NSW np's - are they kidding?
Submitted: Friday, May 01, 2009 at 19:46
ThreadID:
68429
Views:
4212
Replies:
14
FollowUps:
10
This Thread has been Archived
mintrax
Having spent a lot of time in NP's and
free camping in VIC, TAS and SA we have decided to go to Northern NSW this winter (from vic) for a month.
Visiting a friend in Iluka so looked on the net for a
camp site nearby and came across Bunjalong NP.
I nearly died when I found that to stay there, they wanted $14 a day per person plus $7 a day NP pass.
For 2 people this is adds up to $35 a day for an unpowered site. This would be the most expensive unpowered site I have ever stayed at. This would be around 70% higher than the average commercial unpowered site.
How do they justify these prices? I think it's outrageous.
BTW I know you can get NP passes that would reduce the park pass fee, but just for a drop in...wow!
Michael
Reply By: bbuzz - Friday, May 01, 2009 at 20:56
Friday, May 01, 2009 at 20:56
Myall Lakes was $10 per head and $10 for the 4WD. A Pass took that down by $10 per day. The
dingo experience was free. Hawks Nest CP was $34 per night total - power and hot water showers.
The
Ruins near
Foster was $7 per person plus $14 per vehicle. Dingoes here too, friendly as
well. Hallidays Point CP was $38 with power, hot showers, TV and Games room, child's playground, kiosk.
CP's reduce their rates out of school holidays so that makes the NP's even dearer.
Always said that a National Park is a scenic area that everyone wants to go to, so the NP people grab it, put on a fee, lock the best parts away from visitors, no fires, no amenities, full garbage
bins and encourage weeds and animals
pests.
AnswerID:
362684
Reply By: Rangiephil - Friday, May 01, 2009 at 21:17
Friday, May 01, 2009 at 21:17
The NSW governement is commited to implementing Competition Policy.
This means that Government cannot undercut business charges in providing
services Inter Alia.
In addition The NSW government cannot use other government supplied
services where private
services are available. Hence the farcical situation I saw first hand during the drought a few years ago where the feds offered army helos to supply fodder , but had to be rejected and charters used instead.
So National Parks must charge equivalent fees to local caravan parks etc. The one that springs to my mind is Yamba where the NP
campground is AFAIR $28 per night plus $10 entrance fee.
Of course none of this hurts the revenue stream to the government does it?
Regards Philip A
AnswerID:
362689
Follow Up By: Rangiephil - Friday, May 01, 2009 at 21:19
Friday, May 01, 2009 at 21:19
Now I recall it was Iluka I was thinking of.
Regards Philip A
FollowupID:
630383
Follow Up By: Russ n Sue - Saturday, May 02, 2009 at 00:21
Saturday, May 02, 2009 at 00:21
Phil,
I think what you describe is Cartel Policy. It amounts to nothing more than price fixing. Competition Policy would see the Nat Parks set a lower price and see if the caravan parks will come down to match it.
It is exactly why the banks went whoopee with fees and charges after the cheap Government owned bank - the Commonwealth - was privatised and joined the other Cartel banks. Only in this instance the Government is maintaining ownwership of the Nat Parks and still entering into price fixing arrangements.
In WA they justify such charges as ensuring that the "user pays" and stating that the Government should not be seen to be subsidising the operating costs of Nat Parks. That being the case, why don't they give them back to the public and let us
free camp with no facilities provided....it would suit me!
Cheers
Russ
FollowupID:
630407
Follow Up By: oldtrack123 - Saturday, May 02, 2009 at 10:30
Saturday, May 02, 2009 at 10:30
Rangiephil replied:
The NSW governement is commited to implementing Competition Policy.
This means that Government cannot undercut business charges in providing
services Inter Alia. "
Hi
A point being pushed by the caravan parks lobby throughout Aus.
Equel facilities do not seem to be part of the equation.
For those enterested just search for threads on "end of
free camping ,"& similar There was quite a few on this on the old Msn sites [sadly lost]
FollowupID:
630434
Reply By: Member - JohnR (Vic) - Saturday, May 02, 2009 at 09:32
Saturday, May 02, 2009 at 09:32
Sometimes in NSW you can actually have 'good' Rangers. We camped late one night and I went to the office intent on paying and said I hadn't paid but asked information on
cave tours.
I was given all the info I asked for and paid for the
cave tour. Seems the
ranger forgot all about the earlier conversation. I just needed the acknowledgment I had the intent. LOL The NSW government got you guys into the mess, now to get you out of it.
When a Forestry
camp, not only didn't they try to charge me, they even gave me wood. Thumbs up to them.
AnswerID:
362750
Reply By: DIO - Sunday, May 03, 2009 at 10:42
Sunday, May 03, 2009 at 10:42
Whatever happened to the principle of 'user pays' !!! Who do you think pays for feral pest control, rabbit control, weed control,
hazard reduction, road building and maintenance, fence building and maintenance, erosion control, interpretive signage (for
places of interest), building and maintaining
public toilet facilities, building and maintaining
camp (ground) sites including
toilets and
water supply, staff wages, etc.
AnswerID:
362912
Follow Up By: Axel [ the real one ] - Sunday, May 03, 2009 at 10:59
Sunday, May 03, 2009 at 10:59
DIO that all encumbering catch cry "user pays " starts to wear very thin when you have to pay a fee for what you ALLREADY OWN / OWNED, and payed for in your general federal and state taxes ,,, user pays is nothing more than a EXTRA fee rippoff to hide bad management of fiscal policy.
FollowupID:
630541
Follow Up By: OzTroopy - Sunday, May 03, 2009 at 14:57
Sunday, May 03, 2009 at 14:57
Feral pest/weed control .... pffft
Hazard reduction ... baaahaaahaa
Road building ... as in "firetrails for fire management/
hazard reduction .... pffffft
Fence building ??? ... the adjoining property owners perhaps ???
Signage ... find it yourself or watch the nature channel on austar instead
Erosion control ???? those big humps on the firetrails that rip the gutz out of a vehicle ???
Facilities ????? .... they are kinda dependant on the location - NPWS receipts could pehaps be a tax claim as our taxes are supposed to fund our
services .... like they used too.
A drop pit dunny is not a facility - its a central waste management point ....
Pig rutted, goat chewed areas are not
camp grounds.
Blackened trees and ground is not
hazard reduction ... In a NP it is an out of control bushfire.
FollowupID:
630583
Follow Up By: tim_c - Monday, May 04, 2009 at 12:57
Monday, May 04, 2009 at 12:57
Is that the one that the Jindabynians refer to as "The National Sparks and Wildfire Service"? :)
FollowupID:
630778