下载App
资质规则
旅行
账户
barendinas
Horrendous
Fort Stevens State Park的点评
点评：This was our first experience at Fort Stevens State Park, and unfortunately, it was an extremely frustrating and stressful experience due to what appears to have been a significant error in how our campsite was handled by campground staff.
We arrived at the campground as a drive-in camper looking for a site. At the office, we spoke with a young male staff member named Leo. He told us that site L49 was available.
I asked Leo if we could go down and look at the site before deciding whether we wanted to take it. He agreed and specifically told us that, if we liked the site, we were welcome to disconnect our trailer, set up, and then return to the office to pay him.
We relied on those explicit instructions.
We proceeded to site L49, where the camp hosts across from us, Billy and Cary, assisted us with getting our trailer set up. This process took approximately 40 minutes.
Because we had been told that we could set up first and return to the office afterward to pay, we reasonably believed that the site was being held for us. I even began cleaning the picnic table because it was in extremely poor condition and required significant cleaning before we could use it.
When we returned to the office approximately 40 minutes later to pay, we heard an elderly gentleman upset because someone was occupying his campsite. I immediately became concerned that he was referring to L49.
Leo then told the gentleman, "Don't worry, we'll have them removed."
I approached Leo and asked him, "Please don't tell me you were discussing the campsite you sent us to?"
He immediately responded, "L49?"
I said yes, and he confirmed that L49 was the campsite being discussed.
At that point, we learned that although L49 had been available when Leo directed us to it, he had failed to put the site on hold for us. As a result, another camper was subsequently able to reserve the site while we were away following the instructions Leo had given us.
This is the central issue with this incident.
We did exactly what your employee instructed us to do. We were told the site was available. We were told that we could disconnect our trailer and set up before returning to pay. We therefore reasonably believed that the site was being held for us while we completed that process.
If Leo was not authorized to hold the site, or if there was a specific procedure we were required to follow before occupying it, that information should have been clearly communicated to us BEFORE we disconnected and set up.
Instead, we were allowed to proceed based on his instructions and were then placed in the position of having to leave a site after we had already set up.
What made the situation even more frustrating was Leo's subsequent attempt to claim that we had been gone for approximately three hours. This was not accurate. We had been at the campsite for approximately 40 minutes, and Billy and Cary were present and assisted us with setting up.
Rather than simply acknowledging that the site had not been placed on hold and that this was a staff error, the explanation appeared to shift responsibility onto us.
There was also a second serious concern during this incident.
Our camp host attempted to contact the park ranger for assistance. The ranger did not return the call. Our camp host specifically stated that we had an emergency and needed the ranger to call us. We waited approximately another 45 minutes for a response that never came.
As a result of this situation, we were ultimately left without a campsite and without somewhere to stay, despite the fact that we had followed the instructions provided to us by your employee.
We arrived at the campground as a drive-in camper looking for a site. At the office, we spoke with a young male staff member named Leo. He told us that site L49 was available.
I asked Leo if we could go down and look at the site before deciding whether we wanted to take it. He agreed and specifically told us that, if we liked the site, we were welcome to disconnect our trailer, set up, and then return to the office to pay him.
We relied on those explicit instructions.
We proceeded to site L49, where the camp hosts across from us, Billy and Cary, assisted us with getting our trailer set up. This process took approximately 40 minutes.
Because we had been told that we could set up first and return to the office afterward to pay, we reasonably believed that the site was being held for us. I even began cleaning the picnic table because it was in extremely poor condition and required significant cleaning before we could use it.
When we returned to the office approximately 40 minutes later to pay, we heard an elderly gentleman upset because someone was occupying his campsite. I immediately became concerned that he was referring to L49.
Leo then told the gentleman, "Don't worry, we'll have them removed."
I approached Leo and asked him, "Please don't tell me you were discussing the campsite you sent us to?"
He immediately responded, "L49?"
I said yes, and he confirmed that L49 was the campsite being discussed.
At that point, we learned that although L49 had been available when Leo directed us to it, he had failed to put the site on hold for us. As a result, another camper was subsequently able to reserve the site while we were away following the instructions Leo had given us.
This is the central issue with this incident.
We did exactly what your employee instructed us to do. We were told the site was available. We were told that we could disconnect our trailer and set up before returning to pay. We therefore reasonably believed that the site was being held for us while we completed that process.
If Leo was not authorized to hold the site, or if there was a specific procedure we were required to follow before occupying it, that information should have been clearly communicated to us BEFORE we disconnected and set up.
Instead, we were allowed to proceed based on his instructions and were then placed in the position of having to leave a site after we had already set up.
What made the situation even more frustrating was Leo's subsequent attempt to claim that we had been gone for approximately three hours. This was not accurate. We had been at the campsite for approximately 40 minutes, and Billy and Cary were present and assisted us with setting up.
Rather than simply acknowledging that the site had not been placed on hold and that this was a staff error, the explanation appeared to shift responsibility onto us.
There was also a second serious concern during this incident.
Our camp host attempted to contact the park ranger for assistance. The ranger did not return the call. Our camp host specifically stated that we had an emergency and needed the ranger to call us. We waited approximately another 45 minutes for a response that never came.
As a result of this situation, we were ultimately left without a campsite and without somewhere to stay, despite the fact that we had followed the instructions provided to us by your employee.
翻译：这是我们第一次前往史蒂文斯堡州立公园露营，可惜的是，由于营地工作人员在处理我们的露营位时出现了严重失误，这次经历极其令人沮丧且充满压力。
我们作为驾车露营者来到营地，希望能找到一个合适的露营位。在接待处，我们与一位名叫里奥的年轻男工作人员交谈。他告诉我们，L49号露营位目前是空着的。我询问利奥，我们是否可以在决定要不要租用该营地之前先去实地看看。他同意了，并特别告诉我们：如果我们喜欢那个地方，就可以把拖车卸下来、搭建好设施，然后再回办公室向他付款。
我们完全遵从了这些明确的指示。
随后我们前往L49号营地。此时，我们对面的营地管理员比利和凯里帮我们把拖车安置妥当。整个过程大约用了40分钟。由于我们被告知可以先搭帐篷，之后再回办公室付款，因此我们理所当然地认为那个营地是为我们预留的。我甚至开始清理野餐桌——它的状况极差，必须彻底清理后才能使用。
大约40分钟后，当我们回到办公室付款时，听到一位老先生很生气，因为有人占用了他的露营位。我立刻担心起来，担心他说的就是L49。
随后，利奥对那位先生说：“别担心，我们会把那些人移走的。”
我走到利奥跟前问道：“请不要告诉我，您刚才谈论的就是您安排我们去的露营地？”
他立刻回应道：“L49？”
我点头确认，他也证实刚才讨论的正是L49这个露营地。
就在那时我们得知，虽然利奥给我们推荐L49时该营地还是可预订的，但他却没能为我们预留下来。结果就是……后来，在我们离开期间，另一位露营者按照莱奥给我们的指示成功预订了该露营地。
这就是此事件的核心问题所在。
我们完全按照贵方员工的指示行事。我们被告知该露营地有空位，也被告知可以先卸下拖车并搭好帐篷，之后再回来付款。因此，我们理所当然地认为，在我们完成这些手续期间，该露营地会为我们保留着。
如果莱奥其实并无权保留该露营地的使用权的话……或者，如果在入住之前我们有必须遵循的特定流程，那么这些信息理应在我们断开连接并进行设置之前就清晰地告知我们。
但事实是，我们只是按照他的指示行事，结果却陷入了“刚设置完毕就不得不离开现场”的窘境。
更让人沮丧的是，后来Leo还试图声称我们已经离开大约三个小时了。这显然不符合事实。我们在露营地大约待了40分钟，比利和凯里也在场，并协助我们搭建营地。
然而，对方并未仅仅承认该营地预订状态未被标记为“保留”，也没承认这是工作人员的失误，反而将责任推到了我们身上。
此次事件中还存在第二个严重问题。
我们的营地接待员试图联系公园管理员寻求帮助，但管理员并未回电。我们的营地联络员明确说明我们遇到了紧急情况，需要护林员给我们打电话。我们又等了大约45分钟，但始终没有收到任何回复。
由于这种情况，尽管我们严格遵循了贵方工作人员所给的指示，我们最终还是无处扎营、无地可去。
我们作为驾车露营者来到营地，希望能找到一个合适的露营位。在接待处，我们与一位名叫里奥的年轻男工作人员交谈。他告诉我们，L49号露营位目前是空着的。我询问利奥，我们是否可以在决定要不要租用该营地之前先去实地看看。他同意了，并特别告诉我们：如果我们喜欢那个地方，就可以把拖车卸下来、搭建好设施，然后再回办公室向他付款。
我们完全遵从了这些明确的指示。
随后我们前往L49号营地。此时，我们对面的营地管理员比利和凯里帮我们把拖车安置妥当。整个过程大约用了40分钟。由于我们被告知可以先搭帐篷，之后再回办公室付款，因此我们理所当然地认为那个营地是为我们预留的。我甚至开始清理野餐桌——它的状况极差，必须彻底清理后才能使用。
大约40分钟后，当我们回到办公室付款时，听到一位老先生很生气，因为有人占用了他的露营位。我立刻担心起来，担心他说的就是L49。
随后，利奥对那位先生说：“别担心，我们会把那些人移走的。”
我走到利奥跟前问道：“请不要告诉我，您刚才谈论的就是您安排我们去的露营地？”
他立刻回应道：“L49？”
我点头确认，他也证实刚才讨论的正是L49这个露营地。
就在那时我们得知，虽然利奥给我们推荐L49时该营地还是可预订的，但他却没能为我们预留下来。结果就是……后来，在我们离开期间，另一位露营者按照莱奥给我们的指示成功预订了该露营地。
这就是此事件的核心问题所在。
我们完全按照贵方员工的指示行事。我们被告知该露营地有空位，也被告知可以先卸下拖车并搭好帐篷，之后再回来付款。因此，我们理所当然地认为，在我们完成这些手续期间，该露营地会为我们保留着。
如果莱奥其实并无权保留该露营地的使用权的话……或者，如果在入住之前我们有必须遵循的特定流程，那么这些信息理应在我们断开连接并进行设置之前就清晰地告知我们。
但事实是，我们只是按照他的指示行事，结果却陷入了“刚设置完毕就不得不离开现场”的窘境。
更让人沮丧的是，后来Leo还试图声称我们已经离开大约三个小时了。这显然不符合事实。我们在露营地大约待了40分钟，比利和凯里也在场，并协助我们搭建营地。
然而，对方并未仅仅承认该营地预订状态未被标记为“保留”，也没承认这是工作人员的失误，反而将责任推到了我们身上。
此次事件中还存在第二个严重问题。
我们的营地接待员试图联系公园管理员寻求帮助，但管理员并未回电。我们的营地联络员明确说明我们遇到了紧急情况，需要护林员给我们打电话。我们又等了大约45分钟，但始终没有收到任何回复。
由于这种情况，尽管我们严格遵循了贵方工作人员所给的指示，我们最终还是无处扎营、无地可去。
© 2026 Tripadvisor 版权所有。
部分照片由 VFM Leonardo 提供。
TripAdvisor公司对外部网站的内容一概不负责。优惠价格中不含税和其他费用。
ICP证：沪B2-20200433
沪ICP备20013175号
沪公网安备31010502005427号鹰程信息技术（上海）有限公司
