QUOTE We also find that the cleanliness and friendliness in KOAs has a minimum standard to adhere to, unlike other campgrounds that run the whole gamut from sublime to rotten awful. What we don't like is being nickeled and dimed, be it in KOAs or other campgrounds. wprgge, I assume that you actually did not read the post prior to your's. The owner is trying to explain the procedure for inspections and the rating system. The majority of KOA's are INDIVIDUALLY owned, therefore they CAN be different. Many of them do not charge ANYTHING extra, as you called it "nickel and diming you to death". And to bunch them all together and claim that the "cleanliness and friendliness" is minimum...is a very prejudice statement. I suspect that you have been in very few KOA's, because you apparently are not at all familiar with their policies. I will admit that I'm not at all familiar with KOA's in Canada...maybe you are confused?? :unsure:
Hi Gilda, Well, you actually have me confused now. I wonder whether you read my post carefully or whether I did not elaborate my text enough. When I write that KOAs have a minimum standard to adhere to that does not mean that cleanliness and friendliness are at a minimum but rather that there is a minimum standard that is expected to be attained. I mention specifically that other campgrounds run the whole gamut from sublime to rotten awful. Maybe I should have added that we never had a rotten experience in a KOA, but I figured this was clear from the rest of my text. As for the "nickeled and dimed", I do not single out KOAs, I do not mention that KOAs nickel and dime more than other campgrounds, I simply state that we don't like it. I fail to understand how you can jump to the conclusion that I have been to very few KOAs. I have a KOA Value card since 1987 and have camped in KOAs in 8 Canadian provinces and 16 American States….
QUOTE there is a minimum standard that is expected to be attained You are obviously not aware of the KOA standard's, which is why I assumed that you don't stay at many. QUOTE We also find that the cleanliness and friendliness in KOAs has a minimum standard to adhere to, It's just unfair and sad for you to lump them all together when there are so many hard working families that are trying very hard to keep up "THEIR" KOA. They DO have strict standard's to uphold. When KOA does there inspection, they can not immedietly take their name from the park. The park is given a warning and a time frame to "clean up their act". Therefore, there certainly are a few KOA's out there that are trying to maintain the standards, but can't do it overnight. I'm sure that you are aware of parks that were booted out of the franchise because they were unable to change in a specified period of time. Now, is it fair for you to decide that ALL of them are not keeping up to standards? They by NO MEANS have minimum standards as you suggested.
QUOTE(gilda @ Dec 22 2009, 01:48 PM) [snapback]20444[/snapback] You are obviously not aware of the KOA standard's, which is why I assumed that you don't stay at many.....They by NO MEANS have minimum standards as you suggested. Gilda, You are not understanding what wprigge is trying to say. He/She said that KOA's have MINIMUM standards not MINIMAL standards. Minimum standards can still be quite high, and wprigge is saying that the park must not fall below a certain (possible high) level if they want to be a KOA. He/She said that when they stay at a KOA they will find service and facilities that always come up to that certain level regardless of where the park is located. He/she is actually complimenting KOA's. QUOTE It's just unfair and sad for you to lump them all together.....is it fair for you to decide that ALL of them are not keeping up to standards? Some other posters may have done this, but I do not see how wprigge did. You obviously feel a need to defend KOA's, and that's OK because sometimes they need it. However, when you have someone that is already on your side you should not alienate them by making the comments you did.
Hi Texasrvers, When I saw Gilda's answer I came to the same conclusion as you, that she didn't understand the expression "minimum standard., but before I had a chance to answer you already did in a very clear way. I do have a tendency to be very brief, maybe sometimes at the expense of clarity, but you obviously understood my text perfectly, so it must have been clear enough. Thanks! ;-) Hi Gilda, I see that you do not understand the expression "minimum standard" and you feel that this is something negative. Actually there is no value judgement in the expression and I'll try to give you an example that I hope will clearly illustrate my point. Suppose I wanted to build a house in our area. By law the walls must have an R-value of at least 16. That means that any new house should at least attain that R-value, but it does not mean that a wall can not have a higher R-value. Now if I want my house to be eligible to the new "Novoclimate" label the walls must have an R-value of at least 24. Again that does not mean that the actual R-value cannot be higher! In both cases there is a minimum standard, 16 for a regular house and 24 for a Novoclimate house. Now let's transpose this to the campground situation. Any campground must meet the minimum standards of the particular jurisdiction it is situated in, if it does not meet them they will not be allowed to operate. If the same campground wants to be part of the KOA label it must meet the KOA minimum standards that are higher than the legal minimum standards. Again in both cases they can be better than the minimum, that's why this is called a "minimum standard". If you go back to my two answers you will see that we do use KOAs a lot. Where in my text do I say KOAs are bad? Where in my text do I say I'm not happy with the cleanliness and friendliness of KOAs? Why would I use them if I did not like them? Maybe your misunderstanding of the expression "minimum standard" made you jump to the conclusion that I tried to put KOAs down when in fact I was complimenting them, as Texasrvers understood. Hope this clears up any misunderstanding, and Merry Christmas to all!
QUOTE Honestly, if you don't like KOA's, then don't stay there...it's kind of like the fries at McDonalds, if you don't like them, then go down the street to Burger King. That's the beauty of having the freedom to choose. The issue is not so much about the fries, but the cost of them. If one place charged significantly more for theirs, then I suspect there would be complaints about that, too. One wonders how KOAs stay in business when half of its customer base has the general impression that the entire chain of campgrounds is not worth the high prices. Perhaps it’s the other half who loves them. But then complaining about no cost Wal-Mart camping is heard also. I'm just going to take it all with a grain of salt......and then put that on my french fries.
So am I to understand that if we don't like the KOA group in general, we then must face the warth of Gilda? Having only owned RVs since 1972 and been full-time for the last ten years, it may be that I too don't know much about KOA but I do find that added fees are more common to KOA than to most parks in general. And I am well aware that most KOA parks are individually owned. Unless it has changed since I last conversed with the marketing VP at KOA, HQ in Billings, at that time the company only owned nine parks, with all others being subscribers to the KOA service package. I would agree that KOA parks that are really dirty are rare.
QUOTE we then must face the warth of Gilda? I guess so Kirk, I'm just full of warth.... Merry Christmas and hoping for a Happier New Year for you.
