The increasing loss of free camps

[Cuppa]

WARNING: This will be a very long post, but I assume that many who love 4wd's also love to camp, be it with a tent, camper trailer or caravan & thus it will be of interest.

On another forum I have posted what is below. First a little background. It is a forum largely inhabited by members of the Campervan & Motorhome Club of Australia (CMCA), an organisation which among others is lobbying local authorities who are fed up with the mess caused by over use of free camp spots & would prefer to simply close them down. The CMCA is encouraging all of it's members to make their vehicles fully self contained (if not already so) with black & grey water tanks & rubbish containment. They promote a 'Leave No Trace' scheme (LNT), which on the face of it is a good thing, encouraging folk to care for their environment & show consideration to other campers/travellers.

However there is another agenda, that of establishing camp spots for self contained RV's only, at the cost of allowing traditional long established camp spots to close to the rest of the travelling/camping public, and they are already having some success.

Here is what I posted........ I would be interested in a) if anyone gives a stuff & b) what you think, given that fitting grey & black water tanks to the average touring 4wd is unlikely to be feasible.

Anyone would think from many of the discussions which occur on this topic right across the various RV forums that many RV owners consider that free camps are just for them!

It then follows that if they also believe that most RV's are equipped with grey & black water holding tanks that making the free camps for self contained vehicles only is a logical step to take.

I often wonder if such thinking reflects arrogance, ignorance or just self interest.

By all means push for new, private, low cost self contained vehicle only camps.
By all means encourage responsible LNT behaviours at ALL camps.
By all means encourage local authorities to provide rubbish & toilet facilities at free camps.

BUT do not restrict free camps to the relatively affluent & exclude the folks without RV's, self contained or otherwise.

And do not accept, let alone encourage the opening of any 'self contained only' free camps IF there is any possibility that such opening is likely to result in subsequent closure of another free camp.

Cuppa
Ps.
How about making regulated self containment mandatory for all motorhomes & caravans, & restricting them to only self contained camps, whilst banning them from all the existing free camps!
This would reduce the pressure on many of the 'traditional' free camps brought about by the expansion of the RV market & the emergence of publications like ’Camps' in recent years & allow those traditional free camps to continue to be used by others in the manner that they have been for decades.

Cuppa <tongue in cheek>

Cuppa I hear what you are saying but the shoe is on the other foot also with responsibility being taken by the camper. A few night ago I was at Hughenden which has a caravan park (which was well patronized) and a strictly self contained RV park which you had to register for at the Information Centre before setting up at $6 per night. There was a big sign saying if you were no self contained the only other permitted camping was at the CP. Everybody doing the right thing and the town doing quite well out of both sites obviously. Went for a walk with the dog at dawn and found one sole caravan obviously trying to hide itself behind the showgrounds for the night and doing the wrong thing grey water wise. The town is obviously doing the right thing by RVers as they see it and we should all abide by their rules while on their patch. I'm all for freedom of choice but instances like this ruin it for everybody.

What is your point A?
That folks in RV's shouldn't do the wrong thing & break the rules established for RV usage? If so I agree.

But where does that leave all the other folk, many of whom cannot afford CP fees?

I know we've had this debate before & I doubt that views will be changed by any repeat, but I'm sorry I just think it is arse about when someone who has spent their money on an RV gets a place to stay for $6 a night whilst a family who scrape together enough money for an old station wagon & a tent in order to be able to travel are expected to pay 10 times that. It's wrong.

And before any RV owners cry poor, "we are travelling on a budget/pension" etc, you were able to raise the cash somehow for your self contained vehicle ...... You may not have a great deal to live on, but you made your choice when you decided to buy your vehicle. The real point is that some folk don't ever have that choice, but still have a right and/or a need to travel & the lobbying for free & low cost camps to replace existing 'traditional' free camps is excluding them. In A's example one has to wonder how many folk have no choice but to avoid staying in Hughenden?

Lets not turn this into another discussion about how everyone can manage to camp without leaving a trace, carrying fluid containers & poo bags etc. that is not the point. What is the point is that current lobbying is pushing for self contained RV use only in traditional free camping areas as a solution to the problems caused by their over use, problems that result directly from the boom in RV ownership & use!
Granted the family with the tent & the old station wagon could (& should) practice LNT behaviour but no matter how careful & considerate of the environment & others they were, they would still be excluded from the variety of proposed 'self contained RV only sites'.

If for a moment we ignore the problems of policing rules, (which we all know get broken by folks with & without self contained RV's) the notion of expecting leave no trace behaviour as a general rule for all camp sites is quite reasonable ... But this is VERY different to the notion of examples like Hughenden which as A displays in his post is acceptable & desirable for some, whilst for others it is an example of elitism & exclusivity.

Cuppa

All of this debate just supports the argument that the focus should be on behaviour and not on equipment.

Precisely, but this is increasingly becoming forgotten or ignored.
The CMCA is having successes at turning free camp provision by local authorities into exclusive little enclaves for Rv'ers at the expense of others. This is wrong & unjust.

In addition the so called 'Freedom of Choice' movement is failing to see past the end of it's own nose. The solutions they are supporting only give them the freedom of choice not to stay in caravan parks at the expense of forcing others into them.

Cuppa

I for one don't consider us elite members because we travel in a self contained vehicle that is nonsense.
I see Cuppa's point but when you visit an established free camp with no toilets & crap & paper behind every tree, I also see why councils say self contained vehicles only.

Not all councils have the finances to establish & provide a free o'night camp with toilets for the traveling folk, so are you saying if they can't provide the toilets then don't have a self contained area, have nothing???

No S, that is not what I am saying.

At the risk of repeating myself, my beef is about the loss of free camps, many of which have been available to the travelling public for generations, as a direct result of a) overuse & b) lobbying by the very folks who are responsible for the overuse wanting to restrict them to use by folks with self contained vehicles so they can continue to use them...... & bugger everybody else. I think that’s pretty rich!

I also believe that all local authorities have a responsibility to provide overnight camping areas free of charge to the travelling public, just as they have a responsibility to provide public toilets, parking areas etc. This is the concept of the village green, public land for public use. The cost to provide a piece of land that has always been available for such use is zero. To service this land with toilets and rubbish disposal facilities, whether those facilities be on that land or close by makes far more sense than allowing the land to be degraded by soiling & littering.

Lets not bother having the discussion about 'grubs', they exist regardless, & to bring them into the discussion would only be an unnecessary distraction.

There are costs associated with servicing the basic needs of travellers, my rates pay for them in my shire, & I consider it reasonable that other shires reciprocate.
I also see no reason why the more heavily populated (& richer) local authorities should not subsidise the smaller & less financially able authorities, especially as, by definition the majority of travellers come from those more heavily populated areas.

Instead of the CMCA & other groups lobbying to exclude folk from camping lands that have traditionally been available to all of the travelling public by insisting upon quite specific vehicle regulations which many cannot afford, they could instead lobby for local authorities to accept their responsibilities to the travelling public, & for a system which ensured that this was affordable to all local authorities.

What we are seeing though is a relatively small sector of our society, the Rv'ers, suggesting to local authorities an easy, & on the face of it, desirable solution to current over use problems. If this lobbying is successful, and it appears to be headed that way, in time we will see a different set of problems arise. The non RV travelling public will still need somewhere to camp, many of whom will not be able to afford & may not wish to patronise caravan parks & so we will see a rise in what no doubt will be referred to as illegal camping.

The lucky self contained rv'ers will then be able to happily join with the local authorities & maybe even the caravan parks, in pointing the fingers of blame for the disgraceful mess.

The only way I would ever consider supporting the establishment of camp spots for self contained RV's only would be if they were in addition to an existing free camp, with provisos that ensured that such establishment were not a mean's of closing an existing free camp by 'stealth'.

The choice of 'self contained or nothing' is one that we the rv'ers have offered to local authorities as a solution. It offers them an easy way out, a means of abdicating their responsibility, whilst we sit pretty. This is selfish behaviour on our part. Some might argue it is ok for us to lobby for ourselves, but I argue this is not so when the others affected have no voice.

In New Zealand, where a condition of membership of their equivalent of the CMCA is that a member's vehicle meet minimum self containment standards I understand their members enjoy access to many self contained only RV camp spots. I imagine that this is the sort of model in the minds of many who advocate something similar here.
I wonder what is the state of free camping for the rest of the travelling public in NZ?
Do they have plenty of choice, or is free camping for them very limited. If the former, how has this been achieved, & if the latter why would we want that here?

Cuppa

[firm351]

Cuppa,

I agree with you 100%, I would'nt be able to put into as well, well said mate. I reckon most if not all caravaners and rv'ers started out travelling in a car or station wagon, with a tent and not much else staying at free camps where ever they could, so it makes me wonder why it is that a lot of them now want to restrict the options of people (like them once apon a time) that dont have the luxury of a self contained caravan or motor home. It really winds me up when i here the excuse "we are travelling on a budget/pension" while sitting in the comfort of a 100K + caravan.

[BigRAWesty]

Cuppa.. you need to apply at the top of the post, please charge your glasses and grab a fresh bottle..

I got half way threw.. be back in a sec..

Kallen Westbrook
Owner of
Westy's Accessories

[TheLocksmith]

I'm planning on camping where these people can't go. That's why I brought a 4x4 so I don't have them camping next to me.

Any State Forest/Park you are allowed to camp anywhere, take your guns and fish. I try to avoid Nat Parks but do have a deer license and I can say I'm not going to be having a RV next to me where I will be camping

[NissanGQ4.2]

Get use to it guys and girls

National Park - next to know income for government

Couple of million town houses where national park use to be - $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

And anyone that thinks government can't and will not sell off NP, well I for one would put money on it....the day will come soon enough \

Edit: sorry Cuppa maybe a little we off topic from the point you are discussing.

[Cuppa]

I'm planning on camping where these people can't go. That's why I brought a 4x4 so I don't have them camping next to me

Yeah me too, but unfortunately those places are getting fewer & fewer. It wasn't long ago for example, that the Gibb River Road was a wild place, where 4wd'ers could experience real adventure, camping pretty much anywhere in the bush along it's entire 600km length that they wished. Today it is impossible to do this, no camping signs in plentiful supply, & camping only permitted in expensive camp sites & a couple of National Park campgrounds.

I haven't been up to the top of the Cape York yet, but have heard it described as a 'busy highway', no doubt camping spots are far less there than just a few years back.

These are just two examples, but there are many more, and of course we all have to travel to get to these places & need somewhere to stay on our way to our destination.

From my perspective I also think it reasonable to consider the needs of others, not just what suits me.

Cuppa

[Steveo_the_Devo]

I fear it will go down this road and more - as the baby boomers hit the road in record numbers not only will we find many previously free campsites closed or improved in exchange for fees, we will also find less and less off the beaten track stuff. I suspect I will live to see tarmac all the way down the Oonadatta track and all the way up to Cape York (heck, they have recently flagged building a bridge over the Jardine). Only a matter of time as councils figure out that it is more profitable to 'open up' the outback and provide easier access to the boomers cash cow.

[TheLocksmith]

From my perspective I also think it reasonable to consider the needs of others, not just what suits me.

Cuppa

Too true but learnt a long time ago just go about your own business and not let your living effect others around you.

Leave the fighting for the next person as I'm hoping to be out in the middle of nowhere and not found

[Cuppa]

Too true but learnt a long time ago just go about your own business and not let your living effect others around you.

I thank you for sharing your view.
I see the problem as other people's 'living' affecting others around them.
There is a principle at stake. Public land is for the public. ........ All of the public.
If we all leave the 'fighting' for the next person they get what they want & the rest of us get shafted.

Cuppa

[TheLocksmith]

Don't get me wrong, I'll sign the partition, drive up main st honking my horn etc. Someone needs to get the ball rolling, fill in the paperwork, do the photocopying, ring all the people, send out the email....................