that means you either do not travel with your dogs or you drive presumably long distances to national parks then sit in a campground. My family are fairly active outdoors people, and this would simply not be worth the effort to us. In addition, I wonder - for those who rv with dogs, do you never get in a toad to tow vehicle and go out to dinner?
I visit Acadia on a regular basis. When we had the Endura, the dogs went with us because the Bar Harbor KOA doesn't (or at least didn't) have any such rules. We didn't stay in the park because we wanted full amenities. We did have a toad and took them as often as possible but there are times when it's just not feasible. We, too, are very outdoorsy and the boys would go to the "doggie hotel" as it was one less stress to deal with. Fortunately we have a top-notch kennel facility that we've boarded at for years. I understand the desire to take pets on vacation but everyone has to be realistic that this may require some concessions.
I don't camp in National Parks-most are just too far for me to drive to. However I still feel that "no unattended dogs" means just that. But a quick phone call will clear up any question. My hunch is that rules are phrased in such a manner so that some will just not take their dog or go elsewhere.
The no dogs left unattended (even inside an RV) rule is redundant and unnecessary in my opinion. Every campground has a no barking rule and if an animal is guilty the owners can be asked to leave.
How I wish I could agree with you on this one! Not all campgrounds enforce and it's not just barking. An unattended dog outside presents a potential safety hazard not only to others but to himself.
Before I continue, please remember that I, too, am a dog lover. However, I'm starting to see the trend that the "rights" of dog owners should supersede the "rights" of the non-dog owning public. You can march down to the next campground that has better rules but I can guarantee you that there is someone else doing the exact thing-in the opposite direction. Due to health reasons I couldn't camp where fires were allowed for a while, so we camped where they weren't allowed. I witnessed people leaving because they couldn't have one. You can stomp your feet, complain and go elsewhere, but I'm not sure it's having the impact you might think. And it only takes one that thinks the rules don't apply to them (and I've seen it MANY times on this forum) to ruin it for everyone else.Mr./Ms. Crowe, this is a very well reasoned, concisely presented, logical response. Exactly the kind of thing we don't need on these forums.
Another thread got me thinking about all the important things I have learned from these forums that I otherwise never would have believed.
Here is a short list, feel free to pile on.
Dogs left in an RV NEVER bark.
Dog waste is completely sterile and clean
Tires made in China are specifically manufactured to kill the user
No matter what the price, the rent for an RV site is too high
Good Sam Roadside Assistance will never respond to a call
Camping World has never had a customer they didn't rip off
No matter what the price, you could have bought a better RV for Less
If you don't pay cash for your RV, you are a poor money manager
If a park enforces their rules, they are rule Nazis
There is no dog waste in parks because all owners pick it up
All tow vehicles are overloaded when their RV is attached
It's not camping if you don't have a fire
All campfires are nothing but smoky messes
If you drive faster than 20 MPH under the speed limit you aren't
smelling the roses
L1 and L2 becomes meaningless once you are past the service entry. The lines are interchangeable and are connected at random from pedestal to pedestal. L2 on your pedestal can be L1 or L2 on the next.
I disagree with this statement. All of the licensed electricians that I hired as a Commercial General Contractor were always consistent. They would not flip the red and black wires around at random.All of our pedestals are connected with 4/0/4/0 4/0 URD service entry aluminum wiring. The conductor casing is solid black for both hot lines and there is a yellow stripe on the neutral. The wire is twisted and unless you Ohm out every connection, no way to tell one hot from the other. And since it does not matter, the electrician does not ohm them out and just connects them randomly. No red or white wires to deal with. The ground wire is wired in separately and is #2. Wiring a string of pedestals is different than the wiring in a building since the service wiring is behind the breakers in the pedestal. While you are correct that wiring past the breaker should be color coded, you will also note that most appliances that require 240 volts don't request wire by color, they just say hook L1 here and L2 there. It doesn't matter if the red or the black wire is considered L1, that designation is totally up to you.
I agree with parkmanaa.
Also agree with Kayteg1.
If I couldn't get the owner interested in doing something, and I planned on being there for a week or more, I'd look into rewiring the power pedestal.You surely don't have the right to rewire a park's pedestals. Doing something like that is going to earn you a one way ticket out, and I might even call the police. As a park owner, I am REQUIRED to use a licensed Master Electrician for any service alterations and if Mr. "Putter around with the Park's electrical System" did something to screw up an entire row of RVs (say they swapped L1 with the Neutral, instead of L2 sending 240 volts into every RV on that circuit) everyone will be in deep doo doo.
If I caught someone altering a pedestal, I think I would legally be obligated to call out my electrician and have him check everything out, just to be on the safe side, and then I would present that bill to Mr. "Do it Yourself". If he refused to pay, that's when the police will get involved.
Bottom line, if the power isn't working properly, it is time to leave the park.
L1 and L2 becomes meaningless once you are past the service entry. The lines are interchangeable and are connected at random from pedestal to pedestal. L2 on your pedestal can be L1 or L2 on the next. Your low voltage may actually be caused by pure bad luck. If the other rigs on the service you are using all happen to draw the majority of the power from the same leg, the voltage is going to drop. It is entirely likely that when the park turns over the new rigs will draw power differently and the services will balance or maybe even unbalance on the opposite lines.
Another problem may lie with the nature of electrical service. The power company can legally deliver voltage to the service within a range. At the low end, they can deliver 114 or so volts to the service drop. Combine that with normal voltage drop over distance and the park may very well be telling you the truth that there is nothing they can do.
The voltage drop on any service will tend to worsen over time. If the connections in the boxes get corroded or if they loosen, voltage drop will occur. Same with the connections in the plug itself and your plug may also be contributing a volt or two to the drop. If the blades are black instead of bright copper, scrub them down with some sandpaper or steel wool.
Finally, if you have had multiple problems at different parks with surge guard showing low voltage on the same leg, maybe it has a problem or your rig is not balancing it's power demands very effectively. It might pay to have a professional electrician take a look if the problem continues at multiple venues.
Interesting though that chain restaurants for the most part have the same prices on their menus, regardless of location. And I'm sure some locations pay a ton more in property taxes, salaries and rent than do others.Unless you are in an Airport, a mall or near a major attraction. The McDonalds in West Yellowstone doesn't have a dollar menu and $5.00 foot longs don't exist at JFK International.
It was posted to show the facts of what is and is not going to happen. Unlike the many posts talking about 300,000 to 500,000 trucks, cars and or SUV's.
As always I have never hide the fact that I work for FCA US not one time.
FCA is going to spend a lot of $$ on this, that's the fact. Trying to spin it any other way is ludicrous. Their garbage vehicles are starting to catch up to them. Spin it as Daimler this, Cereberus that but the fact is Chrysler has been making garbage for most of their 100 year history. So much so that they have been bailed out by You and I TWICE!!!
Yes, the up to $2 Billion (500k * $5k per vehicle) is 10% of their cash reserves. And probably not going to matter. But when you constantly make the lowest quality vehicles on the road, this does not bode well for future sales. Smart people will take FCA's money, run to the nearest competitor and get out of their POS Chrysler product.
You know it's bad when Sergio is now splitting FCA up and begging for a merger. You can't survive long on low quality, razor thin margins, and high incentives.
Here's the real info straight from the US Government:
FCA Recall Info from safecar.govI don't know where the $5,000 per vehicle figure came from, but that sounds WAY low. From what I have read, the buyback agreement is for the original purchase price less "reasonable" depreciation for mileage. Not too many people are going to allow their $40,000+ truck to be bought back for five grand. My hunch is FCA settled to get the entire amount on the front side of a bankruptcy. Because even if they buy back every single vehicle, I am sure there is a whole lot of class action lawsuits in their future and this will obviously cripple the brand going forward. Getting all the liabilities on the table, filing bankruptcy and trying to emerge without all that hanging over their heads is the only logical strategy for the Chrysler Brand. Then, maybe a buyer will come forward. It would at least potentially save the workers, but the stockholders would most likely be toast.
Leasing has worked out well for me. It's not a bad option if you want to drive a new vehicle every three years or so, and you don't drive a lot of miles. With my lease I paid zero down, all maintenance is included. The car is under warranty the entire lease term so no repair costs. So, I basically have to put gas in it, pay for insurance and write a check each month. At the end of the lease I can walk away, get another car, or buy my current one. (probably the least attractive option) The only downsides are that I'm limited in the number of miles I can drive (12K a year) and I always have a payment. So, it works for me. It may not work for you. Also, lease terms may prevent you from installing a fifth wheel hitch.
Something to remember regarding mileage, the vehicle depreciates with every mile you drive whether you lease or buy.I have always leased my toy vehicles. I enjoy having a luxury convertible. I don't drive them many miles a year, so the leasing works great. A huge hidden benefit is at the end of the lease there is no hassle selling or trading the car and if the market for them has crashed, resale value is not my concern.
Suggest starting with an offer of $500 to anyone who will take it off your hands.
(and I would want a lot more before I would touch it.)People have slammed you for this, but in my opinion, you are dead on. Paying monthly fees for something that has nearly no value is throwing good money after bad. As I often say, I am no longer interested in the cheese, I just want out of the trap. And if that entails chewing off one of it's legs, the mouse figures it still has three left, which is a lot better than the alternative.
And another poster is also right on. Paying upfront for anyone to sell something for you (other than a reasonable cost for a classified style ad), is almost always a scam.
When we were shopping, we found great prices before winter hit.
we got a new HTT for 40% off MSRP in October.
Agreed. We bought our 5W in November and were offered 42% off MSRP for a new, on the lot, but last years model. Current model years (that had to be ordered) were almost uniformly 35% off (it was a bit weird really, several different manufacturers, several different dealers, all right at 35%).If you were to check the resale value of those rigs four or five years from now, there is going to be a much larger difference than that 7% savings. I would go with the new model year unless I knew I was owning that particular rig for the very long haul.
KOA is for people who have no idea that there are a lot of less expensive CG's out there that are very nice and you don't pay high prices. My last experience with KOA was about 10 years ago, I needed a place to sleep with just electric, price then was like $30, looked in my CG book from Good Sam and found a CG about 5-10 miles down the road for $15 and had water & Electric. Of course there was no playground, gameroom, swimming pool, and all the other stuff we don't use. CG owners need to realize what the difference needs are for all the different campers out there. All that to say "Stay away from KOA"It is much more likely that KOA is for all the people who want some or all of those amenities who do not want to travel 5 or 10 miles out of their way. Trying to be the low cost provider is often not a good business strategy.
I have to disagree with a previous post about calling 911. 911 is for emergencies and while cutting wood illegally isn't right and I don't like it either, it isn't an emergency.
I agree, calling the police / 911 about someone defacing trees is a waste of resources. I will mention it to the rangers.Actually, cutting live trees is a crime, and should be reported. That is what 911 is for. The 911 operators are more than capable of prioritizing calls and will alert the proper authorities.
You need to remember that the overwhelming odds are the area where this occurred is very rural. It isn't like you are calling the operations center for a major city. The 911 operators in the area are not juggling several murders, dozens of assaults and hundreds of property crimes at any given moment.
While it might not seem a significant event to you, randomly cutting branches to a tree might lead to the death of that tree. Do it to all the trees around a site and eventually that beautiful site in the trees is a barren parking spot. Damaging or destroying a tree is serious and if there isn't a park employee or ranger nearby, calling the police is the next step.
We specifically prohibit charging of electric vehicles. No campground's electrical system is designed to handle both the load of a 50 amp RV and the load created by charging an electric vehicle. Multiple units on an electrical loop would quickly trip the main breakers cutting power to all the rigs on the loop.
Today, electric cars are not much more than a curiosity piece. If the manufacturers ever want them to become mainstream, one thing they are going to have to do is come up with a recharging infrastructure that does not rely on the goodness of others. No one expects an RV park to fuel up their diesel pickup tow vehicle or their Honda CRV toad and it shouldn't fall upon the parks to fuel up someone's electric car.
Not that anyone cares, but $5.00 is probably more than the difference in cost to the park for someone in a full hookup site and someone dry camping. The only things that are metered and cost more the more they are used are water and electricity and that doesn't cost much more than $5.00 a site per day. The dry camper has access to all the same amenities that the full hookup site campers do. They are probably more likely to use the park's restrooms and showers, since they don't have a water supply or sewer connection in the overflow area. The vast majority of the money a site costs goes to overhead. Staffing, insurance, infrastructure, common area costs, advertising, debt servicing and the like don't change because there is a dry camper. And then there is profits, A dollar earned from a full service site is exactly the same as the dollar earned from an overflow site. Truth be known, I would bet the overflow site earned that park almost exactly the same amount as a full hookup site, no more, no less. And there is some rationale for that to be the correct business model. Earning the same amount on each set of guests can be argued to be the fairest way to charge.
I am with the others, driver's side is probably preferable, but circumstances often make the passenger side preferable. Things like curling around a tree, someone parked along the road, the angle of the site and probably a hundred other considerations help make the decision.
One thing that is almost constant, and not understood by many people is you need to get as close to the site as possible before you swing away to begin backing up. This is the exact opposite of what you should do to pull into a site where you should swing out as far away from the site as possible before swinging in.
The other old saw I often quote is: You need to drive more like a truck driver and less like an RV'er. Truckers drive fast on the interstate and back up slowly. RV'ers tend to do the opposite .
You know when you have a bad experience with a campground, you remember it and unfortunately for KOA I had a horrible experience with them also and while it was one owner who I feel cheated me out of $35. and while $35 is nothing, that was in 2005 and I let my membership expire and I have never been back to a KOA since. I know it is silly, I don't blame all military base FAMCAMPS for one bad experience, but I won't go back to any KOAs ever.
Sorry OP you had a bad experience and charging you $40 to park your rig sounds absolutely ridiculous but now KOA has another unsatisfied customer and like me, you will think of it every time you think of a place to stay. What is that saying about cutting off your nose to spite your face.? I think KOA does that often.So what, exactly, should the park have charged? Would $38 dollars been appropriate?. For me, it's pretty hard to decide when we have absolutely no idea what the circumstances were.
As for the idea they now have an upset customer, I don't know of many businesses that let the customer decide what the price should be. The fact is every business is going to have a some dis-satisfied customers. There is no way to please everyone. Funny that you let the Famcamps off the hook for one bad experience, but won't do the same for KOA.
Without a skill that would transfer to traveling, it is going to be a very low income living. Most people making good money while full timing either have the ability to do their normal job via the internet (programming, tech support, accounting, etc.) or have a highly desirable, short in supply, skill. Things like being a nurse, pharmacist, Doctor, veterinarian, etc. where they can fill in for vacationing professionals. Even things like traveling salesperson doesn't really translate well because you generally have to travel where the clients are, and they tend to be in the big cities, not the tourist destinations people want to travel to. Job hopping from place to place isn't going to pay well and you will always be starting at the bottom of the totem pole, so to speak.
Some people chase the seasonal work, things like the Beet Harvest in the Mountain Northwest, the grain harvest in the Midwest, Amazon, pre Christmas, etc. But those are usually pretty tough jobs and you won't feel like you are on a vacation, you will feel like you are working for a living.
You really need to start out by figuring out what you like to do and what you are good at doing. Then you figure out how to make that work while on the road.
Breed bans are brought about because it is statistically proven that the risk of loss from those breeds are higher than the risks from others to the point that they are uninsurable.
Then you have all the mix breed dogs that are mostly ignored by the insurance industry.
And you have all the individuals identified by their owners as XXX breed, not one of banned breeds. Is the insurance company or you as a business owner going to refuse service to those owners because you "know" this is one of the banned breeds?
There are so many better ways to deal with dog aggression and dog bite prevention than to institute breed bans.If I was subjected to a breed ban by my insurance, I would err on the side of barring a dog that was not actually a banned breed but looked like it. My pockets are likely deeper than the guy with the dog, so any lawsuit is going to name me. I need insurance coverage, plain and simple. The insurance company isn't going to suddenly cover me if I say "hey, I thought the dog was a poodle, not a Rottweiler.". That's just business.
As for there are better ways than breed bans, I am all ears, and I would think the insurance industry would be the same. If they could write policies profitably, they would. If they refuse to write a policy, it's because they see it as unprofitable. They aren't making some social or political statement. But it is going to have to be a workable solution. You can't expect to have all 300,000,000 residents of the United States take courses on recognizing and dealing with dog behavior because there are 50,000 potentially dangerous Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, Dobermans and Cane Corsos in the US.
While all that is true, there is no way for any business (including yours) to pre-determine whether or not a dog arriving is a stable, well trained dog, or a poorly socialized, untrained one.
While you would rather deal with a well trained Doberman or Pit Bull, I would also like to point out you would much rather be attacked by a Lab or a Poodle than attacked by a Doberman or Pit Bull. The damage that can be inflicted by the breeds most often targeted for breed exclusions is much more serious than can be inflicted by the vast majority of dogs.
The first statement is true, the second is poppycock.
While I can't pre-determine a dog's reaction to a certain situation, I (as most vets) have developed a pretty good ability to read the situations pretty quickly. I wouldn't have lasted 37 years with my body relatively intact without that ability. While I've had more training and experience than most, there is a minimal skill level that needs to be taught early to everybody This would help avoid situations where bites happen.
A lab, golden, poodle or any breed can inflict damage as severe as any of the named breeds. Terriers tend to shake after biting which causes so much tissue trauma. While size of the dog biting CAN make a difference, it's just a fallacy that bites from dogs not on the list are less serious.
I understand that there are lots of people that aren't dog people and running a business to try to satisfy everybody is tough, but to think that dog related problems will be eliminated or even reduced by breed restrictions just doesn't seem valid. If that's what the insurance people demand, you just don't have much choice.Just going to have to disagree with you, unless your point is Pit Bull TERRIERS are an extremely dangerous dog once one attacks. There are numerous studies regarding the bite force of different breeds, and the banned breeds occupy most of the top spots. There is a reason that organized dog fights are fought by Pit Bulls and other dogs with strong bites and inbred aggressiveness. The same with dogs that are trained and used a protection animals, those dogs are well suited for those tasks precisely because of their breed.
There are also numerous studies, both by insurance companies and by independent analysts that have shown what breeds of dogs cause the most damage both physically and financially. This is the information used to determine if a breed should be excluded from insurance coverage. These breed bans do not arise because some clerk just doesn't like a certain breed. And those statistics do not become invalid because someone has a Pit Bull that is a sweetheart. Breed bans are brought about because it is statistically proven that the risk of loss from those breeds are higher than the risks from others to the point that they are uninsurable.