes sense. Locals already help fund these parks through taxes, and when sites are scarce, giving them a bit of an edge—or at least charging outsiders more—could help balance things out. It might also help manage overcrowding and bring in extra funds for maintenance.
But not everyone agrees. RVers, more than most, know that travel doesn’t stop at state or national borders. Many worry that fees like this could set a precedent, making it more expensive (and complicated) to explore beyond your home turf. After all, today it’s one province or state—tomorrow it could be everywhere.
So what do you think? Would you support surcharges for out-of-state or foreign campers at busy parks? Vote in the poll below, and, as always, feel free to leave a comment and share your thoughts. Thank you!
MORE POLLS YOU MIGHT ENJOY:
- When RVing, how often do you cook over a campfire?
- If the only available campsite was directly next to the playground, would you take it or look elsewhere?
- Do you have a favorite RV trip of all time?
- Would your dream RV have more than one bathroom?
- What are your top two main considerations when choosing a campsite?
RVT1256b
That would never fly. It would require a ID and we know there would be some group saying that would prohibit certain people from using them. (TIC)
I voted no. I was hit with this charge in Indiana and IF I had known before we checked in, I would have looked at the private campgrounds in the area. They offered 50 amp and dry level sites. Michigan does the same thing to out of state visitors and if just doesn’t seem to be very friendly when we are advertising for the terrorists to come and visit. The way to solve the issue is to allow the locals to reserve a couple of months early and then open the reservation system to out of state visitors.
I don’t understand the terrorist comment, could you elaborate?
Please post the terrorist welcome ads. I would love to see them.
I think he means tourists.
For State Parks are you referring to the park entry fee or the cost of a campsite? So far as I know Michigan charges the same price for the campsite. Park entry fees are a whole different thing. Michigan taxpayers partially fund those parks; out of state visitors do not. The increased entry fee is an equalizer. Frankly, I have found the same thing at State Parks in many states.
Some Michigan SPs treat out-of-state visitors to their state parks like we just landed from the moon. They can be brutal. But, the worst I experienced was Wisconsin. They surcharge your pants off to the degree that it is cheaper to go to a private campground than bother with Wisconsin SPs.
I agree! I have shopped state parks in WI and it was better to just stay at a private park and get FHU.
My home state of Minnesota is also brutal on short stays, especially for motorized units with a toad. They, like WI, make you buy a permit for both the motorized RV and the toad, even though the motorized RV, just like a trailer, will simply be parked. I can see a permit for ONE of the motorized units as C’s and B’s without a toad will be “daily drivers, but not TWO permits.
Doesn’t Michigan require a permit to camp in a SP? I remember planning a stop on a trip out West, but for a one night stop it was a bit much.
I used to live in Indiana where they DO charge higher entrance fees for out of state campers and it didn’t do much to help local residents. The state park I used to go to quite often was usually full and MANY of the campers were out of state. They want you to believe that the policy helps in state campers when in reality all it does is put a few more dollars into state coffers. I quit camping in Michigan due to the same policy.
Wisconsin has a “out of state” charge for entrance fees and camping fees.
Same with “in state can reserve early.” That only helps those instate folks who are able to plan far ahead, not the average resident who may decide they’d like to go camping next weekend.
States charge higher prices for out of state hunting and fishing licenses, same thing.
That is true, but some states also offer 3-7 day licenses to encourage visitors.
Yes, but a whole different scernio.
But with a hunting or fishing permit, I am extracting a resource from that state.
A product.
Albeit live game, it’s still a limited resource that can be sold, traded or consumed.
If I were to take the campsite home with me thus exposing the state to the cost of replenishment, your point would be valid but I’m not. How do you view them the same?
Unfortunately most of our Provinces are doing it, as well as many US States we have visited in the past.
It’s kinda like tariffs; it’s a feel good story for the people collecting the extra fees, until it’s not. It just adds up to increased inflation for everyone!🇨🇦
Is the interprovincial affect in Canada greater for MMIWG2SLGBTQQIA+ community or about the same for everyone?
LOL, HAHAHA That is the WOKEST acronym ever and your lawmakers say it with a straight face. 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🇺🇲🇨🇦
Agreed. I looked it up and said to myself “WTF?”
Have a good weekend!
🇺🇲🚀🇨🇦🚀 Great US/CAN collaboration for Artemis ll my friend. Canada’s first trip around the moon this week. Cheers.
It was awesome!
That acronym is a train wreck in slow motion.
A reasonable ‘use’ fee for out of state/province campers is fine in our opinion. When you track through another state, for example, you pay their state taxes for purchases – fuel, and supplies, even ‘motel’ nightly tax (think Hawaii) in some places.
The question needs some clarification. If these costs are only for State parks, maybe. National/Federal parks NO.
I agree about having residents, if a state park, having a first choice window.
Also, needing positive ID should not be a a problem. We always carry our Real ID (drivers license) and passport card when traveling.
And yet that same logic about having a positive ID doesn’t seem to apply to other government proposals.
Massachusetts charges out of staters $30 to visit its state parks and less than $10 for residents. Another reason I never go to Massachusetts. Discrimination in any form is bad.
Who gets the extra money and what is it used for?
While many RVers stay at parks within their domicile state, I am speculating that the goal of most RVers is to see areas that are in other parts of the country.
It’s just a nother money grab by the Goverment..
I already pay more for camping in Oregon and Idaho state parks. And Washington (where I live) charges more for out of state residents. You have to book online (or in person at some parks) so they get your home address. The extra fee is nominal and state parks here in the northwest are typically the best campgrounds around for us.
This is not logical. The assumption in order to work as advertised, is the fee will stop some from staying and therefore open up spots for locals. Silly. Out of area campers will pay the fee and locals will still struggle for a spot. If true, the same would happen in reverse, where there is one standard fee and locals get a discount. But the gov wouldn’t make more money that way. Scam.
I didn’t take the poll because the answers were skewed. Out-of-state is a whole different category of campers than foreigners. Out of state campers, a small surcharge, such as what NY State Parks charges, $5, would be fine. But out of the country, such as Canadians or Europeans, large surcharges would definitely be ok with me.
We have a lot of friends from Canada and they are our good neighbors. There is a special relationship between us. Let’s have a good neighbor policy. Just maybe they would extend the same to us.
If a state park system relies on state funding from in-state residents/tax payers, then “Yes”, charging out of state visitors a greater fee upon entry and use than state residents should be an acceptable practice. Same too with federally owned parks. If a non-US resident visits the park, the non-US resident should expect to pay a higher entrance/use fee over a US resident. Why would anybody expect others to help cover the cost of one’s own recreation. Is this not welfare assistance.?
I agree with what you say, but the other side is if I pay an out of state surcharge, what about the State Park I am paying tax dollars for and not using? If I am out of my state of Oregon, then I just freed up a campsite there. I’ll gladly swap “my” state park fee with a traveller from another state. Instead we race to the bottom, and higher fees! We travel for the very purpose of exploring new places.
You’re not “swapping campsites” as you didn’t have one. You are swapping the fee structure. But at that point neither of you has a reservation.
Per: MoneyTalks News, Overall spending on parks and recreation is led by states with larger populations and greater economic activity. California, Florida, New York, Illinois, and Texas are the biggest spenders, and they also represent the five largest economies and five of the top six largest populations. Per capita spending paints a different picture, as several states in the Midwest — including Illinois, North Dakota, and Minnesota — all rank among the top five in the country. Mountain states like Colorado, Nevada, and Wyoming also spend among the most per capita. For many of these leading states, investments in parks and recreation are an important tool for generating economic activity.
It’s the same as a highway toll. Where I live we have no tolls on any of our roads. But, there’s many places that have tolls that I shouldn’t have to pay. The people from those areas drive on my roads for free and it should be reciprocal.
Last year our travels took us into NY and PA state parks. Both charge a bit extra for non-residents. It wasn’t excessive…in fact, the senior discount I got all but erased it in both states. So in reality, I paid the same as a resident non-senior but more than a resident senior. I had no problem with it.
I didn’t answer the poll because the amount of surcharge would be a big deal for me. I would not support a “punitive” amount like 20%+, but under 10% seems reasonable since residents in many states fund through taxes.
And, no separate motorized vehicle permit(s) to camp in many states we’ve been in. 👍 Wish my home state of MN had that!
My vote doesn’t reflect my opinion well. Many parks are supported by tax dollars, I support parks collecting info on citizenship, if they are not taxpayers. So,I would be willing to pay more for an out of my state park. That said, if citizenship can’t be certain, I also support Law Enforcement detention for ICE.
Interesting. Only one person below or above mentioned the economic factor *Gary P.) or financial contribution to the local or state area. A few weeks ago we were bombarded by the loss of business from Rver’s when parks are closed or manpower and surcharges are imposed. What that happened to that discussion? It applies here and it also implicates the comments on Canadians and foreigners – they contribute substantially to our local economies as well as the parks themselves. Price them all out and watch the crying begin….. Living about 200 miles south of the Canadian border – we have a substantial number of their license plates to see in our shopping centers and motels as well as parks!
Pa supposedly charges out of state campers more for campsites.
I said everyone should pay the same, but I don’t have a problem with discounts for taxpayer supported facilities if the discount is applied to those paying the taxes.
I want to comment on my vote above. I think National Parks should not be subject to state of residence. They are a National treasure, not a state treasure. People from other countries, I think, should be a little more because they have not paid any taxes to maintain the national, state or local parks. For state and local parks, I’m ok with a small surcharge for out of state (out of country), since out of staters are taking advantage of a state treasure and not paying any taxes to maintain it.
National Parks should have the same fees for all US citizens. Recall earlier discussion concerning funding National Parks, with the “sky is falling” handwringing.
But foreigners should pay much more as non-citizen, non-taxpayers to visit parks and to camp. What they spend at area businesses is irrelevant. The marketplace will sort it out.
Canada severely jacked up non-resident fishing licenses. We can choose to pay or not go there. Canada may notice a drop in revenue and lower prices. Markets work that way.
Same goes for US National Park foreign visitors. Crowded now so price foreign visitors higher to match demand.
Concerned about park funding? Charge foreign visitors more.
I make reservations months in advance, I keep a tight schedule, but sometimes things go wrong, Highways are blocked by construction or wrecks, flat tires, breakdowns. I hate the “surprise” when a campground wants to shake me down for more money because I am from out of state. Even when I pay in advance, sometimes they overbook, or someone decided to stay an extra day or two.
How about our Veteran discounts? Seems really weird to me being a Vet and only getting a discount if from the same state. I thought serving my 2 years in the Army was for everyone in the United States, not just Washington…
I dislike non-resident surcharges but if states feel compelled to dissuade the very visitors that fuel their economy, the fees should be reciprocal.
To clarify – If my state or province charges non-residents double, I should be charged double wherever I go. If my state has no surcharges against your residents, your state shouldn’t have surcharges against our residents.