Is this against the rules

[AlyLynn]

While I agree any of those reasons could be an explanation for empty sites..however add them to those who reserve and don't use them..and it's a problem.
Those of us who post regulary on the camping forum have become increasing aware of this issue. We share our experiences in planning camping trips, and trips reports upon return. I would say I am aware of least seven or so members who live close enough to FW to make fairly regular trips..even day trips. There are those, much like the person staying there currently..who report back about the situation of sites being reserved..yet not occupied. It's been enough of a problem for campers to know it's becoming a common practice.
We currently have a forum member who has been trying for days to secure a site..being told there are none available. There is a Grand Gathering taking place and those currently attending have reported many empty sites, that would have been available to this family.

I would agree that it seems like a whole lot of trouble to go to for amenites like early entry and parking. Personally, I don't see why anyone would bother...but apparently they do.

I couldn't have said it better myself! We travel 27 hours by car to go to FW--because it offers what no other resort can. And while it is frustrating not to be able to get a site when you are able to go, we NEVER get upset that another family was fortunate enough to nab a site--even if they don't go into the parks. (It is a campground!)

 

[auntie]

If regulars are beginning to notice a pattern, then maybe it should be shared with Disney, if you haven't done so already. A dramatic increase in this practice would hurt Disney in their pocketbook, since off-siters are most likely not renting watercraft, bikes, canoes, etc. on down days or buying food in the general store or restaurants. They're obviously willing to make changes when it hurts the bottom line, as we saw with the dining plans. I'm not sure of what the solution is though, as they'd need to hire personnel to check daily occupancy at the sites. I don't know. They can't fix it or address it if they don't know it's happening to such an extreme.

As of right now, regardless where you stand on the morality issue, there doesn't appear to be any policy to prevent it from happening or any numbers to indicate how out of control the practice is.

You make a very good point..regarding the bottom line, and those ocuppying the sites for parking and extra hours benefits are not likely spending money at the marina, golf cart rental, or bike rentals. Not to mention the Trading Posts. Also regarding the fact that currently there is no policy against it. I do think the bottom line mentality is the way to go with bringing it to there attention.

 

[TammiMcMan]

You make a very good point..regarding the bottom line, and those ocuppying the sites for parking and extra hours benefits are not likely spending money at the marina, golf cart rental, or bike rentals. Not to mention the Trading Posts. Also regarding the fact that currently there is no policy against it. I do think the bottom line mentality is the way to go with bringing it to there attention.

If any of you "regulars" are friendly with the FW management, that would be a good place to start. They're the ones who are going to know what sites are empty with reason and which ones are simply going unoccupied after check-in. Multiply that by what the $$$ amount per day is spent by the average FW campsite guest. Could be quite eye opening if the system is being abused that badly.

 

[lisa3383]

I don't find feel that you get alot of people who travel to Disney to camp because it's cheap and the only way they can vacation.

Sorry, but I would have to disagree with this, in part because of posts like right above (TammiMcMan and also from PPs like Chaslaw).

 

[loveDmouse]

It isn't fair to rent a site that you don't intend to occupy. Why don't you think of the person who can't get a site for their vacation so you could get the "perks". You wouldn't be very happy if you were in their shoes.

 

[maxiesmom]

It isn't fair to rent a site that you don't intend to occupy. Why don't you think of the person who can't get a site for their vacation so you could get the "perks". You wouldn't be very happy if you were in their shoes.

I agree with you. But unfortunately many people seem to think that because they can get away with doing something means they should do it. No worries about whether it is considerate to others. Who cares, as long as they are happy.

 

[kaytieeldr]

I think that simply paying some $42.00 for the option of the early entry, and parking would be a better solution.

No. It wouldn't. $42 per... ??? Person? Room? Car? Night? So for $42 per _____ (fill in the blank), ANYBODY can/could enjoy benefits intended for ON SITE GUESTS? I don't think so.

Ok, I see your point, I really do - but how do you respond to those who (admitted in this thread) sometimes go to the campground just to camp and not even visit the parks!?

Not the same at all. Those Guests are occupying the sites for which they've paid.

 

[auntie]

Sorry, but I would have to disagree with this, in part because of posts like right above (TammiMcMan and also from PPs like Chaslaw).

Honestly, whether people camp in Disney because it saves them money..or if it's simply their preferred way to vacation with their RV..I don't see that it should make a difference as to site availability. If they have a good enough reason to reserve a site they should get it?..Come on.. It's a campground. FW is the ONLY camping option in Disney. While the resorts offer thousands of rooms. Let's leave the campground for people who really want to BE THERE. Whether it's to enjoy the resort or to visit the parks and enjoy camping. It was put there for that reason. To bring people who want to camp...however they like to camp..and for whatever reason they want to camp. Operative word here being "CAMP". This reserving a site and not occupying it is absolutely having an effect on people who would actually USE the site.
Camping brings people from all walks of life together. People that you might not otherwise associate with or have the opportunity to get to know. When you're in the campground, the family with the tent, might be next to the family with the million dollar coach. They both sit around the same campfire, and often share the same enjoyment of the outdoors. FW being a Disney camping resort offers the opportunity for families from various walks of life and economic backgrounds to share an additional common intereset..Disney!

 

[3gr8kids]

This is how I see it also. Not stealing, and also not quite the same as double-booking ADR's, in that the person is actually Paying for the site each night (not just booking it and then not showing up, like the ADR's).

I'm sure Disney probably wouldn't look highly upon this, but I don't see what they could do and I really don't see it as an ethical thing either. Yes, others who want the spot won't be able to get it, but the OP is paying for the spot. I guess what he/she chooses to do with it is his/her business. To me, it's not really much different from a family that might choose to get 2 hotel rooms for more space, when their family DOES fit into 1 room (legally). They COULD just stay in one room, but they are choosing to pay for 2. That is also taking room availablity away from another family, but since this family is paying...well, then it's their right. I don't think there would be negative posts about that, and I don't really see it being all that much different. Maybe it's just me, though.

It is different because they would be using the extra room (albeit just for more space), not just booking it for the "perks" and not using it at all.
Well, regardless of the argument "they paid for it, it's their's to do with as they wish", I think it's morally bankrupt and ethically wrong. JMHO

 

[sandym718]

I want to thank everyone who has answered my earlier questions. I see your various points, I really do, and it's made me think. But I still don't think what the OP wants to do is ethically wrong, I just don't. I'm having a hard time with the "there are thousands of hotel rooms, only one campground" argument. I know that is true, but I also think that in ONLY wanting to camp, a person/family knows that they are going to be trying to get VERY limited spots and should book very early. Same as someone who wants some very specific room category, such as MK view for the Poly, for example. Especially at very busy times. You need to book very early, or possibly be left out of that option - and have to consider others. And there ARE almost always other options - even if they don't seem great, and certainly aren't your first choice. I really just see it as first come, first served (I always say the same thing about ADR's in those discussions, too, so I guess it's just me!!)

I REALLY see the point about how FRUSTRATING it would be to not be able to get a campsite, and then to find out from friends, on the board, however, that there were reserved sites not being used. I agree, I would be VERY FRUSTRATED by that. But I guess I'd also figure that I should've booked sooner, because there's probably only a couple sites that are Really in that situation - meaning to get one of those, you would've been one of the last people to book in FW anyways - probably fairly last minute. Is that a fair assumption? I wouldn't guess that there would be more than a couple sites at any given time occupied but not reserved, is that right?

I hope I'm making sense. I guess what I mean is - I see how VERY FRUSTRATING this must be to the camping folks, and I don't blame you. I'd probably feel the same way if it were me - be it a campsite or a room at the Poly that I wanted (where we stay). I would be frustrated, but I guess I still feel that if someone wants to pay for it, well, what can I do? Just not my business unless they are violating the law and/or Disney rules. I definitely see your side though and understand it!

 

[kiteri]

I am not attempting to get flamed... but....

Everyone who stays offsite would like to have the onsite perks of free parking, Disney transportation, DDP and EMH, but those are the things you sacrifice for the low price of staying offsite.

It may not be against any "rule", but it really is more than just having your cake and eating it too.... it is keeping that cake from someone else who is also hungry!


Anyone who volunteers to stay at a tent/popup site, is sacrificing:

1. Their own full bathroom with hot running water and a bubble bath at the end of a long day in the park. (tent/popup sites don't have sewer hookups)
2. Maid service
3. Their own bedrooms.
4. A cushy living room with cable television

Tenters/popup campers should not be turned away because the sites they could occupy are sitting vacant to allow a family occupying an offsite townhouse to park, dine, play and ride in onsite Disney style!

 

[DaParkers]

Honestly, I don't understand some of the responses to this post. The OP wouldn't be depriving others of using the site any more than anyone else who rents a room/site/villa/etc. is depriving someone else of that space. You pay your money and you rent your accommodations. Every rented room could have potentially gone to someone else, for goodness sake. It's no one's business how much the renter is "using" the space, and the OP's "conscience" shouldn't have to be consulted at all. Yes, the post from the single mom with the broken tent was sad, but it hasn't a thing to do with the OP's question. By the same logic, I could say remember that woman and her kid the next time you book CR MK view and go Value instead out of respect for her sad, sad story. It's ridiculous. If the space is duly bought and paid for, the renter has met her obligations as far as that contract goes. Renting space at Walt Disney World isn't a moral issue, nor should it be made one. It's a business. They're trying to make money; we're trying to save money. If the OP isn't breaking any rules in the leasing contract, he/she is perfectly within his/her rights to rent any darn space at Disney he/she can pay for.

I agree.

 

[Just Beachy]

Just an idea here - you could ACTUALLY camp at FW. Maybe a tent would not be the most comfortable accommodation for you and your family, but how about a cabin? Or, you could rent a camper. There are people/companies who come and set it up and take it away when your vacation is over. This way you can get all the perks you're looking for and also occupy the site, thus not depriving an actual camping family the chance at a reservation at FW. The Fort is a really fun place with tons of things to do. You might enjoy being in a resort as opposed to just staying at a house. This is JMHO, but I think that renting the site and not occupying it, although it may be "legal", is just not a "magical" thing to do. Wherever you stay, I hope you have a great trip.

 

[Laurabearz]

It's MORALLY wrong and I hope that anyone who does this stubs their toe really hard.

 

[DaParkers]

But thats sort of my point - some people stay there for the resort and nothing else, while others take advantage of it for the park benefits and nothing else. Both situations leave people wanting - both (a) those that can't afford another hotel and want to go to the Disney parks; and (b) those that don't care to do the parks and just want to camp. How can you really judge which is more right?
BTW I have camped in both tents and RV and I know how much fun a good park can be (the place I've visited had crafts, like ceramic painting, and pools, dance night, horses to ride, and more that I didn't do).

Very well said. And in a non-confrontational manner.

 

[GOBA Mom Lynn]

kiteri, I agree- thats the trade-off that off-site guests are "supposed" to be making. So when they try to bend the rules, it gets annoying.
Part of the problem is that the "non-use" of the campsite is so utterly apparent. It is really obvious when a site is vacant for days on end as opposed to temporarily, for whatever the reason. Rooms in the value resorts may be reserved and paid for by off-site guests, too. It is just not very obvious, everything takes place behind closed doors for the most part. You could walk by a room any number of times and not know whether someone is using that room or not, without some serious looking, but go by any campsite, and you can tell if someone is using that site right away.
I guess it's just the feeling that the site should be used for its intended purpose.
I have the feeling not too many minds will be changed by all this discussion...in any event....carry on.

 

[medic9016]

I'm not trying to be rude, but technically this isn't true. Everyone has the option of choosing to stay in a resort room as well (at least, until and if everything gets booked up). Even people who like to camp, even people who drive their RV to Florida, can still just park it and stay in a resort. Wanting a campsite is a Choice, choosing that over a resort room. I'm sure there's lots of valid reasons WHY to choose camping instead, some of which were listed by a poster above, but it's still a choice. Again, not trying to be mean, but for this reason I don't see campsites as a "special" thing different thing from hotel rooms (for the purpose of discussion on this thread). It is not like there are certain "types" of people who can ONLY camp and not possible use a hotel room. The ONLY thing I can think of that would fall into this category would be handicap-accessible rooms - that IS different and I think the idea the OP suggested would NOT be ethical if they were talking about doing that with that type of room. Other than that, in my opinion, pay for the room, site, cabin, what-have-you, and then what you do, within legality, is up to you. People can be shut out of campsites all the time by other paying guests, this is no different. First-come, first served, I guess.

Now, a previous poster did mention that occupancy MIGHT be part of the rental contract. If that is the case, then what the OP suggested would be wrong. I honestly have never seen anything like that, but also honestly haven't read the fine print on Everything, so it may be the case.

I have a k-9 working dog, which I am responsible for. She gets worked everyday while we stay at FW. I can jump through all the red tape and get a room at a resort with her. I stay in my travel trailer so we don't have to go through all the red tape. Is it a choice maybe, but Disneys policy for the most part is no animals in the resorts. So if all the campsites are full is it fair for me to stay in a resort with my dog and others can not?

Also as someone has already posted, If your going to spend the money for a campsites and another room some where, just stay on Disney property.

I have seen this same type question posted before, but never in the camping forum. Why not?

 

[Kurby]

In this case i'd have to say - yes - it is fair for you to stay in a resort with a working dog while others who have "pets" only can not. It's your right by law to have your working dog accompany you to any place be it restaurant or resort. to deny you would be a lawsuit waiting to happen.

As to the OP - against the rules, no. against the moral majority - it would appear so.

Regardless what anyone else says - you're the only one who can decide if it's "right". loads of people do things that they think is right and others don't. I've often seen people looking for discount codes, coupons etc... is it wrong since they weren't mailed to that person? what about the group who don't put someone on the reservation because they aren't joining them until the last 2 or 3 days of a 10 day trip and they don't want to have to pay the ddp fee for 10 days when the person is only there for 2 (that question comes up a lot on the DVC section). how about parents who fib about their kids ages? keeping them 2 and free when they have been 3 for a few months or on the other end keeping them in the child group instead of adult when they'd have to pay more for the tickets, food, etc..


so..... as Jiminy Cricket says "Let your conscience be your guide"

I have a k-9 working dog, which I am responsible for. She gets worked everyday while we stay at FW. I can jump through all the red tape and get a room at a resort with her. I stay in my travel trailer so we don't have to go through all the red tape. Is it a choice maybe, but Disneys policy for the most part is no animals in the resorts. So if all the campsites are full is it fair for me to stay in a resort with my dog and others can not?

 

[sln88]

I don't see anything wrong with it. If the benefits were worth $42, I might try it myself, but its not worth it to me. If you pay for a site, it is yours to use as you like.
I plan on going to the beach for 4 nights this trip. Many of the rentals are weekly only. I may have to pay for a week and only be there for 4 days. But, once I pay for it, its my choice to use or not use.
For all of you saying that you should just stay at a value for the same $$, that is totally wrong. I can get a 2 bedroom condo for about $350 a week. It would take 2 rooms for my family at a value at what, $100 a night? Someone mentioned the cabins- those are very expensive.
If you want to camp, either make your ressies early, or stay at a different campground.

 

[kaytieeldr]

There are 784 campsites, total - for all RV, camper, and tent campers. Period. There are about 8,500 rooms just at the Value resorts. Except at the busiest times, it is unlikely that a Guest reserving but not occupying a Value room is depriving a potential Guest of a place to stay.