Is this against the rules

[Us3]

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!? I don't really see this as any worse than what OP suggests! Yet I haven't seen any campers have an issue with it?

Hi Lisa. Here is the difference in my opinion.

Disney is so much more than four theme parks. WDW includes the parks, the resorts, dtd, bw, all of the Disney restaurants etc etc. Those staying in sites at FW are on Disney property spending money at Disney. The OP is staying off site and renting a Disney site to save a few bucks and to get Disney perks....and yes, taking the site from someone who would occupy it and use it for its intended purpose.

Like all things Disney...FW is an experience. Some people enjoy the "Disney FW experience" and may not necessarily enjoy the "theme park experience". I personally think that's what is SO GREAT about Disney...it appeals to a wide variety of people and they don't necessarily all have to do the same things to experience the Disney magic!

I am one of those who have stayed at FW with my family and not entered a theme park for an entire week. It's not because we don't enjoy the parks...its because we were enjoying what Disney's FW had to offer (camping, boat rentals, golf carts, campfire program and movie, Crockett's Tavern, Hoop-de-Doo, horse back riding, canoes, carriage rides, fireworks hayrides, dailey planned activities, fishing etc etc)...we couldn't do it all in one week! Now to think that someone would take this Disney experience away from a family to save a few bucks and stay off site...yeah, that irks me!! Is it against the rules, no...but it takes the opportunity away from someone wanting to enjoy a site at FW (and they are hard to come by on weekends, peak times and holidays).

We are a family of 5 and we are annual pass holders. We still sometimes go to FW and not enter the parks for days. We are too busy experiencing all that Disney has to offer....either at FW, other resorts etc. We've also stayed at GF, Poly, WL,CBR, CSR, POP, ASMo...but I can honestly say that I've never stayed at one of these other resorts and not gone to a theme park for the entire stay. To me, this says a lot about what Disney's FW has to offer. Like others have said, we stay at FW more often for the atmosphere and family fun it has to offer...not because its cheaper (I only wish it was ) (For us its not cheaper because of the site rental, rv payment, tow vehicle payment, golf cart purchase, gas to pull to FW, insurance etc. It's a choice we make for our family fun.)

Anyway, that's the difference to me. I think the OP is trying to save money (which is understandable) but going about it by the way of a Disney loop hole. It's none of my business...but man it makes me mad knowing people are doing this when others can't get reservations 6 weeks, 6 months or even 1 year in advance!

 

[TheFlame]

Exactly,Aribelle! Disney cannot treat the guests of the tent site differently than they treat guests of the hotel rooms. Can they go by your value resort room and check to see if you have set up? Do your clothes have to be in the drawers? Slippers by the bed? Toothbrush by the sink? etc.... No.

So, just becuase Disney can see what is happening at a tent site accomodation doesn't mean they can terminate your reservation just because you don't appear to be present.

When you buy a Disney accomodation, you buy the right to a number of things: place to sleep, use of water, use of electric, parking, DME, DDP option, shipping, Disney Transportation, EMH....These things are not FREE, the cost is factored into your "nightly rate". So, if you don't use these options, are you cheating Disney on that, too?

all of these are OPTIONS. You can use all, one, several or none...but you have paid for the option.....OPTION being the operative word.

Morals are not in question here. Funny that when there's no logic behind a position, the poster will immediately try to make it a moral issue. Then, to make it more bizarre, they'll toss out a couple of insults and throw in a politics and terrorism for good measure. Scary.

Ooooo, yes, it is scary there are people out there that have differing opinions isn't it!?!

And didn't I already mention that most people don't even know what morals are anymore?

 

[Us3]

How do you know that those empty sites are being used in the way OP is asking about (i.e. paying to get the benefits but not living there?).

Sorry it got so long, hopefully someone reads it and understands that just because there is an empty space, doesn't mean someone isn't paying for it. I can't tell you how many times I've tried to get more seats to the theatre and been told it's sold out, only to arrive and see plenty of empty seats. Life gets in the way of people doing everything they planned. Think about how sad that must have been for the family who isn't occupying that room/space....at least you made it to Disney, they didn't.

You are right, we dont know...BUT this *is* a known problem. This "loop hole" is discussed on these boards and others all of the time. Some folks say its a great way to "save money". So when we see so many empty sites...it makes you wonder if its one of those people who are doing this!

 

[auntie]

Those staying in off site resorts are doing so to save money. Lord knows, with the prices Disney is charging (especially for families of four or more) I can see why this is their choice. We are a family of five. We have had to move up to Deluxe resorts to accomodate us. This was our choice..we could have stayed off site and accomodated our family, and paid less. We chose not to. I sucked it up and have paid the Deluxe rates, because staying on Disney property was an important part of our vacation. However, I do understand where for some that just isn't an option and Disney resort rates aren't something they choose to pay. Only.. Why is it they should have the benefits of those who stay on site..whether it be campground guests or resort guests. I personally feel it's just not right. When you choose to stay off site, there are savings, but you do give up certain Disney perks. That's the choice they make staying off site. Why is it that the campground guests have to pay the price for someone choosing to stay off site. Seems to me they want to have their cake and eat it too. Just doesn't seem right, and I for one hope that Disney is able to find a way to prevent it. There are many campers calling well over a year in advance to secure these sites...who REALLY would use them.

 

[maxiesmom]

actually they aren't illegal. there is no law that says you must state the correct age of your child and no police officer will give you a ticket if someone reported that your child was 3 years and 3 months and not 2 years 11 months and 25 days.

the worst that will happen if you're found out is that you will (or should) be totally embarrassed and have to pay whatever the cost for admission, dinner or whatever is. it ceretinally isn't illegal.

as for adding or not adding people (i've never done it because we travel as a family from the start) i dont actually know if it's different for regular hotel rooms but it seems to be ok to add someone to DVC at the end they just want to know about it.


so again morally wrong but not illegal.

Disney states that a child over the age of 3 must have a park pass. So buy not buying a pass for a person of that you are indeed stealing something. And giving them food for free which they should be paying for is stealing too. It is just the same as an adult going into the park without paying, or eating without paying for their meals. Disney sets the age limits as to what is free and what is not. Not paying for what you should=stealing.

And as for Disney being double paid for a room, isn't that just what the airlines do? If you don't show up for your flight they certainly don't leave that seat empty. They resell it. Why should hotel rooms or camping sites be any different. You vacate or not show up, they should be able to fill that spot with someone who wants it.

 

[AuburnJen92]

How do you know that those empty sites are being used in the way OP is asking about (i.e. paying to get the benefits but not living there?).

I asked a CM.

 

[asmit4]

I typed this exact question last week. The thread was closed by a Dis moderator....

She said in simple terms...YES, it can be done....and then closed the thread.

END of story. Do it, don't do it...it's up to you.

There is NO rule or law against it. Just know that during high season- you may be 'taking away' from someone who truly wants to camp.

All I wanted to know was whether or not DW allowed this, as in, would they kick us out, would we get in trouble if they found out we weren't using the site nightly. I had no intention of stirring the pot- but apparently I hit a VERY sore spot with FW guests, as I posted it innocently on their board.

To the OP- I am sorry this turned into what it is. To answer your question- YES, you CAN 100% do this and NO, DW has no policy, law, or rule against it. They have rules for LOTS of things- like a 3yo IS 3, but they trust you to follow the rule- they don't require birth certs. However, there is NO rule against booking a camp site, no policy whatsoever.

If DW wanted to put something in place, they could. They haven't. So make your own decision about the morals of doing so.

 

[mickaholic4077]

Disney states that a child over the age of 3 must have a park pass. So buy not buying a pass for a person of that you are indeed stealing something. And giving them food for free which they should be paying for is stealing too. It is just the same as an adult going into the park without paying, or eating without paying for their meals. Disney sets the age limits as to what is free and what is not. Not paying for what you should=stealing.

And as for Disney being double paid for a room, isn't that just what the airlines do? If you don't show up for your flight they certainly don't leave that seat empty. They resell it. Why should hotel rooms or camping sites be any different. You vacate or not show up, they should be able to fill that spot with someone who wants it.

Your second sentence doesn't make any sense. What do you mean by it?

 

[maxiesmom]

Your second sentence doesn't make any sense. What do you mean by it?

Disney charges those who are age 3 or over to go into their parks. If you are not paying for something that you should be paying for, you are stealing.

 

[seabee]

This is not stealing it is paying for a space and then using it as you see fit (in this case for park benefits) Here are some definitions of steal (ing) from dictionary .com:
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
8. to commit or practice theft.
As you can see paying to lease a particular space and then keeping it vacant does not constitute theft since the services are paid for.

With all that being said I think it is silly to rent a campsite and stay off site but that is my opinion; it certaintly does not affect me one way or the other!

It may not be stealing but it is anuisance, and not right. Take it from one who has tried several times to book a site at the campground because in my opinion its the best place to stay(and that is what we can afford), and not been able too, only to hear on the boards how there are so many EMPTY sites at that time. For one, it doesn't make sense to get a site and a room off property. Your paying as much or more than you would for a value or moderate resort. Second-if you want the benefits, stay on the property as it is intended. I realize that if someone rented the site and was staying on it, it too would be full, however-SOMEONE WOULD BE STAYING ON IT using it for their family to have a nice vacation, not trying to get around the system. I have a big problem with not being able to take my family on a nice vacation because someone is trying to buck the system. I don't have a big problem with not being able to go because someone is having a nice vacation with their family. That is the difference.

 

[Us3]

I agree with ya Nicole.

To the OP...think of it this way.....What is the intended purpose of the campsite???

Is it there for others to use for Disney perks while staying offsite? NO Is it against Disney rules to do so? NO

But why take the intended use of the campsite away from another family? You're not just "getting over on Disney". You're taking away from another family!

It's up to you to decide if this is wrong or not. It's not my place to judge those who do this, but it angers and saddens me that people don't think about the morality issue because they are "paying for" the site!

 

[Paging Tom Morrow]

good Lord what is the world coming to? it's all about simple honesty and the ever decreasing common sense. Why would people think that it's okay to rent a space just for the benefits. It's actually stealing! C'mon if you're gonna buy the space use it! Don't take from someone else who would acutually appreciate the space. Now trust me I've told some whopper of lies but this is outright outrageous. Shame on you.

The price that one pays to stay on-site includes a multitude of benefits - from resort accommodations, to DDP access, to EMH access, shipping packages back to resort, early ADR access (180+10), etc.. It is no more unethical to not use the resort accommodation than it would be not to use EMH's.

If Disney had a policy that stated you must actually use the room accommodation to be eligible for all other benefits then it would be different, but they don't.

To the OP, book the spot and enjoy whatever benefits that come with it as you please.

 

[seabee]

The price that one pays to stay on-site includes a multitude of benefits - from resort accommodations, to DDP access, to EMH access, shipping packages back to resort, early ADR access (180+10), etc.. It is no more unethical to not use the resort accommodation than it would be not to use EMH's.

If Disney had a policy that stated you must actually use the room accommodation to be eligible for all other benefits then it would be different, but they don't.

To the OP, book the spot and enjoy whatever benefits that come with it as you please.

Maybe it is time they change their policy then. Unfortunately, the way people are these days, you have to spell everything out for them. Everyone reads into everything to see how they can get around it, with no thought of anyone else. Very self absorbed if you ask me.

 

[asmit4]

I asked another very similar question recently- about booking AKL for a night, but not staying there in order to get the perk of signing up for the sunrise safari. I was told that this would most likely not cause the same stir b/c there are loads of hotels onsite- which is not the case with the campgrounds.

I'll be honest- it is VERY tempting to book FW and book a huge house with a pool offsite. We would get the best of both worlds. Having said that- I don't think I could do it. SO...down the line- crazy or not...we may consider booking a value AND a house! MANY people have said the hotels are so numerous that the issue with the camping IS the # of sites available.

We go during value- and houses can be found for 100 bucks with a pool per night. IF we booked a value too- we'd be able to get DDP, EMH and KTTW cards and numerous other benefits PLUS, we'd be able to use the room in the afternoons for swimming/breaks/naps rather than driving all the way back to the house. I like the house for sleeping and relaxing during non park days.

I have heard of numerous people doing this sort of thing at IOA/US and rarely if EVER have I heard any grumblings or gripes about it. People book the rooms, check in and use the room during the day for a quick break, but otherwise still have their pkg/room at DW.

There may be some diehard moral police who still feel that paying for a value and not sleeping there at night is wrong, but my conscience feels MUCH better about booking a value and not using it for sleeping than booking a campsite and not using it. Plus- with kids, it would be easy to explain the value. We booked the room so that we would have a place onsite to spend the afternoons, to let DS take a nap etc etc. With a tent- well, it's just not our thing, so I doubt we would seriously even use it at all.

 

[iluvpluto27]

I've seen this question asked by people, around booking a value room to get free dining credits, and they were also flamed and told it was 'immoral' so I guess it's not limited to the campsite.

Personally I'm a believer that if you pay for something, you can use it how you wish. I appreciate it must be frustrating for people wanting to book that hotel/campsite, but if I want to stay at a specific hotel I make sure I book well in advance and if it's not available, I either change my dates or choose a different option.

I booked a room for 21 nights last year with free dining, but stayed at Universal for 2 of them, so I guess I also robbed another family of the chance to stay in that room when it was unoccupied. Personally i don't think this is immoral and Disney had no problem with what I did. I actually think Disney would love it if everyone paid for a room and never used it, reduced housekeeping fees, maintenance and bigger profits for Disney!

 

[Us3]

To the OP, book the spot and enjoy whatever benefits that come with it as you please.

And who cares about the family that could have used the site to enjoy Disney? How could you do this and feel good about it? Because you spent money? Just curious to see how you can justify it?

 

[lisa3383]

It may not be stealing but it is anuisance, and not right. Take it from one who has tried several times to book a site at the campground because in my opinion its the best place to stay(and that is what we can afford), and not been able too, only to hear on the boards how there are so many EMPTY sites at that time. For one, it doesn't make sense to get a site and a room off property. Your paying as much or more than you would for a value or moderate resort. Second-if you want the benefits, stay on the property as it is intended. I realize that if someone rented the site and was staying on it, it too would be full, however-SOMEONE WOULD BE STAYING ON IT using it for their family to have a nice vacation, not trying to get around the system. I have a big problem with not being able to take my family on a nice vacation because someone is trying to buck the system. I don't have a big problem with not being able to go because someone is having a nice vacation with their family. That is the difference.

I can't help but noticing that you quote someone who quotes the definition of stealing and then you go ahead and call this a nuisance, which it most certainly is not by any legal definition. Nuisance: "A condition, activity, or situation (such as a loud nose or foul odor) that interferes with the use or enjoyment of property" (Blacks Law Dictionary). Being upset someone is not using their property does not constitute a nuisance. You might even want to look at the definition of qualified nuisance: a condition that, though lawful in itself, is so negligently permitted to exist that it creates an unreasonable risk of harm and, in due course, actually results in injury to another." Nope, not that either.

You can still take your family on a nice vacation - since when is this the only option for a nice vacation? I've read people's posts how they would prefer this and why (I understand preference), but none of those explain why this is their ONLY option for a nice vacation! For one, Disney is not the only place to vacation. Even with 2 older animals (previous post) - do you honestly think with all the filled hotel rooms on property that people with older animals can, and do, only stay at the campsite? I just think some of the arguments getting thrown around are on the extreme side.

As far as paying as much or more for a value or moderate - the OP said that she has a large family and would need multiple rooms and can rent a condo for a week at a little over $300 - You CANNOT do this on Disney property. So the confusion you had is probably because you didn't read that post.

 

[asmit4]

And who cares about the family that could have used the site to enjoy Disney? How could you do this and feel good about it? Because you spent money? Just curious to see how you can justify it?

My sister goes to FW with her family CONSTANTLY and rarely steps foot in the parks...how is she any different than the "stealers" who step foot in the parks but do not stay at FW?

I guess I'm riding a line here in my mind- I sorta see some sort of moral problem, especially during high season, but we travel during value. I also see the side of 'you paid for it'...early bird gets the worm is how I view it.

I HATE double ADR bookers- they have booked 2 dinners but will only PAY for 1 meal.....BUT if DW put in a system where people had to PAY a deposit with their ADRs, by all means DOUBLE BOOK ALL you want. If you paid for it- it's yours...I really understand this logic too.

 

[auntie]

I am that family. The family of five and sometimes 6 that don't fit into a value resort or moderate resort. We have been visiting Disney since '91 and have seen many changes over the years. We are frustrated that there aren't more moderately priced resorts to accomodate families of our size. We have chosen to stay in a Deluxe resort that will accomodate our family size and enjoy the perks of staying on Disney property. We could have easily rented a condo or home off site and saved our selves the expense of a Disney Deluxe resort. When choosing to stay off site, you are aware that you are giving up the Disney perks, that staying on property provide you. Booking a campsite is simply away "around" that. While I know full well, how tempting that may be..given the rates of the resorts. It's not right that the campground guests who DO plan well over a year in advance for their vacations are paying the price for those who have found a way to skirt the ramifications of their choices.
I am looking forward to our first FW stay in the regular camping loops this October.

 

[jugman]

Just do what you want to. That's the new American way.