Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop

Rock Star: "Rock Star" Women's fit - Size 10.5 US (42 Eur) Versatile all purpose lace up, with a stiff sole and relaxed heal. Supportive and COMFORTABLE! 2 pair left!  $49.00
73% Off

Chockstone Photography Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

 Page 10 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 197
Author
Vic Parks Camping Fee Proposal

salty crag
25/02/2014
9:28:55 PM
On 25/02/2014 f_abe wrote:
>I can't believe it's taken 9 pages of discussion to get to the obvious
>- any price change is going to have no impact on anyone's budget whatsoever!

Thats gold!

Eduardo Slabofvic
26/02/2014
12:29:09 PM
On 25/02/2014 salty crag wrote:
>On 25/02/2014 f_abe wrote:
>>I can't believe it's taken 9 pages of discussion to get to the obvious
>>- any price change is going to have no impact on anyone's budget whatsoever!
>
>Thats gold!

How many more pagers is it going to take to get to the obvious that "I don't like it" is insufficient grounds for policy change?
patto
26/02/2014
4:19:59 PM
On 26/02/2014 Edward Oslabofvic wrote:
>How many more pagers is it going to take to get to the obvious that "I
>don't like it" is insufficient grounds for policy change?

Do you really think that this is what it is about? Making remote public owned wilderness area a chargeable commodity is OK by you?

The basis for charging is unsound. It encourages noncompliance, and it is all done under the false guise of user pays. When commercial sites are significantly cheaper that NP sites it is clear that the is about campers subsidising the other NP functions.

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

Eduardo Slabofvic
26/02/2014
4:23:54 PM
On 26/02/2014 patto wrote:
>>Do you really think that this is what it is about? Making remote public
>owned wilderness area a chargeable commodity is OK by you?

Can you identify where I wrote that?

patto
26/02/2014
4:35:40 PM
No I can not identify where you wrote that. That is why I asked the question.
gfdonc
11/03/2014
2:58:11 PM
In speaking with two rangers at Lake Elizabeth campsite (Otways) on the weekend, they also voiced opposition to the proposal.

Lake Elizabeth is a walk-in campsite which has a drop toilet situated closer to the day carpark (thus servicing day hikers as well as campers). i.e. basic facilities.
It has around 15-20 unmarked campsites, some with picnic tables and metal fireplaces.
It's in the National Park, and is the only National Park in Vic where dogs are allowed.

In talking about the proposal they mentioned serious works were scheduled for June so that specific, bookable sites could be identified at LEC. i.e. a lot of money was being expended to allow the proposal to work at that location. Over the long weekend, several parties came and went and all were able to find a patch of ground to 'squeeze in', including some who looked like tourists (wheely cases and a cheap 2-man tent).

That amenity will effectively be wiped out by the proposal.

nmonteith
11/03/2014
3:07:17 PM
I camped at quite a few National Parks along the east coast of NSW in the last few weeks on a little bushwalking roadtrip. The most any park charged was $27 ($10 each per person and $7 for park entry). We stayed at gorgeous beaches, rainforests and rivers - all with flush toilets - most with BBQs and shelters. How Victoria thinks charging twice the price for less facilities is sane beggers belief.
patto
11/03/2014
7:14:32 PM
On 11/03/2014 gfdonc wrote:
>In speaking with two rangers at Lake Elizabeth campsite (Otways) on the
>weekend, they also voiced opposition to the proposal.
>
>Lake Elizabeth is a walk-in campsite which has a drop toilet situated
>closer to the day carpark (thus servicing day hikers as well as campers).
> i.e. basic facilities.
>It has around 15-20 unmarked campsites, some with picnic tables and metal
>fireplaces.
>It's in the National Park, and is the only National Park in Vic where
>dogs are allowed.
>
>In talking about the proposal they mentioned serious works were scheduled
>for June so that specific, bookable sites could be identified at LEC.
>i.e. a lot of money was being expended to allow the proposal to work at
>that location. Over the long weekend, several parties came and went and
>all were able to find a patch of ground to 'squeeze in', including some
>who looked like tourists (wheely cases and a cheap 2-man tent).
>
>That amenity will effectively be wiped out by the proposal.
>

Very sad. Lake Elizabeth is lovely. An excellent example of how ill thought these changes are.

I'd happily pay for a Lake Elizabeth campsite. A deposit box with a fair fee makes much more sense.

On 11/03/2014 nmonteith wrote:
> How Victoria thinks charging twice the price for less facilities
>is sane beggers belief.
They paid an expensive consulting company. They told them they can charge more so why question that? Naturally these people in the glass towers know much more about camping than us.


NEVERCLIMBED32
12/03/2014
7:52:51 PM
The likelihood of private providers prices remaining at their current levels is.............well.............
The base level pricing now re established by Parks will put pressure on the availability of sites provided by private operators as more folks opt to to pay just a little more for a hot shower and a bbq (or even a cabin) rather than sleeping in the dirt. I'm predicting major price rises in private camp grounds within the next twelve months which will in turn impact upon pricing of cabin, through to motel accommodation in some areas.

IdratherbeclimbingM9
4/04/2014
2:34:41 PM
The latest update/s (Page last updated: 3 March 2014)...

http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/forestry-and-land-use/visiting-parks-and-forests/national-parks-camping-and-accommodation-fees

... but info it is based on is dated Oct 2013??
http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/forestry-and-land-use/visiting-parks-and-forests/national-parks-camping-and-accommodation-fees/parks-subject-to-proposed-changes-from-1-july-2014

Duang Daunk
26/04/2014
1:57:02 PM
On 25/02/2014 kuu wrote:
> yeah, whatever

Kuu old man. I see you have more smarts than M9 sometimes regarding posting a flavour on chocky in many respects.

... And you hVe been silent lately. Ok and fair enough.
What is your take on consistency?
This Q assumes you have read all the other recent thread posts on chocky.
patto
2/04/2015
3:00:37 PM
I think this deserves a thread revival. Great news.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/basic-camping-fee-axed-in-national-parks-20150402-1mdhoi.html
kieranl
2/04/2015
3:08:56 PM
Fantastic. I hoped this would happen but you can never tell.

IdratherbeclimbingM9
2/04/2015
3:26:10 PM
On 2/04/2015 patto wrote:
>I think this deserves a thread revival. Great news.
>
>http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/basic-camping-fee-axed-in-national-parks-20150402-1mdho.html
>
Campers have been handed an early Easter gift with the state government dumping camping fees for more than 500 basic camp sites.

>The former Napthine government introduced a $13 fee for basic camp sites, as well as increases to fees for other types of camp grounds in national parks, in a bid to boost maintenance.

>On Thursday Environment Minister Lisa Neville said the fee for 536 camp sites at 70 camp grounds had been axed. People who have already paid for Easter camping will be entitled to a refund.

>The booking system for basic sites, which are unserviced and have either a pit toilet or no toilet, will also be phased out by July 1.

>Parks Victoria has also been asked to review the fee structure for other camp grounds to see if it is fair and whether it may adversely affect visitor numbers.

>Ms Neville said the basic camp fee had turned away some campers. The new fee was forecast to raise $600,000.

>"All it [fees] resulted in was massive administration for Parks Victoria and costs associated with that and a lot of red tape," Ms Neville said.

>"It also meant we saw a lot less people using it."

>Labor also attacked the previous government for cutting $88 million from the Parks Victoria budget since 2011.


Why didn't they listen earlier?
Surely it wouldn't have been a wait and see if they will pay, game?
;-)

On that note, it makes me wonder how many bushwalkers / climbers / canoeists / etc, actually paid to camp in Vic wilderness 'basic' camp sites...
Wendy
2/04/2015
4:17:01 PM
On 2/04/2015 IdratherbeclimbingM9 wrote:

>Why didn't they listen earlier?
>Surely it wouldn't have been a wait and see if they will pay, game?
>;-)
>
>On that note, it makes me wonder how many bushwalkers / climbers / canoeists
>/ etc, actually paid to camp in Vic wilderness 'basic' camp sites...

Um, we voted the liberal donkeys out of office? It sounds like the Labour govt are prepared to see sense so maybe now is a good time to resend all those letter written for the original proposal to the new govt and see if they listen.
Vortex21
2/04/2015
8:40:24 PM
http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/no-more-fees-for-basic-camping-in-our-regional-national-parks


The bookings system for these sites will remain in place until 1 July 2015. Customers who have made a booking between now and 1 July will be refunded automatically by Parks Victoria, but the bookings will still be honoured.

A basic site is defined as unserviced, with minimal ranger patrols and pit or no-pit toilets. From 1 July 2015, these sites will no longer require booking and will be available on a first- come, first-served basis.

TooFatToClimb
3/04/2015
1:13:38 PM
On 2/04/2015 IdratherbeclimbingM9 wrote:

>On that note, it makes me wonder how many bushwalkers / climbers / canoeists
>/ etc, actually paid to camp in Vic wilderness 'basic' camp sites...

I know I did. Spent one night in a swag late last year in the Otways that I had camped in free many times before. Usually spent up to a week but not this time. No loos but heaps of signage and posts defining the 'camp sites'. I'm guessing the infrastructure and labour costs would have far outweighed the collection of fees.

 Page 10 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 197
There are 197 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