Originally Posted by
Cuppa
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