Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop

Beal: "FLYER" 10.20mm x 60M. (CLASSIC - Std)- Assorted sheath colours. ORANGE pictured. Weight/mtr - 65 gms. UIAA Falls - 10. Impact Force - 7.4 kN FREE display bag & groundsheet inc'. Email Steve with colour choice - Green in stock...  $229.00
21% Off

Chockstone Photography Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

 Page 4 of 7. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 127
Author
Mt Arapiles - Camping fee booking changes 1st July

IdratherbeclimbingM9
1/07/2014
10:40:00 AM
The main thing this thread is good for is documenting the many failures of the system.

A whinge amongst ourselves won't actually solve the problem.
Better to collate the inadequacies, inconsistencies, and unfairnesses; then present them to the pollies and ask what they are going to do about it in light of the upcoming election.

If that fails, then anarchistic practice might make some feel better, though I reckon the 'system' will look to pinging enough recalcitrants in order to make an example of them, so as to frighten the larger mass population into complying...
martym
1/07/2014
11:47:11 AM
On 1/07/2014 IdratherbeclimbingM9 wrote:
>The main thing this thread is good for is documenting the many failures
>of the system.
>
>A whinge amongst ourselves won't actually solve the problem.
>Better to collate the inadequacies, inconsistencies, and unfairnesses;
>then present them to the pollies and ask what they are going to do about
>it in light of the upcoming election.
>
>If that fails, then anarchistic practice might make some feel better,
>though I reckon the 'system' will look to pinging enough recalcitrants
>in order to make an example of them, so as to frighten the larger mass
>population into complying...

Occupy Natimuk

ajfclark
1/07/2014
12:14:13 PM
On 1/07/2014 stingray4100 wrote:
>Maximum number of people per site = 2. To book a spot for 4 people, you'll need two bookings. It's really all kind of irrelevant because there's no 'sites' to speak of anyway. What a pain.

Set number of people to 2, set number of sites (quantity) to 2, 2 * 2 = 4 in one booking. Odd numbers will chew up sites faster... I wonder if there's a maximum number of sites in the pines?

Does look like multi site bookings only have an entry space for one rego. Not sure how they plan to differentiate between day visitors and campers though so that's probably a moot point.

kuu
1/07/2014
1:11:51 PM
On 1/07/2014 ajfclark wrote:
>On 1/07/2014 stingray4100 wrote:
>>Maximum number of people per site = 2. To book a spot for 4 people, you'll
>need two bookings. It's really all kind of irrelevant because there's no
>'sites' to speak of anyway. What a pain.
>
>Set number of people to 2, set number of sites (quantity) to 2, 2 * 2
>= 4 in one booking. Odd numbers will chew up sites faster... I wonder
>if there's a maximum number of sites in the pines?
>
So, suppose we're a family of three, using a 3-person tent and therefore requiring only one site.
Will we need to book for two people and separately book for one person, requiring two credit card transactions?
Plus potentially tying-up two of the non-delineated sites?


ajfclark
1/07/2014
1:44:56 PM
On 1/07/2014 kuu wrote:
>So, suppose we're a family of three, using a 3-person tent and therefore requiring only one site. Will we need to book for two people and separately book for one person, requiring two credit card transactions? Plus potentially tying-up two of the non-delineated sites?

Set the number of people to two. Number of sites to 1. Book now. Enter rego or "no vehicle". Add to cart.
Set the number of people to one. Number of sites to 1. Book now. Enter rego or "no vehicle". Buy now.
Follow the prompts.

The result: one CC transaction for $15 and two sites used in their system. You're entitled to two cars.



If you didn't want to use the cart to do it:

Set the number of people to one. Number of sites to 3. Book now. Enter rego or "no vehicle". Buy now.

The result: one CC transaction for $15 and three sites used in their system. You're entitled to three cars but only get prompted once for rego and it's the same across all three sites. I guess putting in a list or something would work.



This doesn't seem very complicated to me if you've ever bought anything over the internet, but maybe that's because I used the old parkstay system and this one is very similar?

kuu
1/07/2014
1:55:33 PM
Thanks Andrew,

I understand it now. It's really quite intuitive, isn't it? ;-)

ajfclark
1/07/2014
4:47:48 PM
To me it is, but I'm a programmer. Therein probably lies quite a few of the usability issues in the world.
chalkischeap
1/07/2014
5:01:35 PM
It's better if you don't pay. Don't want to encourage them.
Chillisalt
11/07/2014
3:11:15 PM
I just stumbled across this (by stumbled, i mean it was spammed to me):

http://www.travelfactoryaustralia.com.au/grampians-halls-gap-caravan-tourist-park.html?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=14-07-11+125256++Australia-Nationwideen++Halls+Gap+Grampians+National+P&utm_content=14-07-11+125256++Australia-Nationwideen++Halls+Gap+Grampians+National+P+CID_69025de23b224e7c4de4e56029163900&utm_source=Travelfactory%20Australia%20Email%20Marketing

Quite a good deal at $99 for seven nights. I just did a comparison with the new fee system at Borough Huts as an example - $238 for 7 nights. & Borough Huts only provides basic toilets, no drinking water, no showers, no power, etc, etc.

Despite never feeling the need for these facilities while camping, I'll be jumping on the caravan park's offer as opposed to the other Parks Vic sites in the Grampians. I guess this highlights the new system's flaws. So you save $139 and you have the advantages mentioned above.

The deal gives you until 30/06/2015 to use the voucher, as well as 3 and 5 nights options if you don't want to stay a week - $69 and $89 respectively.

On a down note, it reflects the poor patronage the park has received since the fires and the caravan park trying to increase their numbers.

HandyAndyCap
8/08/2014
4:01:28 PM
Interesting when viewed from the more evident neoliberal ideological lens these days.

For some reason(s) the more equitable 'user pays' for park access is not to be considered. Given the stated motivations for fee increases and the scale of the fee rise, the heavy lifting in fee for service recovery is not being shared by day trippers and those requiring vehicle access to park areas. While some of us, as diligent tax payers, we would rather have free access, not all agree with that collective approach. At the very least, access fees such as in Tasmania and the US, supplement those taxes in a reasonably flexible way. Those seeking accommodation/camping services generally pay a bit more on top for that service too.

The strategy of taxing a subset of park users who wish to stay, camping or otherwise, at a park's accommodation facilities can be seen as a provocation. It's obviously inequitable but those who still wish to and can still afford to under the 'site' model, will keep paying, or at least start paying. So the Government hopes.

What of the rest? Those who protest, boycott or sleep-it-and-beat-it? I'm not sure the negative reaction is what worries the Government strategy at all. It may actually bolster it.

From what I read people are already finding better deals from the private operators around the parks even though they offer far more than is required such as holiday camps and caravan parks. I can see a scenario evolving, which as a conspiracy of sequence is better by dot point. Call me paranoid but what if:

- Regular campers seeking cheaper camping take patronage offsite to private operations.

- The private operators realise there is also profit from basic services and may begin to offer less expensive options.

- Increasing the patronage of private campers, decreasing the uptake of the park campgrounds.

- Park camping services still cost even though they are under-utilised.

- Bean counters twiddle their beards and propose that some park camping services are unsustainable and should be closed.

- Shock-horror. Forums overheat.

- A bill is pushed through to contract out the administration and maintenance of the campgrounds to commercial operators (who are doing very well now from a larger and broader client base thank you).

- The government can divest itself of camping services, commercial operators merely expand as they already have the administration overheads from being in the business (and some may have recently expanded budget services on the edge of the parks).

- HOWEVER... There is a sweetener that may be offered/asked for and the commercial operators can claim that operating basic camping services does not offer enough profit for the effort and the only way to make the venture profitable and sustainable is to allow premium services as well.

- The less wedgy end of Cabins and resorts are pushed at the planning processes.

- Planning processes are relaxed as the parks are allegedly being starved of funds due to reduced patronage.

- Tax funds are further reduced to parks as camping services are now not a Government service or revenue stream.

- Parks are starved of funds and revenue streams.

- Then we might see the gates and general entrance fees as well.


My crystal ball is foggy though.

IdratherbeclimbingM9
8/08/2014
4:30:33 PM
On 8/08/2014 HandyAndyCap wrote:
>Interesting when viewed from the more evident neoliberal ideological lens
>these days.
>
>For some reason(s) the more equitable 'user pays' for park access is not
>to be considered. Given the stated motivations for fee increases and the
>scale of the fee rise, the heavy lifting in fee for service recovery is
>not being shared by day trippers and those requiring vehicle access to
>park areas. While some of us, as diligent tax payers, we would rather have
>free access, not all agree with that collective approach. At the very least,
>access fees such as in Tasmania and the US, supplement those taxes in a
>reasonably flexible way. Those seeking accommodation/camping services generally
>pay a bit more on top for that service too.
>
>The strategy of taxing a subset of park users who wish to stay, camping
>or otherwise, at a park's accommodation facilities can be seen as a provocation.
>It's obviously inequitable but those who still wish to and can still afford
>to under the 'site' model, will keep paying, or at least start paying.
>So the Government hopes.
>
>What of the rest? Those who protest, boycott or sleep-it-and-beat-it?
>I'm not sure the negative reaction is what worries the Government strategy
>at all. It may actually bolster it.
>
>From what I read people are already finding better deals from the private
>operators around the parks even though they offer far more than is required
>such as holiday camps and caravan parks. I can see a scenario evolving,
>which as a conspiracy of sequence is better by dot point. Call me paranoid
>but what if:
>
>- Regular campers seeking cheaper camping take patronage offsite to private
>operations.
>
>- The private operators realise there is also profit from basic services
>and may begin to offer less expensive options.
>
>- Increasing the patronage of private campers, decreasing the uptake of
>the park campgrounds.
>
>- Park camping services still cost even though they are under-utilised.
>
>- Bean counters twiddle their beards and propose that some park camping
>services are unsustainable and should be closed.
>
>- Shock-horror. Forums overheat.
>
>- A bill is pushed through to contract out the administration and maintenance
>of the campgrounds to commercial operators (who are doing very well now
>from a larger and broader client base thank you).
>
>- The government can divest itself of camping services, commercial operators
>merely expand as they already have the administration overheads from being
>in the business (and some may have recently expanded budget services on
>the edge of the parks).
>
>- HOWEVER... There is a sweetener that may be offered/asked for and the
>commercial operators can claim that operating basic camping services does
>not offer enough profit for the effort and the only way to make the venture
>profitable and sustainable is to allow premium services as well.
>
>- The less wedgy end of Cabins and resorts are pushed at the planning
>processes.
>
>- Planning processes are relaxed as the parks are allegedly being starved
>of funds due to reduced patronage.
>
>- Tax funds are further reduced to parks as camping services are now not
>a Government service or revenue stream.
>
>- Parks are starved of funds and revenue streams.
>
>- Then we might see the gates and general entrance fees as well.
>
>
>My crystal ball is foggy though.

Interesting hypothesis, and not at all implausible.

I can't help but think that a good bushfire wouldn't sort the issue somewhat.
If you doubt me, look at what happened to the Backpacker accomodation at Mt Buffalo, and how it impacted on the sustainability of the Chalet...

You wrote;
>What of the rest? Those who protest, boycott or sleep-it-and-beat-it?

I suspect that the numbers involved with this group are actually significant; ... and the resultant drop in revenue when the bean counters compare post/pre revenue income, will reflect the sentiment.

Your crystal ball might be foggy, but nevertheless, where do you stand?
Are you going to petition your local member before the upcoming Vic election?
martym
8/08/2014
9:45:41 PM
What's the fine for not paying your camping fees?

Seeing as many people spend weeks (if not months) at a time at the Pines it might be worth rolling the dice.

Last time I was there, some of the long-timers openly admitted to not paying fees and instead giving $50 to the Friends of Arapiles. Now that's Anarchy
neverclimbed32
11/08/2014
2:20:33 PM
Not sure if I am missing the mark here, (I usually do) but:

Does the requirement for online booking by the client also require a requirement by the provider to guarantee internet access ?

Personally, I'm not aware of the increase in park fees or the new booking arrangement and "Sorry sir, but I tried to book online and couldn't get a signal :( "

gordoste
11/08/2014
10:12:04 PM
On 8/08/2014 martym wrote:
>Last time I was there, some of the long-timers openly admitted to not
>paying fees and instead giving $50 to the Friends of Arapiles. Now that's
>Anarchy

Hardly a crime against humanity, but poor form nonetheless. Perhaps they should go and empty the toilets themselves.
Wendy
11/08/2014
10:27:47 PM
On 11/08/2014 gordoste wrote:
>On 8/08/2014 martym wrote:
>>Last time I was there, some of the long-timers openly admitted to not
>>paying fees and instead giving $50 to the Friends of Arapiles. Now that's
>>Anarchy
>
>Hardly a crime against humanity, but poor form nonetheless. Perhaps they
>should go and empty the toilets themselves.

Being capable of doing a little maths, I'm thinking that a donation equivalent to 10 nights fees is not so generous for "long-timers".

bigchris
11/08/2014
10:57:59 PM
So, if you camp on a portaledge, does that mean you don't pay? ;)
kieranl
12/08/2014
8:41:55 AM
On 11/08/2014 bigchris wrote:
>So, if you camp on a portaledge, does that mean you don't pay? ;)

No it means you get fined for camping in a non-camping area :)
Dave_S
Online Now
12/08/2014
10:21:28 AM
On 12/08/2014 kieranl wrote:
>
>No it means you get fined for camping in a non-camping area :)

Only if they can reach your ledge to give you the fine.

So mid way up Plaque Wall might not be sufficient.

EleNora
18/08/2014
2:23:00 PM
>>Last time I was there, some of the long-timers openly admitted to not
>>paying fees and instead giving $50 to the Friends of Arapiles. Now that's
>>Anarchy

>Hardly a crime against humanity, but poor form nonetheless. Perhaps they should go and >empty the toilets themselves.


And perhaps they do.
I was sold the dream of long stay in Arapiles at 2$ a night. If those 2$ were formerly in use to empty toilets, I'll be ready to dig in a bit of shit to stay around for free.

I'd be really curious to know how much a fine is indeed. And how do they collect it? Do they get your ID, ask for your address and send you a little envelope?
Wendy
19/08/2014
8:00:13 AM
On 18/08/2014 EleNora wrote:
>
>
>And perhaps they do.
>I was sold the dream of long stay in Arapiles at 2$ a night.

It hasn't been $2 a night for years. I could sell you the dream of it being free too, which it was when I started climbing. Prices have an unfortunate tendency to go up.

If those
>2$ were formerly in use to empty toilets, I'll be ready to dig in a bit
>of shit to stay around for free.

They have a septic truck come and do it. The fees actually go into general revenue and have no direct connection to the park, which is I know, rather crap. But they are going to PV to manage parks somewhere in someway.
>
>I'd be really curious to know how much a fine is indeed. And how do they
>collect it? Do they get your ID, ask for your address and send you a little
>envelope?

The fine was $180 last I knew about it and the forementioned law of prices probably applies. But I know it is in fact a massive pain for parks staff to process fines and takes them away from other far more useful work they could be doing. I was actually told it costs them more to process these fines than the fine is worth, so you are actually taking more resources away from the park, which probably explains why they rarely fine people. However, we did get a new ranger a year or 2 ago who was keen as on fining. Plus they could theoretically fine you for every night you didn't pay, which would be quite a lot more than the camping fee.

Araps is now the most sensible camp fee arrangement in PV. Think about a long term stay in the Grampians if you want to worry about your budget for camp fees.

 Page 4 of 7. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 127
There are 127 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