Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop

Scarpa: Scarpa "Mystic GTX" Approach Shoe. Premium model. Gortex lined. Vibram Sole. Climbing toe... Size 43 Eur. (10 USm)  $149.00
50% Off

Chockstone Photography Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author
Gramps Bush Campsites
Access Ant
24/03/2004
5:48:14 PM
Hi all. It's Ant Callaghan the VCC Access & Environment Officer. Just letting people know that I will be at the VCC general meeting (tommorrow night) to discuss the project.
Since the last forum on the topic I said that camping fees would not be involved in these campsites, well guess what, since then Parks Vic have said that in the future (a couple of years I believe) they will charge fees for these site. They are interested in trialing fees at the project sites! Now before everyone sends me hate emails let me explain that the VCC feels that it is unfair of Parks to try and sneak their policies into our projects. This is a Parks Vic Management Plan issue and as such should have nothing to do with the VCC. Myself and the VCC will be opposing the introduction of fees as part of the project (especially as Parks made no mention of fees prior to the grant being accepted) but I also would like some feedback on this so that I can take it to Parks to show the lack of support for this issue. Also they would like (and probably will) to remove campfires from half of the campsites (all of them in the conservation zone, that is the ones off the Rosea Track not Stoney Creek Rd). I believe the concern is with the collection of firewood and not because of bushfire risk. What do you guys think about this? If it could be managed (such as bring in your own wood for example) would you accept this regulation? If not what would you be happy with?
Ant Callaghan Access Officer

nmonteith
24/03/2004
6:52:32 PM
I have no issues with a total fire ban in National Parks. Destruction of habitat so we can make a big fire is pretty silly in the days of fuel stoves. I think more and more of the younger generation are ignoring the need for a campfire - it is becoming rarer around the world to legally be able to burn natural dead wood in national parks. i give it 10 years tops in Victoria before a complete ban gets put in place.

I defiantly have a problem with 'paid' informal campsites. I would certinaly be going elsewwhere or just camping in an 'un-official' dirt patch next to the 'official' site.

jens
25/03/2004
9:50:33 AM
I believe that if parks are providing some form of service, then a fee would be justified. If however they just try to take moneys and not have services like toilets etc. then this is a blatant abuse of their powers. National parks are supposed to belong to the people, and as such, a charge for real-estate alone would not be acceptable.

I have no problem with Arapiles charging $2 per night. In my opinion this is almost too low and I tend to throw in my change as well. On the flip side, Cathedral ranges, with their $13 per night fee, are way overpriced, as the services are not as good as Arapiles anyway.

I do enjoy a camp fire when it is allowed, and Iím happy to, and expect to bring my own wood for this. There is only a limited time for this luxury, as in winter I find it too cold to camp and in summer the fire-ban counts it out. How about parks have a fire-wood service/depot and sell it at normal rates to make some money. This would help everyone out.

Donít worry; Iím only speaking for myself!!!

Jens

Rich
25/03/2004
10:53:55 AM
There is more than enough wood in the park to not have to collect it from around the campsite, just stop on on the side of the road on the way back from the crag and load up the back. I for one (as well as numerous others i know) were very disappointed when they banned fires at araps from nov to april. It really takes the life out of the camp 'nightlife' there. Certainly a stark contrast between having a yarn and beer with mates around the fire, to shivering in the dark around a gas stove.
But we were talking about gramps bush sites weren't we? If they intend on charging for it because they feel its necessary to 'upgrade' them, then bloody well leave em alone. There's certainly enough around in good enough condition already to not warrant any improvement. I wouldn't be paying for a bush campsite with no facilities. Like neil said, just camp in a clearing elsewhere nearby. There isn't exactly a whole lot of difference between the two, both have no facilties or does parks intend on nominating all clearings in the bush larger than 3m≤ 'bush campsites?? If i want to pay I'll go to stapyleton or wherever so that i can something for my dollar.
Rob668
25/03/2004
12:10:41 PM
On the campfire front. Use of dead wood can destroy the habitat of local fauna. Many animals use dead wood as homes and sourcing wood for campfires can impact this

Richard
25/03/2004
1:03:42 PM
On 24/03/2004 Access Ant wrote:
>Hi all. It's Ant Callaghan the VCC Access & Environment Officer. Just letting
>people know that I will be at the VCC general meeting (tommorrow night)
>to discuss the project.

If you want to come along and talk to Ant to hear what he says; the meeting (Thursday night) is at at 8.00 PM at the Australian Gemmological Association 380-382 Spencer Street, Melbourne.

See the map here:

http://www.vicclimb.org.au/pages/activity.html

Cheers
molybdenum
25/03/2004
1:11:31 PM
If you look at the size of the grampians park one can understand why PV might try and get some revenue out of these unserviced bush campsites - the place is huge, with numerous roads running through it and considerable distances to travel between many of the official campsites. From what i've been told the grampians recieves something like 3 million visitor-days a year (that's 3 million visits) - this a conservative estimate, no one is really sure of the true amount because there are so many roads running through the place parks can't control access like they do, say, at wilson's prom (which has one road in, and one road out, unless you like swimming.).

None of the happy day trippers have to stop anywhere and pay $2 for the privelage of entering the park. Thats why those of us crashing overnight (a minority) are the ones that have to try make up some of the revenue needed to grade roads, re-vege & fix picnic tables etc.

i still hate paying so much when know i get flushing toilets and someone who cleans the mud out of the girls loo the very day after a flood for just $2 a night at Araps (what a bargain!). I fail to see though how charging for bush campsites will be worth their while - it will have to be less than the serviced ones, and i doubt if that would even pay for the petrol to get from one campsite to the other.

On the issue of fires - i like a campfire as much as anybody. What I dislike is seeing bogains hopping over fences to collect wood from re-veged areas to feed their fire. i dislike people that go and collect wood from the roadside, when that roadside stilll happens to be the park. People do this just out of bendigo - wirrakee state park has NO WOOD lying on the ground. Anywhere. It is very weird. One might also notice when they go there a distinct lack of small animals. (you guys know how to put two + two together.)

3 million vistors - assume only 1 in 10 actually decides to stop for the night. Thats 300 000 people to collect wood. Assume i'm not being conservative enough, and only half that number decides to light a fire - it's still 150 000 people going out collecting firewood from the park, every year. That's quite a lot of wood, isn't it? especially over several years.
So if parks decided to ban woodfire, i'd be a bit sorry, but i'd see the logic. However, i can't see why they'd say 'no' to stocking up on wood and leaving it for campers in designated areas (i don't think selling it would work, not when there's a whole park to collect from)

time to go do some work now...

phil_nev
25/03/2004
7:35:43 PM
I really like the gramps bush camsites, and wouldnt like to see facilities instaledd at them. Im happy to bring my own water, us the bush dunny etc etc. The tower campsite, and those on rosea track are brilliant campsites away from the masses.

I have to agree with rich on the fires though... During winter, a campfire is great, sit around and chat it definitly adds to the experiance. I have no problem with fire bans during hotter weather though...

Phil
joemor
25/03/2004
10:27:52 PM
how are they going to get people to pay when they dont even come to collect money from staypleton???

There are 9 messages in this topic.

 

Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography

Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.



Australian Panoramic | Australian Coast | Australian Mountains | Australian Countryside | Australian Waterfalls | Australian Lakes | Australian Cities | Australian Macro | Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo | Landscape Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Fine Art Photography | Wilderness Photography | Nature Photo | Australian Landscape Photo | Stock Photography Australia | Landscape Photos | Panoramic Photos | Panoramic Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Mothers Day Gifts | Gifts for Mothers Day | Mothers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Mothers Day | Wedding Gift Ideas | Christmas Gift Ideas | Fathers Day Gifts | Gifts for Fathers Day | Fathers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Fathers Day | Landscape Prints | Landscape Poster | Limited Edition Prints | Panoramic Photo | Buy Posters | Poster Prints