I want to thank you all for your informative replies. Our problem is the water stand is 2 feet behind the electrical box (with stands 5 feet up). I worry that someone who is tired pulls in late, takes a empty site and hits the water pipe. The problems with that are BAD! Have to shut down entire row and wait for 2 days for corporate to send people up from Yuma to fix the problem. By the way, we are in Quartzsite, AZ. Can't put up gates, so that's out. Thanks again for replies. Moderator note: I'm sorry Bluebird Bob, but owners are not allowed to identify their park in forum discussions, so I have removed your final sentence that mentioned the name. Thanks for your understanding and support.
At the park I workamp at during the winter season there are wooden or fake "rock" covers over the water pipe. As for after hours. At the office door below the closed sign is an after hours phone number. Who ever works that day has the after hours cell phone. I can get to the office in less then 45 seconds if I have a golf cart.
Last year we were coming down for the winter season and was going to stay overnight at Weed, CA. We paid and set up, went to town for groceries and a major fire started in town. You can read about it probably by Googling it. Anywho, the Highway Patrol said to leave the campground as the wind was blowing the fire towards us (about a mile away). The park owner told us to go ahead and leave if we want but he wouldn't refund our money. No problem, left anyway. Headed down after dark to Hat Creek (which had a MAJOR fire the year before) and saw a nice rv park there. Pulled in about 8pm. Note on door said "Closed at 6PM and if you want a spot after that it would be an additional $35.00! We left and found a rest area about 20 miles further down the road.
We too have been guilty of pulling into an RV park later than anticipated, after a long day on the road. Would ALWAYS stop at the "registration" area and check to see what instructions were posted on the office door or bulletin board. Every park is different, and to my recollection, every park had instructions for those of us who tried to squeeze too much into a day. Now I call ahead (what ever did we do w/o cell phones?), and just talk with whoever answers the phone, to discuss our options. Hypothetically, with NO instructions posted (?) we would assume it was ok to find an empty pad and park for the night. Settle up in the morning. If you absolutely do not want folks to come into your park after 6pm, you will need a gate and a "Park Full" sign.
That's the best and easiest thing to do--call the park to get instructions if you are not going to make it by closing. Most of the time park owners will be accommodating if they know you are still trying to get there. And actually if it looks like we won't be there within an hour before closing I will usually call just as a precaution to confirm that we are still coming. A five minute call can save a lot of grief later.
While we don't typically arrive after office hours I've noticed virtually every park we've been to - if they had spaces available - had a station for late arrivals. I'd find a solution for your water pipe concern and change the policy to be more traveler friendly.
The dogs off leash is the #1 issue we have at all parks, we have full timed for 3+ years in most states. I'm at the point that I just about want to quit camping because of the off leash dogs and VERY disrespectful owners. I've been in some bad situations with small dogs attacking our 9 year old Husky, I just wish he would hurt them but he does not. One lady said rules are meant to be broken and another said yes she does own the park, among other yelling and cussing. So keep your barking dogs quiet and leave them on leash or at home, pick up the poop.
As a park owner, this is definitely the rule we see broken most often. The people with dogs off leash seem to be the very worst to deal with when confronted with the issue. Almost always very rude, yelling, cussing and we've gotten several bad reviews from it as well. Only one reviewer was bold enough to say in the review that he was upset that we had asked him to leash his dog. In one incident our camp host saw a woman go into our meeting hall, which is used only for groups and is usually locked. He found her running several large dogs off leash INSIDE the building. Of course she was upset when she was told that wasn't allowed. Last Summer we had one designated person to speak to the "dog off leash" people, but after multiple very bad encounters, we thought that it was just the approach of that particular person. That is until my Husband decided to give it a try. He's very personable and got the same reaction. The abusive reactions are so bad, we have actually considered whether it's worth it to continue to confront these people. It puts us in a very difficult position.
Make it clear in your rules that allowing a dog off leash in other than designated areas is grounds for immediately being ejected from the park with no refund. Allowances can be made for the occasional escapee of course, but that could be handled on a case by case basis. And then enforce the rule even if law enforcement interventions is needed! The word will get around...
Rules: wow, now H.U.D. want's to rule the RV industry.They are going after park models. Read it for yourself http://rvdailyreport.com/industry/new-hud-rule-threatens-future-of-park-model-rvs/ This is where they will start,just the park model,then once in they will slip in other rules.If you full time ,live months at a time at a job or take extended vacations YOU are next! PLEASE get involved. here is the original http://rvdailyreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/HUD-park-model-memo.pdf all for one ,one for all Tom
You may not like it, but there needs to be a bright line of separation between RVs and permanent homes. This potential legislation is brought on by the "Tiny House" movement, if such a movement even exists, which I seriously doubt. There is a need to protect people from unscrupulous dealers who would sell them an RV that is not designed or engineered for full time living and then telling them it would work fine. That is why HUD is trying to get involved. What comes next in the Tiny House campaign will be to have those park models qualify for Federally insured home mortgages, which will inevitably lead to massive defaults because a park model just won't live as long as a thirty year mortgage. On top of that, if the difference between full time living vehicles and recreational vehicles becomes muddled, you will see the government step in to tax and regulate RV parks. We will become the target of increased property taxes because the taxing entities will argue that we are now adding to the number of school children, the number of people on public assistance, the number of people needing police and fire services etc. They will likely look to end our ability to manage our parks as "lodging innkeepers" and place RV parks under landlord/tenant laws meaning I can't keep out the riff-raff with my rules and policies. Things like dog policies, quiet hours, site keeping requirements etc. are all either weakened or completely illegal under Landlord/tenant law. the 400 square foot differentiation between RV and Mobile Homes has worked fine as far as I am concerned. But leave it to a few who want 500 or 600 feet to bring on a whole bunch of unintended consequences.
Now this is really getting off the rails! The HUD proposed wording changes in the RV definition is something that the RVIA, RVDA, and other RV groups have been pressing for for years. There is NOTHING in the new wording that would impact fulltimers in any way, and the new wording simply makes it clearer that an RV is a "Recreational Vehicle", and not within the HUD construction rules. The existing definition has been in place since 1982, and both the current and proposed wording only specify what the manufacturers intent for the RV is, not how the end user might decide to use it. The new wording specifically exempts larger 5'vers and park models from HUD regulation that currently fall into a grey area where HUD has chosen to treat them as RV's despite them falling within HUD's size restrictions for permanent housing. The new wording takes away the dependence on that easily changed position. You might find this joint statement by the RVIA, RVDA, and ARVC of interest in clearing up any confusion: Why HUD’s Proposed Rule Redefining RVs is Critical to the RV Industry and RV Enthusiasts
I like your optimism but in my life the good intentions of an opinion to clear up misunderstanding or define a rule goes from fixing one thing and then leads to more government action.Sorry I do not think this needs to be a fed responsibility. Tom
The proposed reworded definition actually removes RV's more completely from potential HUD oversight than the existing definition. It has zero effect on motorhomes and TT's that already fall outside of HUD regulations, and clears up the remaining grey areas where HUD could claim responsibility that they have been saying right along they don't want. I don't see this as a bad thing. The Escapees RV Club has proposed even additional wording that might make the differences even clearer if adopted, but even the existing proposal goes a long way towards that end. RV's have always been a Fed responsibility under one set of regulations or another, and that's not going to change. The Federal DOT has oversight of the vehicular portions of RV's, and the already established NFPA and ANSI standards cover the rest. There is not now, nor will there be if the revised definition wording is adopted, anything in it that prohibits fulltiming in an RV, which seems to be the biggest concern of many that haven't read beyond the sometimes scary and misleading headlines.
Actually, I think this is an excellent example of why the Interstate Commerce Clause in the Constitution exists. Think about the chaos that would ensue if different states had different rules with respect to whether or not an RV has to meet standards for houses rather than RVs. Manufacturers could easily find their products to be salable in one state and not another. Under the Commerce Clause the federal government can set a single standard which has to be respected by all the states.
We have had only 2 people in the last 5 years that had the same reaction as you had. After the second warning, we told, not asked them to leave, no refund. Don't feel bad about it at all!
What gets me as a "customer" is when the camp owner or manager tries to let these morons know that what they are letting their animals do is against park rules and then they get reactions back like that. Those are the 1% that make the camping experience unpleasant for everyone else in the park including us other dog owners who do abide by the rules and respect them. If I was a park owner or manager they would be politely asked to refrain from doing whatever it was that was against the rules. Second time they would get a strong warning. Third time, I'd call the local law enforcement folks and have them stop by. Then the asking and warning would become a firm "pack up your stuff, get out, and don't come back"................
Maybe the small mom & pop campground in New Mexico we stopped at a few years ago had the right idea. Rule #1 was: "This campground is private property. We reserve the right to eject anyone at any time for any reason, including a lousy attitude. Yours or ours..."
It's quite a shame that people have no consideration for others. We have a Pomeranian who is always leashed when outside our RV. We always carry bags for scooping his poop and we do our best to keep him quiet. He doesn't really bark much anyway unless someone knocks on our RV. We treat others they we want others with dogs to treat us. People with no manners or respect for others will hurt those of us who DO have respect for other. Sadly, it seems we are becoming few and far between. There has got to be a better way to handle this matter. Fines, perhaps? Or better yet, inform all campers in advance of them booking their reservation that those with pets that are caught off leash must leave the park immediately. Remind them upon arrival, have signs posted everywhere and make them sign a document stating they HAVE BEEN INFORMED AND AGREE TOTHE POLICY. This way, if they are caught with their dog off leash and are forced to leave the park immediately, then everyone (staff and campers) don't have to listen to their rants and temper tantrums. =) Just a thought.
