I have no problems with an area that does not want free campers. Actually free camping is a free choice to me, and I support that town where a lot of caravan park patrons come with their supplies from home and half full fuel tanks and after their stay at the park leave and contribute nothing to the town except the money left at the park. When I found and area like this I just put a red ring around it in my camps book and I planned my travels so I did not have to stop for fuel or provisions. I also entered  the town in my GPS as an Unfriendly town and when I was about a kilometre from the perimeter it gave me a warning so I did not stop

These same areas are always screaming for volunteers after their disasters and Queensland is very bad as they seem to have their floods etc every year in the same area and they want the nomads etc to come and give their labour for free so it goes both ways.  I have no problems with people staying in caravan jails, that is their tight but please dont say we can not have the right to camp and stay where we want when it is legal. If we want to support towns that have the free camps then that is up to us, the same as I never do voluntary work in an area that I know is against free camping and I know a lot of the volunteers are the same, that also is our option. 

Were all different DD likes being by himself in the middle of nowhere looking at little birdies and takeing pictures ,two days of that would drive us nuts, we like to be near country towns and going for nice scenic drives,and camped with other people sitting around a nice fire in winter,whos ,whos right ,whos wrong nobody,We like The so called free camps because its a different atmosphere to caravan parks,its not so much a money thing its mainly not paying for cramped sites,paying for things you dont need,there nowhere near as relaxed and social,you dont have much room for rig,in one way they leave caravan parks for dead.

just my opinion....

Ron-D wrote:

---

Were all different DD likes being by himself in the middle of nowhere looking at little birdies and takeing pictures ,two days of that would drive us nuts, we like to be near country towns and going for nice scenic drives,and camped with other people sitting around a nice fire in winter,whos ,whos right ,whos wrong nobody,We like The so called free camps because its a different atmosphere to caravan parks,its not so much a money thing its mainly not paying for cramped sites,paying for things you dont need,there nowhere near as relaxed and social,you dont have much room for rig,in one way they leave caravan parks for dead.

just my opinion....

---

 Exactly! You're dead right, we enjoy bush camping & nature photography, each to their own.

Sitting around doing bugger all while looking at others doing the same would bore us to snorts, but if they enjoy it good on ém.

We like to keep our brains active in retirement by writing magazine articles, our images are used by travel websites, publications/books & lectures.

When we camp with others we enjoy socializing with them but never bore them by talking about our particular interests.

Not everyone is interested in nature.

We rarely mix with ''bird nerds'' & have many other interests, fishing, bush walking, history, wineries etc.

Free/donation camps are under immense pressure these days due to retirees who may not have ever camped in their lifetime previously, looking for a place to park their ''new toys''.

We reckon that in the future it will all end in tears in the playground, too many people doing it & a lot more to come.

Beiffe

I want to make comment about the comment aimed at people who use caravan parks, and their supposed lack of local spending.

I don't know where you get your information, but caravan park users spend no less than free campers in the towns where they stay from my observations. In fact I wonder what research you based your inference that they only use supplies brought with them, while free campers buy their supplies from the town they camp in comes from?

I suspect it is based on the misleading belief of free campers that they all spend more dollars, on more things, than others in the towns that they have conned into believeing they are worth more to the locals. My observations would be that free campers in fact buy no more than any others where they stay, and in fact, as they don't want to pay for accomodation, probably spend less. I am yet to meet any traveller who buys more than they need anywhere.

As for your comment that you will not volunteer in locations that do not support free campers, I think that says much more about you, and those like you, than the towns that you avoid. Your choice certainly, but hardly the spirit of volunteering I would have thought.

As with Kebbin, I have no bone to pick with free camping in general terms. We use them as we travel, where they are available, and they suit our route. What I do have a problem with is the increasing expectation that all locations will provide a free camp, and if they don't there is a call to black ball the town, and punish them for daring to exercise exactly what the free camping fraternity claim to want to protect. Freedom of Choice!

First I'd like to say that I sit in neither camp I have nothing against those travellers who choose to free camp (legally) and I have nothing against those who mainly stay in CPs. What I do find amusing is that the freedom camping side of the argument  take offence at being stereotyped as freeloaders yet have no problem in doing the same thing to the other side referring to CPs as being gaols run by greedy owners and used by weekend warriors, dregs of society etc. At the end of the day it is a personal choice how you travel around this vast country and as DD suggested  there is still plenty of bush out there where no one is likely to bug you if you choose the freedom camping option.

I am fortunate to live in an area that is surrounded by a lake, surfing beaches, vineyards, national parks etc. and as far as I know there are no designated freecamping areas. Personally I don't mind travellers who do as AK suggested and find themselves a nice quiet reserve to rest up in for a night as long as they leave the place as they found it. As a rate payer I would have a real issue if all of our public spaces started filling up with longer term freecampers regardless of where they spent their money..

Cheers

BB

montie wrote:

---

beiffe wrote:

---

 
These councils that cave to the caravan parks take the risk that they drive many people away from the town as many will not stay in these jails.
 

---

 Beiffe,

Rockhampton CC did not "cave" to the caravan parks association they were ordered to close by the court because the free camping site did not comply with urban regulations.

As a dealer I am all in favour of free or lowcost camping however the reality now is that urban densely populated areas have strict regulatory requirements for such camping grounds which if complied with will render them uneconomical to maintain. In rural areas free or low cost camping is a lot easier because the compliancing requirements are not as strict. When posters refer to "free" they are of course saying it is "free to them", but the reality is that somebody has to pay the insurance and other costs of maintenance. Nothing is free totally.

I think in regional cities like Rockhampton the cost of compliancing and maintenance would far outweigh any economic benefit to the community and rate payers.

---

You must be getting tired Montie trying to explain the ACTUAL facts.

It is amazing that some continue on with their blinkers firmly mounted against their temples in a blind defence of what they consider is happening to their rite to camp in council reserves.

Belmont Bear has said it accurately but unfortunately there is always

None so blind as those that just dont want to see.

Wanda wrote:

---

Hi BB

If you read the original post by Swampy42, he was just asking a simple question in regards to Caravan Parks lobbying to close some free camps. Nothing wrong with the question and personally from someone who both free camp AND stay and pay at c/parks without complaining about the $$$, its a question that is very relevant today with the huge number of vanners out there on the road.

My Bitch is in the way these "same" people "attack" others while hiding behind their computer showing no respect or decency towards fellow travellers what so ever.

Nothing wrong with having a different opinion, very healthy, in most cases, but I think its a reflection on these peoples characters the way in which they reply. Just read DDs first reply post to swampy42, if you think respectful, well, I give in.
We continually here complaints about the "me" generation showing no respect, well guess where they got it from

enough
regards
Ian

---

 Wanda,

If any further free camps are closed in urban areas it will be because they are non compliant.

Parks to my knowledge are not "lobbying" anybody but they are however now insisting the "free camps" meet the same strict compliancing regulations that they are required to, which in my view is fair enough. Kershaw Gardens is a perfect example of a Council with double standards where CP's must meet all regulations and the council free camp totally ignores their own compliancing regulations altogether. The Judge made this point in his ruling.

As a dealer I would love to see low cost camping areas everywhere, but the reality now is that urban city areas will find it difficult to provide them. There is no point in blaming CP's, Councils or peoples camping preferences, the reality is they have to be legally compliant or close down.The precedent has been set.

Wanda wrote:

---

yep......." Respectfully"..... that would be nice to see

Ian

---

 So! telling someone to "Pull ya head in mate" is respectful.

The issue is not with free campers per se, it's the people who feel they entitled to free/stealth camp within towns/cities, they are wrong.

We have a nice area set up as a self contained free camp close by, only service is a tap, no toilets, you guessed it, back packers and vans without toilet facilities are turning it into a crap and toilet paper festooned area few will care to visit in the near future, no wonder they get closed down, as well as being a health hazard they are an unpleasant eye sore.

It amazes me that a new member (5 posts), can ask a simple question here and even pray it is not political and get pure venom back for his trouble.

For mine, welcome to the forum Swampy42. Another friendly forum that instead of welcoming members beats them over the face. And the clique quickly climbs on board to sink the boot in.

Any way Swampy, I reckon that what ever caravan parks do is actually beyond our control, and the fact that they are closing camp sites down in favour of cabins is included.

We get continual feed back on the rights of park owners whilst at the same time they compete with the motels in the town. Self righteousness impersonification royally administered ; similar to the nasty replies you received.

When we travel I plan the trip out of the camps book. (New one out in mid Feb). But I also note that many farm stays are are getting up and running. A peaceful river setting might be preferd to a show ground . I guess it all depends on the time constraints. We go to van parks when needed and on the east cost they are generally favorable. When traveling through We have never not found a freecamp if required.

As I said I sit on the fence when it comes to this argument about designated free camping areas. What I was trying to point out in my earlier post (maybe not clearly enough) was that both sides were just as guilty as each other of attacking the person rather than the subject. Longer term members of the GN site would be well aware that there are certain topics that people have strong and opposing points of view on and Swampie42 as a newbie just happened to find one.  

Cheers
BB

Phillipn wrote:

---

Dickodownunder wrote:

---

montie wrote:

---

beiffe wrote:

---

 
These councils that cave to the caravan parks take the risk that they drive many people away from the town as many will not stay in these jails.
 

---

 Beiffe,

Rockhampton CC did not "cave" to the caravan parks association they were ordered to close by the court because the free camping site did not comply with urban regulations.

As a dealer I am all in favour of free or lowcost camping however the reality now is that urban densely populated areas have strict regulatory requirements for such camping grounds which if complied with will render them uneconomical to maintain. In rural areas free or low cost camping is a lot easier because the compliancing requirements are not as strict. When posters refer to "free" they are of course saying it is "free to them", but the reality is that somebody has to pay the insurance and other costs of maintenance. Nothing is free totally.

I think in regional cities like Rockhampton the cost of compliancing and maintenance would far outweigh any economic benefit to the community and rate payers.

---

You must be getting tired Montie trying to explain the ACTUAL facts.

It is amazing that some continue on with their blinkers firmly mounted against their temples in a blind defence of what they consider is happening to their rite to camp in council reserves.

 

Belmont Bear has said it accurately but unfortunately there is always

None so blind as those that just dont want to see.

---

  Their would NOT have been a court case,  had the caravan parks  not pushed the issue.

This storm was started by the caravan park operators. A storm that will hurt the caravan park operators pockets.

---

 Ok, so you own a caravan park within the city bounds who has spent $millions on developement, is paying high rates and is required by local council to meet stringent compliancing regulations. All this investment to provide a service to vanners.

Now the same council to whom these high rates are being paid and regulatory requirements being imposed ignores all it's own legal obligations and opens a "free" camp less than one kilometre away.  Now, I think that park operator had every right to ask a few questions.

Kershaw Gardens free camp will close in Feb as ordered by the court unless they meet their obligations to make it compliant the same as park operators must do. That is unlikely to happen.

I seriously doubt it will have any affect on the caravan parks business. If travellers want low cost camping they will seek it out in rural areas.

As I stated at the beginning of this thread the days of free camping in densly populated urban areas are numbered. That's a reality.

I'm not the jealous type. I'm happy for some to be able to buy their $200,000 rig. Doesnt bother me.

However when some mention "spending just a few dollars in a CP"...a few dollars? Up to $48 in my experience. Being on disability pension, that is a lot of money.

So do we stay home? Are we not entitled to see our country on a shoe string? Are we not entitled to dislike not only the cost but the sardine environment of a CP?

Ratepayers pick up the tab of roadside  maintenance...well nomads arriving in my town do the same, it all works out ok in the end.

It seems clear there is class distinction not only on the road but on this forum. The arrogance of old timers here that "the topic's been done to the death" is deplorable towards a new member. After all we have limited topics to chat about. If you dont like a topic just move on...easy. why be nasty?

Welcome Swampy. I hope you enjoy the forum. 

Tony