Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop
FREIGHT FREE
in Australia

Black Diamond "STOPPER" Set. (Sizes 4 to 13) - 10 pieces. Comes with a "free" karabiner for racking.   $109.00
16% Off

Chockstone Photography Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

 Page 7 of 10. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 191
Author
Vic Parks Camping Fee Proposal

ajfclark
26/11/2013
9:07:13 PM
Yeah, that makes sense. I was quoting prices for January paid in the September prior.
access t CliffCare
27/11/2013
9:24:02 AM
On 26/11/2013 IdratherbeclimbingM9 wrote:
>On 9/11/2013 ajfclark wrote:
>>On 9/11/2013 access t CliffCare wrote:
>>>The current price increase at various campgrounds is the usual annual
>>CPI increase and not what they are talking about when they are talking
>>about the camp fee increase proposal.
>>
>>Sorry Tracey, that doesn't float at Lake Catani:
>>
>>2011: $22.50
>>2012: $23.00
>>2013: $24.00
>>2014: $31.40
>>
>>2012 was a 2% increase which is in the ballpark of CPI. 2013 was about
>>4% and again in the ballpark.
>>
>>2014 is about a 31% increase. That's nowhere near CPI but it does make
>>the price pretty well inline with their proposal.
>
>Lake Catani (Mt Buffalo), was $31.40 per site last weekend. It seems 2014
>has arrived early...

I had decided that my original idea to post this during the proposal process to clarify things might actually end up confusing some so held off. Below is a list of the annual fee increases (nothing to do with the RIS situation) These should be in place in most campgrounds(effective 1st November). Also compared with the same the year before.

Araps

- going up from $4 in 12/13 to $5 in 13/14
- No charge for vehicles

Grampians, Brisbane Ranges and Cathedral Ranges

- Going up from 17.60 in 12/13 to 19.80 in 13/14 for a undesignated ‘site’ for up to 6 people and one vehicle
- Additional vehicles going up from 6.90 to 7.80
- Bush camping in the Grampians is currently free

Buffalo (Peak times) (Melb Cup to last w-e in April inclusive)
- Going up from 27.90 in 12/13 to 31.40 in 13/14 for a designated site of up to 4 people and one vehicle
- Additional people going up from 6.20 to 7.00
- Additional vehicles going up from 6.90 to 7.80
- Remote camping sites going up from 6.20 to 7.00

Cheers,
Tracey

IdratherbeclimbingM9
27/11/2013
9:37:14 AM
On 27/11/2013 access t CliffCare wrote:
>Buffalo (Peak times) (Melb Cup to last w-e in April inclusive)
>- Going up from 27.90 in 12/13 to 31.40 in 13/14 for a designated
>site of up to 4 people and one vehicle
>- Additional people going up from 6.20 to 7.00
>- Additional vehicles going up from 6.90 to 7.80
>- Remote camping sites going up from 6.20 to 7.00
>
>Cheers,
>Tracey

Hmm. Just to add a little confusion; ... the Ranger at Catani told me when I sought clarification* from him, $31.40 per site, and for that you can have up to 6 people on the site.
~ i.e. no mention of additional cost per 5th and 6th person, or additional vehicles.

* Apart from being interested as a result of this thread, the clarification specifically stemmed from the fact that the price was written up on a whiteboard above the envelope-pay-system at Catani entrance noticeboard.
It was written $3 .40 per night, and the gap in the writing made me suspicious that some nark had wiped a number out!
~> My cynicism also thought that a whiteboard was appropriate given the changes foreshadowed!!


ajfclark
27/11/2013
9:57:23 AM
The price seemed to rise twice in 2013... September 2012 it cost $24 per night for January 2013. Then in Feb 2013 it cost $27.90 for a night in Feb and then in September (and now) it costs $31.40 a night.

Perhaps the ranger was getting things mixed up with the proposed fees? They appear to be getting rid of the possibility of 2 additional spaces by making all bookings for 6. Effectively a 50% increase for those camping as group of 4.

Sabu
28/11/2013
9:22:40 AM
I received a reply from the Department of Environment and Primary Industries the other day. Below is the main paragraph in relation to the proposal:

>The proposed fee structure for camping and roofed accommodation will make sure that
>the costs of providing and maintaining safe visitor friendly facilities and services are
>sustainable and affordable for campers. The proposed fees will reflect the costs of
>managing campsites, as even the most basic camp site requires periodic maintenance
>to ensure it is safe, accessible and to minimise impacts on park values. The revenue
>generated by the proposed fees will be reinvested back into Victoria's national parks,
>allowing Parks Victoria to maintain campgrounds and roofed accommodation in
>national and state parks to a high standard into the future.

kieranl
28/11/2013
9:30:42 AM
I thought they were planning to reinvest the proposed fees in a new computerised booking system.
I wonder what they're proposing to charge the cattlemen for grazing their cattle in the latest pseudo-science effort? Is agistment per head per night cheaper or more expensive than the proposed free-range camping fee?

ajfclark
28/11/2013
9:34:00 AM
I wonder if we could argue that campers really do reduce the fire risk by performing many small controlled burns to reduce fuel loads...
kieranl
28/11/2013
12:01:43 PM
This post from the Alpine Grazing thread by lacto a couple of years ago.
"commercial agistment on prime Pastures which is what the cattle men call it is in excess of $1.00 a day"
Whereas bush camping per person per night is proposed at $9.70 and which has the biggest impact?
But if they charged $9.70 per beast per day the cattle grazing wouldn't be economic.
maxdacat
28/11/2013
12:25:55 PM
On 28/11/2013 kieranl wrote:
>
>But if they charged $9.70 per beast per day the cattle grazing wouldn't
>be economic.

Good point!
Wendy
28/11/2013
1:09:19 PM
On 28/11/2013 Sabu wrote:
>I received a reply from the Department of Environment and Primary Industries
>the other day. Below is the main paragraph in relation to the proposal:
>
>>The proposed fee structure for camping and roofed accommodation will
>make sure that
>>the costs of providing and maintaining safe visitor friendly facilities
>and services are
>>sustainable and affordable for campers. The proposed fees will reflect
>the costs of
>>managing campsites, as even the most basic camp site requires periodic
>maintenance
>>to ensure it is safe, accessible and to minimise impacts on park values.
>The revenue
>>generated by the proposed fees will be reinvested back into Victoria's
>national parks,
>>allowing Parks Victoria to maintain campgrounds and roofed accommodation
>in
>>national and state parks to a high standard into the future.
>
>

At least you got a reply ... As always seems to happen in these things, the reply basically says, thanks for nothing, we shall not be considering your point of view and we shall be doing what we first said we would
kieranl
28/11/2013
2:24:01 PM
Just received my form-letter reply. At the end it says "Your email to the minister will be considered a formal submission. The minister will now consider all submissions before making a decision...".


Grecko21
19/12/2013
12:56:13 PM
Now how do we follow up on this? Does anyone have a contact within the DEPI?

I can imagine this would be something that will just be kept quiet until it arrives.

I keep talking to people who are regular campers (non-climbers) and they have no idea about this, it's been heavily hushed. I'm not sure if there has been any newspaper/magazine articles written about this but maybe we should look at making this more public.

If climbers are the majority who have voiced their opinions I can't see the DEPI caring all that much. I realise that formal submissions have closed but we can't just go quiet and wait.
The document is really inconsistent; perhaps we could, as a group, push for a public discussion/meeting on this with the aim to create something that will benefit everybody?

ajfclark
19/12/2013
1:31:04 PM
When it was released I saw an article on the age website and it was all over the 5pm news but since then it's been quiet.
Will_P
20/12/2013
11:13:49 AM
I didn't receive a reply or acknowledgement of my constructive feedback - makes me feel unloved.

shortman
20/12/2013
11:30:40 AM
On 20/12/2013 Will_P wrote:
>I didn't receive a reply or acknowledgement of my constructive feedback
>- makes me feel unloved.

Maybe it was the condescending tone?

Sabu
20/12/2013
12:34:53 PM
I only got a reply from the state minister.
kieranl
21/12/2013
9:10:33 PM
I got a generic reply from the minister and a good reply from our local member, Hugh Delahunty, whom I also wrote to.
MichaelOR
23/12/2013
1:07:51 PM
I also got the generic reply from the Minister - even though I sent it to a few Govt. MPs.
Even more interesting is the silence from the ALP MPs I wrote to ..... they really want to go to the next election without a single policy or position on anything Except of course, that the Napthine Govt. is bad. Never before have I heard an opposition with so few policies.
Given I also wrote to the local ALP member, it must be their only policy not to comment!
patto
9/01/2014
6:08:54 PM
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/clamping-down-on-camping-but-why-20140108-30hhb.html


The Department of Environment and Primary Industry was mistaken if it thought it could sneak in a proposal to abolish free camping on the back of general fee rises for camping in national parks.
Campers are alert to the free camping situation because it is dear to their hearts. Little saddens them more than its gradual disappearance – unless it is the disappearance of camp grounds altogether. The main reason campers value free camping is not because it is free but because it is customary.
Free camping on Crown land is a practice that dates back to first settlement. Older campers (especially Grey Nomads, a group particularly attached to free camping), remember that until the 1960s it was normal to camp by the side of the road. And a certain amount of free camping has always been allowed in Victoria's national parks — until next March, if the department has its way.
Camping.
The free camping sites are not major cost centres for Parks Victoria. Photo: Peter Braig
Campers accept that they should pay to use well-serviced camp grounds, but the free sites in national parks are only those the department classifies as "basic" and "very basic", meaning they depend on campers being largely self-sufficient. The regulatory impact statement recently released by the department acknowledges that basic camp grounds are highly popular with campers: it is there that "real" camping is possible. When campers are asked, they say they do not want more services or more ranger visits – they just want to be left alone: they value independence and self-reliance more than cosseting by Parks Victoria. You would think neo-liberal governments would want to encourage such values by providing more opportunities to exercise them.
Advertisement
The regulatory impact statement invokes the government's cost recovery guidelines, insisting that it is obliged to end free camping because it is unfair to commercial camp ground operators. In doing so it applies the principle of "competitive neutrality" that is intended to protect private enterprise from "unfair" competition from state agencies. But at the basic and very basic free camping levels no comparison with commercial rates is possible because there is no market. Commercial operators do not offer such primitive sites and at the suggested fee of $13 per night there would be no profit in doing so.
The cost recovery guidelines do allow costs to be weighted against benefits, and allow exemption from full cost recovery for activities that deliver social benefits, including protection of cultural heritage. In its impact statement, the department rightly boasts that national parks play a vital role in doing this. The problem is that it fails to recognise free camping, or camping in general, as part of our cultural heritage. If there were an informed appreciation of the role of camping in the evolution of our culture and also as a profound way of engaging with the environment, it would be much less likely that free camping would be seen as an easy – or appropriate – target for cost recovery.
The free camping sites are not major cost centres for Parks Victoria. The risk is that improving services would add more to costs than can be retrieved in fees. The guidelines warn agencies against this, of pursuing their own self-interest by inflating of levels of service beyond the needs and wishes of the stakeholders. If, as seems likely, the cost of collecting fees at the basic level does exceed the value of the fees retrieved, then the abolition of free camping would be financially irrational.
There is something plain mean about this proposal, especially as the department threatens to close down camp grounds unless costs can be recovered. And the issue is set to broaden as the department indicates that it intends to introduce fees in state parks as well. But this is just a new version of an old story. Bringing campers – indigenous and non-indigenous – under control has been a goal of authorities from colonial times to the present. Around the country, they are now closing in on the remaining sites operating outside the market: remnant free camping is a last stand against the total commodification of the Australian holiday. Ironically, abolishing it will encourage feral camping, which will be much more costly to manage.
A government that genuinely accepted the social benefits of national parks should want to extend free camping rather than shut it down. If this seems fanciful, two years ago Queensland seriously considered introducing free camping in national parks as an incentive for people to visit them. New citizens especially should be encouraged to go camping, for, as generations of settlers have discovered, nothing allows us begin to feel at home in this landscape better than camping in it. It's the old way.
Wendy
9/01/2014
6:32:07 PM
click through to the article, everyone - the more hits the paper gets on it, the more they realise it is an issue of interest and are more likely to do further publicity of it.

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/clamping-down-on-camping-but-why-20140108-30hhb.html


 Page 7 of 10. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 191
There are 191 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