Campground Rules - why?

[SteveSueMac]

Originally Posted by cameront120

Poor behaviour and lack of regard for others isn't reserved for the young. Every generation has its bad apples so, please, let's not make this about one generation being better than the other.

That's fair. I think I'm right on the trend but I definitely over-generalized.

[Ag&Au]

As someone else similarly commented, My brain told me not to open this thread. My curiosity made me do it. However, thankfully for my sanity, I managed just to peruse it, not read every detail. The thread that seems to tie it all together is:

"I want campground rules to allow what I like and ban what I don't, and I want others to obey them."

I am commenting on the entire thread not the original post.

Lets face it ,we can't please everyone. My advice is to read and understand the rules before you pay and setup. If you don't like them move on. If you want to have near total freedom, camp in your backyard. and even then, your scofflaw neighbors may annoy you.

"Others not obeying the rules that you respect" is by no means limited to campgrounds in our modern society. In fact, I'm guessing that campgrounds are well above average in rules obeying.

One thing I have noticed is that campgrounds are like neighborhoods. The more money people pay to live (or stay) there, the more orderly you will find it.

Since I went to all this trouble, I will touch on my favorite, campfires. If I were chosen as supreme ruler, I would totally ban burning anything just for amusement. It is wasteful, unhealthy, and polluting. For the few who are enjoying the warmth and atmosphere of the fire, there are many more downwind who are coughing, choking, and having their eyes sting.

Ken

[McDave]

Originally Posted by SteveSueMac

What do you think is the spirit behind these and other rules in the campground?

Underlying any rule in a privately owned campground is the desire to maximize profits from operation of the campground. In a publicly owned campground, the goal is to balance the somewhat conflicting desires to maintain the quality of the campground itself with operating at the lowest possible cost.

In either case, the quality of the visit for the guests is important, as without guests there would be no campground, but would be secondary to the main goals. I would imagine the goal with respect to the quality of the visit would be to try to maintain that quality at least at the minimum level consistent with achieving the desired occupancy level, and rules would be set accordingly.

In a broader sense, rules in our society are often set with the intent of maintaining order or safety, and sometimes they do just that. However, oftentimes they reflect the prejudices of the majority to the detriment of a minority. The prejudices are often so ingrained that people who are making the rules don't even realize they are doing it, and become quite insulted when their thinking is challenged. For example, 75 years ago rules segregating the races were considered the norm, and suggestions to end that were considered by many to be a real threat to the social order. As recently as 20 years ago, the same threat to our social order was perceived by any move to end restrictions against homosexuals. In other words, whole groups of people were ostracized in order to increase the comfort level of the majority, who found it more convenient to exclude a whole group rather than apply the same rules to individual members of that group that they applied to theirselves.

I see some of this same thinking applied to dog owners in campgrounds. It is convenient to say all dogs must be on leashes, because that solves the problem of the occasional unruly dog that might do some damage. The fact that the rule doesn't work, as evidenced by all the complaints in this and the other discussion about the lack of enforcement in most campgrounds, is glossed over. Usually rules that are unreasonable don't get enforced. A reasonable rule would require that every pet owner has the responsibility to maintain control over his or her pet at all times. Any of the problems or concerns that any of you have expressed about dogs would be as easily dealt with by applying this rule as with a universal leash law that is not enforced, and probably won't be enforced, as most of the people responsible for enforcing it don't like it any more than owners of well-trained pets do.

[SteveSueMac]

Originally Posted by McDave

...snip...

In a broader sense, rules in our society are often set with the intent of maintaining order or safety, and sometimes they do just that. However, oftentimes they reflect the prejudices of the majority to the detriment of a minority. The prejudices are often so ingrained that people who are making the rules don't even realize they are doing it, and become quite insulted when their thinking is challenged.

This is absolutely true. Excellent point.

Originally Posted by McDave

...snip...
A reasonable rule would require that every pet owner has the responsibility to maintain control over his or her pet at all times.

Yes, I think that's the spirit we're talking about. In the example I posted, had the owner paid attention to his off leash dog coming on to our site - or listening to my dog crying and straining at the end of her leash as his dog approached - and controlled his dog - no harm, no foul.

Which gets to another point - liability issues. I thought about it once, but can't imagine running a campground for revenues with all the liability issues you'd be facing...I'd hate to be the campground owner dragged in to a lawsuit because one of my guests didn't control his dog (leash or voice) and another camper or pet was hurt because of it...