National Parks and their changing attitudes

Hear, hear,

I am total agreement with you. I have found over the years National Parks and Conservation & Land Management are quietly closing off more and more of this country to the ordinary traveler.Places I have been and camped years ago first time and then camped there over a number of years are now not accessible. The excuse is usually very thin but the fines are very large.

David

Qld NP are learning from NSW NP. We dont go to Qld at all or NSW NP. Prefer to spend our money in Vic, SA and WA. Qld now is a piece of over priced bawdy plastic. Thankfully saw Qld well before it got to be the greed is good state of Aus. Majority of VIC NP are free and take vans and SA NP are low cost and welcome vans.

Actually the primary role of National Parks in Australia is conservation, unlike the American model where it is recreation. Ideally there should be enough National Parks to allow Natural Selection to continue in all the species inside them.

Recreation in National Parks in Australia is a secondary consideration to the primary consideration noted above, and parks are usually managed with this in mind. (Remember we are talking National parks where there is usually high conservation value, not state forests etc).

However, that still not mean that people should be locked out of Parks. I could understand the decision where there are commercial caravan parks in the area. But most Nat Park camping areas are a long way from alternative camping areas.

I saw an even worse case of this sort of management at a park in the Otways in Victoria. They had closed all vehicle access to the camping area. The nearest carpark was about 100 M from the camping area. This meant that any form of vehicle based camping was effectively stopped in the area, leaving it only for people with light-weight easy to carry camping gear.

personally, i can;t wait untill they ban vehicle access on the fraser-island tracks and beachs',

i miss the 20klm walks that seemed like 2klm's ...
I miss fishing on the beach's without looking left & right every 20 seconds
and i miss the repose the place offered...

all it seems to offer these days is a pose...

i prefer vehicle based camping but when it goes too far and creates too much damage, as it does, im glad NP's do step in...

Good to hear from you Wim.

Yes, interesting, NPs closer to the larger population centres, mainly on the east coast are installing bollards etc to control access. The ones out west, where funds are not as easy to come by, are still behind.

Makes me wonder if a challenge on disability access would work?
I don't just mean wheel chair access, but disability access for our senior citizens, and those with other disabilities. Was travelling with some one who was on disability pension and had a bad hip, and complained about access at a number of NPs.
You and I complaining would not get any where, but under disability legislation, maybe some one could gain access, or make NPs review their policy?

Have seen some good disabled walks around the place, with easier ramps and walkways, and also for blind access, but they are few and far between. So where do these people camp when they want to?

Hi Wim

Having visited National Parks in NT, Qld and NSW recently, i find NT way in front. Apart from those bollards in most of them which make parking a big rig awkward or impossible, the parks are mostly free entry, and facilities provided for what is often a very low fee, vary from a pit toilet to free gas barbecues and even flush toilets and hot showers in some. Fees may vary when hot showers are provided, but are still cheap.

I was angry when first told about Qld introducing a must book on line system, as like most, we travel on a variable time frame and generally stop only if we like the look of a campground when we get there, by which time NextG for internet is out of the question. I was determined to boycott these parks (not all require booking).

At places such as Lawn Hill and Carnarvon Gorge we had no option but to go to the private camp grounds for these parks.

The first on line booking park we came to was Porcupine Gorge, and the Hughenden visitor centre gave me a plan on which half the sites were pre book on the internet, and half were self register and pay to honesty box on site. Not knowing if our rig would fit into any of the bays, we camped in an old blue metal dump along the way and visited as a day trip. Boycott working.

Next we wanted to visit Mt Moffat in the Carnarvon range. The caravanner next to us at Injune CP the day before tried to ring the 13 number as he didn't have internet, but could not get through, so he had his travelling companions book on line for both. When we arrived, the campground most suited to caravans was very roomy and open (hooray - no bollards), with only a couple of other campers other than the people we met at Injune and ourselves. There was no self registration or honesty box on site. Hence for those who hadn't booked, it was 9 kms along sandy tracks not suited to towing a caravan to the ranger station, then return. A lovely park, but one where internet booking worked for us. Darn - blown my boycott.

It was school holidays by the time we neared Girraween NP, so i again booked on line, finding that the weekend was fully booked, so was only able to book for two nights. We planned camp where we would have only a short drive to the park for the morning of the first day to get in early and find a space - very wise move. This was the day of the first of the two widespread dust storms, and had we not had the booking we would not have driven at all. The sightseeing on the first day was severely curtailed due to the conditions. When we arrived, there was provision for payment on site - but we wouldn't have known about the vacancies or lack of without being able to go on line a few days before. Also had we not arrived as early as we did, we wouldn't have found a space for our rig, regardless of having paid. Couldn't boycott internet payment that time either, and were lucky we got in at all. Booking on line doesn't guarantee you'll find room when you get there and there is no way you can get a refund if you don't stay - be it because you couldn't get in, you have a delay in travel plans, or the weather turned nasty.

NSW parks fees are a bit severe. We purchased a 1 year country parks pass, as entry fees are PER DAY, unlike a single entry fee in other states. All the same they came out in front, as due to weather conditions we did not stay at a number of the parks as anticipated, doing day trips from nearby towns. By the time you pay $7 daily entry, then $7 per person to camp it is not cheap considering facilities may only be a pit toilet. Not all parks have an entry fee, but most charge for camping. Some of the parks we didn't go to, such as Kosciusko, have a much bigger entry fees. NSW is either greedy or just trying to limit numbers visiting through fees?

We still enjoyed visiting all the parks in these states - having gone all that way it would have been a shame to miss them because we didn't like the booking system or the fees.

Motherhen

Also Wim, if there is anything in your supposition that they are trying to block caravans and cater only for tents, i cannot understand this rationale. Many caravanners these day come with they own water (i will use my own if the water has to be carted there - only perhaps occasionally using on site water if the supply is there and abundant, eg from flowing river), and have own toilets and showers as well as rubbish bins. Caravanners leave less trace than even the most conscientious tenter who must at least make a few tent peg marks in the ground and most likely will need to use the pit toilets provided or 'go bush' where some less conscientious leave a mess.

Do contact your relevant politician, and point out the harm it does to other businesses who need tourism to survive. Good luck and thanks.

Motherhen

In my opinion we already have enough people around who don't give a rat's for anyone else - either property or person.

So what happens when the average law abiding person gets to feel so p'eed off with the crazies who seem to have the power to change/control our way of life that they start doing something about it.

My guess is that they will turn into vandals and destroyers too, heaven help us if it gets to that.

Maybe i'm wrong....

Paul

Personally, and feel free to throw rocks, I generally regard 'camping' as in camping in a tent or swag, and preferably not surrounded by bollards which are there only because NP management (and I am particularly not including the poorputupon rangers as management) is being forced to exclude increasingly larger snails on wheels which too often overdominate the 'grounds'.

Use of motorhomes, fifthwheelers, large caravans, generators etc etc for getting away should not be construed (imho) opinion as being 'camping'.

Alternatively, NP management could be lobbied for creation of separate large vehicle/trailer sites within the park rec zones away from those who prefer a minimalist model. But the onus for such lobbying should lie with the maximalists.

To avoid some stones, I would allow campertrailers as evidence of bona fide camping, however, as long as they show suitable signs of having a few dents, dings and scratches from proper 4WD tracks.

Goodonyer rangers!

Cheers.

Sixtyone at last.

I think many of us need to start re-thinking our attitudes. When National Parks first started, they were certainly seen as rest and recreation areas for all. But our understanding of ecology has come along way in recent years. The need for biodiversity and the role of undisturbed environments in preserving biodiversity is now much better understood. We need areas scattered around the planet in key ecological regions where essentially nature can be left alone. Probably we need now two kinds of National Parks, one for recreation and one as reserves.
It takes very little human impact to start the chain that wipes out species.
When we first started setting aside National Parks, I very much doubt that it was envisaged that the population levels we are now moving to and the kind of technology we now have would open these areas up to the numbers of humans that can now get to them.
For those that don't want restrictions, do you think an ever increasing number has no impact? Just how many vistors do you think should be allowed? What restrictions should be placed on them? OK to camp wherever you want? Have campfires wherever you want? And in another twent years? And the twenty years after that? And do you think we can all rely on the common sense and good will of all vistitors to do the right thing (whatever that may be)?
Frankly, the view that has been advanced several times in this thread that Park Rangers etc are just there on some kind of private party to enjoy the wilderness for themselves is plain loopy.

im not a greenie, ranger or even that well educated but from my observations...

One three metre wide vehicle track cuts a 20m wide corrodore thru the bush.

This corridore becomes a differant land geography, often devoid of the fauna and flora immediatly round it and usually suplanted by vehicle introduced seeds...

Most damagaing is this corridore blocks the migratory habits of the flora and fauna and before long that 3 metre wide track produces a diaster to the entire local land-form...

I know people can see the sense in this but they don't want' to acknowledge it...

good luck with your submission, you will definetly make it worse for us all...

I'll just say one thing,Conservation from FERALS ......

Coincidentaly I saw on ABC news tonight that the Bligh govt want to open up 7 national parks to eco-tourism resorts. They admitted that more will follow.

So, close access to those with campers that leave a small footprint and then allow resorts to be built!! Hmm, money maker...surely not!