So I Took A Look At The 2017 Fort Wilderness Campsite Rates...

[North of Mouse]

I also think that square footage wise, they're trying to compensate a bit for what the revenue COULD be if it were a hotel.

I agree with you!

But, they have 'very' little upkeep - just come in after each camper leaves - 5 min. to hose the site, coil the hose, and away they go - have watched them!

Yes, they have the super structure - water, sewage, electric, roads, sites, to maintain, but compared to a hotel - buildings upkeep, housekeeping, etc, etc. the upkeep, service daily, cost is minimal. But, they 'know' people will pay whatever they ask, and 'still' they cannot accommodate the masses at certain times. A 'win-win' for them!! 'And', they know it!!!

But, guess we have the option to not go!

 

[amcc]

For my family of 6, the Fort is pretty much my only option "legally" and economically onsite. We are Florida residents who have grown up with on a whim, birthday, long weekend visits but, now, even with kids, we've cut back park visits to every other year at least. The occupancy of the Fort I'm sure drives up the prices and the "throwaway" reservations don't help (I read of one in peak season for 6 nights). We are relatively new to camping and it's shocking to me that for Spring Break in April 2017 I am paying $126 A NIGHT for a patch of dirt with a barbecue and shared bathrooms lol. Still, it must be something in the Orlando water that keeps us coming back for non-park Fort visits - my little one calls the Fort "Disney World".

 

[peg110]

But, they have 'very' little upkeep - just come in after each camper leaves - 5 min. to hose the site, coil the hose, and away they go - have watched them!

I agree, but then again.... I have seen some sites that are horrible and are NOT just a quick hose down (and/or blow down with the leaf blower). Some people are just downright disgusting and just leave trash everywhere on their site. In fairness though, the same could be said about a hotel room. Some people just don't care because it's not "Theirs" so they just leave things a mess (and let us not talk about when there are "Parties" in a room). When I leave a hotel room, I attempt to straighten everything up before I leave. House keeping would have little more to do then make the bed(s), replace the towels/TP/Coffee/Soaps/amenities in the room and maybe run a vacuum.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

Dang, last yr we went mid March and caught a break somewhat and were planning that time again but now I guess that's the new Spring higher rate. If they limited the amount of people at a site similar to other campgrounds seems they could give breaks. I mean what is it, 10 people can go to a site? That's just crazy to me.

 

[peg110]

Dang, last yr we went mid March and caught a break somewhat and were planning that time again but now I guess that's the new Spring higher rate. If they limited the amount of people at a site similar to other campgrounds seems they could give breaks. I mean what is it, 10 people can go to a site? That's just crazy to me.

I think that is only a small part of the popularity. While 10 does seem a bit high (and I am sure it's used by those "Throw-away" types) how low do you go? Most hotel rooms (moderate or value) limit the number in regular rooms to 4. This is usually due to fire code. They do make exceptions for a baby in a crib or similar though.

They can't lower the number to 4 for the campground because there are MANY MANY families that have 5 or more. Granted the 10's are not that many. We have 5 (sometimes 3). So for us we'd have to have 2 hotel rooms. 1 campsite is better for us. I can't imagine trying to do 2 campsites for 5 people, never mind I don't have 2 campers. (I suppose I could bring a tent), but I do get what you are saying.

Lowering the number could also have the adverse effect of INCREASING the usage by folks with the "Throw-Away" sites which could compound the problem too.

Maybe a better solution is a round number of 6 allowed (at standard rate) and a surcharge for each additional up to the max of 10. Still doesn't solve it completely but could help a bit.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

I think that is only a small part of the popularity. While 10 does seem a bit high (and I am sure it's used by those "Throw-away" types) how low do you go? Most hotel rooms (moderate or value) limit the number in regular rooms to 4. This is usually due to fire code. They do make exceptions for a baby in a crib or similar though.

They can't lower the number to 4 for the campground because there are MANY MANY families that have 5 or more. Granted the 10's are not that many. We have 5 (sometimes 3). So for us we'd have to have 2 hotel rooms. 1 campsite is better for us. I can't imagine trying to do 2 campsites for 5 people, never mind I don't have 2 campers. (I suppose I could bring a tent), but I do get what you are saying.

Lowering the number could also have the adverse effect of INCREASING the usage by folks with the "Throw-Away" sites which could compound the problem too.

Maybe a better solution is a round number of 6 allowed (at standard rate) and a surcharge for each additional up to the max of 10. Still doesn't solve it completely but could help a bit.

Yes I was thinking in more terms of that. I never said lowering to 4, would never think or expect that, but maybe pay more for over a certain amount of people? Or more adults? You can't bring 10 people to a regular campground. I just got a coupon in the mail for discounts and I can't use it. There should be discounts at FW also like the other resorts. Maybe this way there could be the discounts at the Fort also. It would cost me $150 a night the week I want to go, I paid that price for a moderate with discount and less than that for a Value a couple yrs back.

 

[team bradfield]

I remember our first trip in 06, i couldnt belive the value, such a beautiful campground. I still think its good value compared to hotel rooms. there is nothing to do in a room but sleep. My kids go crazy in a hotel room, i keep in mind the amount of money we save on transportation, drinks, snacks and a meal or two. I absolutely hate dragging my beer cooler up to a hotel room!

 

[peg110]

I remember our first trip in 06, i couldnt belive the value, such a beautiful campground. I still think its good value compared to hotel rooms. there is nothing to do in a room but sleep. My kids go crazy in a hotel room, i keep in mind the amount of money we save on transportation, drinks, snacks and a meal or two. I absolutely hate dragging my beer cooler up to a hotel room!

Beer cooler, luggage, computers, game systems (yes I have teens to deal with), etc..... The camper, anything is a short "Drag" out to it's resting place at the campground. Don't have to take an elevator (looking for a cart) and out to the parking lot to get the "Rest" of the luggage either.

 

[bigdisneydaddy]

Ouch. Not looking forward to the price in March this year. we usually go to the Fort in mid Jan until the price increase before Valentines day, for 2017 we made ressies in March to accommodate other family members that wanted the warmer weather. Looks like our original Jan/Feb dates are going to be our only choice after this trip.

 

[FortForever]

Well this stinks.

Our room at POP this December is $77 night. I got it lowered twice with new FL and passholder discounts that were released. This is cheaper than most campsites next year.

I do have February Fort reservations at $52 for pop-up loop. Once again, FL or passholder discount, obviously. I will only stay during value times in the future. Just getting to pricey. The $52 is good because we pay $26 night at our favorite state park and Disney is worth double. But those triple digit numbers are scary.

BTW, thanks for the chart. It's very helpful.

 

[peg110]

This is cheaper than most campsites next year.

But it's not the Fort.

 

[FortForever]

But it's not the Fort.

You got me there! I personally prefer the Fort, but just don't understand how they justify the prices when the Fort has such a low overhead compared to the hotels. With all the land Disney owns, they need to quit throwing up hotels and and add more campgrounds. It would make financial sense as popular as the Fort is.

 

[5kidsmommy]

I think that is only a small part of the popularity. While 10 does seem a bit high (and I am sure it's used by those "Throw-away" types) how low do you go? Most hotel rooms (moderate or value) limit the number in regular rooms to 4. This is usually due to fire code. They do make exceptions for a baby in a crib or similar though.

They can't lower the number to 4 for the campground because there are MANY MANY families that have 5 or more. Granted the 10's are not that many. We have 5 (sometimes 3). So for us we'd have to have 2 hotel rooms. 1 campsite is better for us. I can't imagine trying to do 2 campsites for 5 people, never mind I don't have 2 campers. (I suppose I could bring a tent), but I do get what you are saying.

Lowering the number could also have the adverse effect of INCREASING the usage by folks with the "Throw-Away" sites which could compound the problem too.

Maybe a better solution is a round number of 6 allowed (at standard rate) and a surcharge for each additional up to the max of 10. Still doesn't solve it completely but could help a bit.

We have a family of 7. Most campgrounds we go to charge us for our extra children. I don't mind. Honestly though by the time the surcharges are added camping at other resort type parks end up costing about the same as the Fort which is why I'll never complain about the cost of the Fort. You definitely get more for your money.

 

[FortForever]

Dang, last yr we went mid March and caught a break somewhat and were planning that time again but now I guess that's the new Spring higher rate. If they limited the amount of people at a site similar to other campgrounds seems they could give breaks. I mean what is it, 10 people can go to a site? That's just crazy to me.

I hope this never happens. It would make sites even more scarce than they are now. I would like to see some repercussions for people who reserve with no intention of staying there. However, as to how that would be handled, I have no idea.

Have you been to many Florida state parks? All of their campsites (or all that I'm aware of) allow 8 people per site. The majority of state park sites are less than half the size of a Fort site. We regularly camp with 8 people at state parks and it's not ridiculous at all. I have never felt overcrowded, and I'm a person that likes my personal space. Fort Wilderness sites can easily accommodate 10 and I hope they always allow that. It's an affordable way for larger families to stay together.

Although my kids are grown, we often camp with several of them, as well as grandchildren. I love that we can share a site at the Fort, as well as state parks.

 

[peg110]

I hope this never happens. It would make sites even more scarce than they are now. I would like to see some repercussions for people who reserve with no intention of staying there. However, as to how that would be handled, I have no idea.

Have you been to many Florida state parks? All of their campsites (or all that I'm aware of) allow 8 people per site. The majority of state park sites are less than half the size of a Fort site. We regularly camp with 8 people at state parks and it's not ridiculous at all. I have never felt overcrowded, and I'm a person that likes my personal space. Fort Wilderness sites can easily accommodate 10 and I hope they always allow that. It's an affordable way for larger families to stay together.

Although my kids are grown, we often camp with several of them, as well as grandchildren. I love that we can share a site at the Fort, as well as state parks.

I agree with you. I think the only reason to try and restrict the numbers is to try and restrict those that use it as a "Throw-away".

The reality of it is, is that if people are willing to Pay for a campsite and never stay there, then that is their right and Disney will be happy to take their money for it. The downside of course is that it screws it up for those of us trying to get a full on reservation with intentions of staying and enjoying the Fort.

I think the only way to combat the "Throw-away" sites is to have a Tiered rate for the campsites like they do with the parks. 1 day and you pay ALOT. 2 Days and you pay slightly less (per day). 3 days slightly less then the 2 day rate (per day) and so on...

For some though, that do come in big groups, paying even $200 for a throw-away site is convenient. When you consider the reservation gets you a parking pass, magic bands and the ability to do FP+ 60 days out.... if you have a group of, let's say 10, buying 10 MB's at about $13.00 each (Plus tax/shipping) you are upwards of $150 alone. Parking @$20, etc..... it can be cost effective. Given that most campsites are much less then $200 it makes even more sense for them to do.

No real solution for those of us who want to stay there. For Disney, it's a business decision. (Bird in the hand?) For the Throw-away site user, it's a financial decsion as well. I don't fault them for saving a buck. I do what I can to save a buck too. (Discount Disney Gift Cards, Discount Tickets, etc...) I just wish there was another way...

 

[amcc]

The tiered rate sounds like a good plan but they can also just implement a 2-night minimum. For the throwaways, it's only an additional day of parking so not too cost effective. For real campers, it might be inconvenient for some but most campers tend to do 2 nights at least (except for driving through). I also think that those giant throwaway threads on these boards should encourage people to cancel their reservations once the 30 days prior roll around. They will lose parking privileges but keep their FP and MagicBands and they will open up site availability.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

I hope this never happens. It would make sites even more scarce than they are now. I would like to see some repercussions for people who reserve with no intention of staying there. However, as to how that would be handled, I have no idea.

Have you been to many Florida state parks? All of their campsites (or all that I'm aware of) allow 8 people per site. The majority of state park sites are less than half the size of a Fort site. We regularly camp with 8 people at state parks and it's not ridiculous at all. I have never felt overcrowded, and I'm a person that likes my personal space. Fort Wilderness sites can easily accommodate 10 and I hope they always allow that. It's an affordable way for larger families to stay together.

Although my kids are grown, we often camp with several of them, as well as grandchildren. I love that we can share a site at the Fort, as well as state parks.

And most state parks are about $20 a night at least by me and FW is not a state park. Maybe they do allow that many but I really don't know of any campground that does personally. Having that many people to one site is not really fair to others that are camping near you either. I also don't understand you and Peg's logic of the throwaway thing saying that it would cause more throwaway sites. If the campground allows less people and you are doing it to cover 10 people or a large family, then it would cost more having to cover all the people or you would need 2 sites so to me it may work the other way around at times, meaning people wouldn't do it because of the cost and the perks wouldn't be worth it. With that logic you could just do throwaway rooms bc I have paid less for value rooms and moderate with discounts than what it is costing for a campsite at FW. If you have above a certain amount maybe 6? people to a campsite you should pay more, most campgrounds by me charge more for more people particular adults.

 

[peg110]

And most state parks are about $20 a night at least by me and FW is not a state park. Maybe they do allow that many but I really don't know of any campground that does personally. Having that many people to one site is not really fair to others that are camping near you either. I also don't understand you and Peg's logic of the throwaway thing saying that it would cause more throwaway sites. If the campground allows less people and you are doing it to cover 10 people or a large family, then it would cost more having to cover all the people or you would need 2 sites so to me it may work the other way around at times if you have a large family, meaning people wouldn't do it because of the cost and the perks wouldn't be worth it. With that logic you could just do throwaway rooms bc I have paid less for value rooms and moderate with discounts than what it is costing for a campsite at FW. If you have above a certain amount maybe 6? people to a campsite you should pay more, most campgrounds by me charge more for more people particular adults.

When you are comparing the prices to a value, are you comparing a PREMIUM site or a Tent Site (or something in the middle). Big difference between the 2.

I will add that my logic isn't "If I restrict the numbers to a site, it will increase the number of throw-aways" rather it's the opposite. The only reason I see to restrict the numbers is too facilitate the restricting of the throw-away sites.

Many people like the campsites because it's one of those FEW places where you can have more then 4 people on ONE reservation/room. Most hotel rooms (Suites not withstanding) allow you 4. That's it. At best you can have 4 plus an infant. The reason is not just the "Bed Space" in the room (typically 2 doubles or 2 queens) but it's a fire regulation as well. This is not an issue at the Campground (or at least not the same). In a building, there are a limited number of places to escape. In the great outdoors you have much more space to "escape" in the event of an emergency.

Ironically, it seems like you agree with me more than you disagree. Lower limit to site, but allow more with a surcharge (but not necessarily requiring a second site - at least up to the limit or 10).

Most people who don't want to use the Fort for a throw-away, don't have an issue with the rules as they are. It's those select handful that do, and of those, it's likely NOTHING will change it for them.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

Peg honestly I have paid less for a value than a tent site and the logic still stands. It seemed you were commenting otherwise on my suggestion bc you think I am saying things I am not and that was the problem lol. I I think most people would like to see the special discounts at FW that the hotels get. My initial post was bc I received a discount code and can't use it and always pay top dollar at the campground which I never did when I stayed at the Disney resorts. Also mentioning that the campground rules regarding the amount of people is not the norm of most campgrounds where you pay more for more people, and there is a limit in the amount of people also. FW should just do the same thing that most campground do. It's not that hard.

 

[peg110]