Sunday, Feb 22, 2009 at 22:48
We first stayed at Honeymoon in 2000. Really loved it, despite some hiccups with their plumbing/
water supply pipes regularly breaking. Spent 3 weeks there. Went back in 2007 for a week. Cyclones had taken out what little shade there was previously. The
water supply was polluted and muddy. There had been no improvement or addition to the unisex and rather primitive amenities - despite Les having, in 2000, a sizeable grant for same. It was still a case of white campers who want amenities cleaned must do it themselves. Ditto rubbish collection - the crows were still having a big party. Les and the family seemed much less interested in the
camping operation, but Les was still taking out fishing trips - I think He Who Drives' catch was probably the most expensive fish dinner we will ever eat! We found the
camp dogs intrusive. They charged a heap for power (which we did not want) and this consisted of a heap of long leads plugged into one pole. Then the family went off to
Kalumburu for a few days, the genset ran out of
fuel (we heard there was an issue of unpaid
fuel bills) and those who had paid for power were very annoyed. We then went to Mc Gowans for a week. There were a couple of white guys managing it and one did fishing trips. The
water was very clean and drinkable. There was an Atco amenities unit, still cold
water only, but cleaned daily. BYO
toilet paper in both
places, though. There was shade, an attempt to make a central green area and an air of being cared for and
well run. We regretted the week we'd spent at Honeymoon, once we were at Mc Gowans. A really big issue for us was that, at Honeymoon, there were several large groups who were there for an extended period, with boats, freezers etc, to catch as many fish as they could, to take away. Bag limits meant nothing, especially of limited species like red emperor. We saw people with large piles of such fish, cleaning them, ready to freeze, every day. Les and family were given fish and fish heads - we presumed, to turn a blind eye to the rules. At McGowans, the guys in charge made it very clear that they expected the fisheries rules to be obeyed. There were none of the big camp/freezer setups there. Obviously in such an area, the "local" conditions can change radically, from year to year, and the power balance can change quickly, but we felt that there was a development plan in place at McGowans, whereas at Honeymoon the focus was extracting maximum dollars for minimum input or concern for "country".
AnswerID:
350506
Follow Up By: Peter_n_Margaret - Sunday, Feb 22, 2009 at 23:29
Sunday, Feb 22, 2009 at 23:29
All pretty accurate Wendy.
Swings and roundabouts on the local politics. They are currently trying to remove the 'white guys'. Not sure what that will mean this year.
Last year (2008) the rate at McGowans was $12pp and at Honeymoon it was $10pp. Les will negotiate for longer stays.
There is beach
camping at Honeymoon (that is where we go). Much more constrained at McGowans.
You need to see for yourself, that is the best plan. wait 'till you get there an spend a few hours checking both
places out.
There is a third aternative at Pago, but there are NO facilities there (close to the
water, but no beach) and you would probably be on your own. Negotiate directly with the Waina family in town.
Cheers,
Peter
OKA106 Motorhome
FollowupID:
618821
Follow Up By: marrakai - Monday, Feb 23, 2009 at 07:16
Monday, Feb 23, 2009 at 07:16
thanks Wendy. Cant agree more on sticking to the fisheries rules. i think i will do as suggested and have a look around before deciding. On your recent experiences though it sounds like Mcgowans is the safer option. much appreciated.
FollowupID:
618829