Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Topic Date User

Vic Parks Camping Fee Proposal 14-Nov-2013 At 9:15:33 AM Sabu

Message

__________________

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am a regular user of a number of National Parks in Victoria and as such I wish register a formal objection to the proposed changes to Park fees in the Regulatory Impact Statement for the following reasons:

Across the board, the proposed fee increases are far beyond what would be reasonably expected to pay for an outdoor campsite. For instance, the Happy Wander in Wartook has a nonpowered site for a cost of $28 in peak periods which includes flush toilets, hot showers and swimming pool. The proposed fee increases list Mt Staplyton campsite as a “High” service level and would therefore cost $48.70 but the site only includes pit toilets, a shelter, some picnic tables and an inadequate water supply (with a side of asbestos...). At the very least the classification of these campgrounds needs to be reassessed given these gross overestimations of the value of the facilities provided.

These fees unfairly impose the cost of managing assets in the parks on overnight campers despite the assets being used by both campers and day visitors. How is it fair that a completely self sufficient bush camper has to subsidise the cost of assets (shelter, BBQ’s, toilets etc) that are predominantly, if not exclusively, used by day visitors, family groups or bus loads of tourists do not have to contribute anything?

The impact statement states that the price increases are to be used to cover the costs associated with assets and facilities in campsites and to improve these services. If this is the justification for the price increases then implementing fees for bush camping is not equitable given that bush camping does not utilise any campgrounds, roofed accommodation or assets. The unreasonable nature of this entire proposal is for instance exemplified by the Farmyard campground where there is no toilet, no facilities, no reliable source of clean drinking water, no campfires, and is a hike in only campground yet in the new proposal it would cost $19.80 per night. What exactly is a user paying for in this instance?

The implementation of these exorbitant fees would greatly discourage interstate and international visitors to the Parks. This would lead to a decrease in visitors to these regions and ultimately damage the fragile local economies.

Furthermore, many user groups will be forced to covertly camp in the Parks to avoid paying fees when they otherwise would’ve camped in the larger sites for a reasonable fee. This will lead to a decrease in expected revenue and potentially lead to increased environmental damage from too many users seeking isolated bush sites.

On a practical level there are issues of policing these fees. For instance if there are clashes between users who have paid for a campsite and users who have not, would rangers be expected to intervene and expend valuable resources in sorting out these petty matters? Rangers should be spending their time looking after the environment and not enforcing compliance. Some camping in remote bush sites, or in the Alpine National Park (eg user groups such as backcountry skiers, hikers and climbers who stay in the Alpine National Park in winter above the snowline) will be virtually impossible to regulate.

In terms of payment systems, the proposed online payment and booking system is a flawed proposal. Why would a user risk making an online booking and payment only to be unable to secure a campsite upon arrival (eg at 11pm on a Friday night)? Historically, collection boxes offer a far easier method in allowing users to pay the fees upon securing a campsites. An advantage of such collection systems is that they require no online development, maintenance or cost and would greatly improve user compliance. By comparison, the cost of the proposed online payment system is completely exorbitant.

As a frequent user of the National Parks in Victoria, I would be happy to pay for services or campsites (that I use) in which services and facilities are provided. However, the proposed fee increases are beyond reasonable, unaffordable, impractical and will not encourage compliance or an increase in visitors and therefore I am strongly opposed to these changes. In contrast to the concluding statement of the executive summary, visitors will not enjoy a better experience as users will be frustrated with having to pay such ridiculous fees for simply wishing to camp in a National Park. I argue that these changes do not outweigh the costs to society and that in consultation with user groups local communities and environmental groups, a far better management solution can be implemented that allows all users of the National parks to fairly contribute to the costs of services.