Thread: Online pre-booking system to camp in national parks

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Just shows we need many more mobile phone towers. For example, why shouldn't every NP have a mobile tower? It's a major safety factor and could save lives if people are lost, break down or are injured. Rural residents have just as much right to a mobile phone/internet service as us pampered city residents, I reckon. It is certainly technically feasible to cover the entire continent with a mobile signal - other countries do it. The money exists, but all that is stopping us is that the powers that be have decided to spend the money in other ways. Priorities should be changed to make this happen, I say.

As long as you remember that the powers that be in this situation are the phone companies who are in it for our dollars. They are not interested in our safety.

Hi All,
POD makes a very good point.

The on-line system most certainly has it's flaws. I (as have many others) found the system in the NT to be excellent, simple and foolproof....Fill out the envelope and drop your coins in the steel "post". Easy. Never saw a Ranger in the NT during our travels though....

Whist we travelled l found it a hard sell to pay for "camping spots" in some places as it was literally un-serviced, no facilities, no view .... just red dirt. Which is fine. We are self-sufficient. As for the prices of camps in East Arnhem .... beautiful spots but very expensive. Again NO facilities at all - just paying for a fire place.

Michael

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Just shows we need many more mobile phone towers. For example, why shouldn't every NP have a mobile tower? It's a major safety factor and could save lives if people are lost, break down or are injured. Rural residents have just as much right to a mobile phone/internet service as us pampered city residents, I reckon. It is certainly technically feasible to cover the entire continent with a mobile signal - other countries do it. The money exists, but all that is stopping us is that the powers that be have decided to spend the money in other ways. Priorities should be changed to make this happen, I say.

Having installed 3 mobile towers and paid for it, so as to expand the coverage to critical areas to my Company, i have some ideas, i can assure you it is not cheap, then the back haul is a whole separate matter, so would be interested where you are getting your facts from.
Given Australia is fairly flat, lets assume each tower can do 15km radius, or 700 sq km. Which is very generous, Australia about 7.7 sq km , so 11,000 towers @ how much ?,. Not a problem, now what will our new phone rate to pay for those towers in the Nullabore. Or will you propose a user pay system based on usage per tower.

Of course it would be a whole lot easier analogue, but we are in a digital world now

Originally Posted by trout1105

These camping fees at National parks, Stations, Shires and Aboriginal corporations are nothing more than a Money grab IMHO.
Travellers who go to remote places have already paid their way via the fuel excise, Vehicle/boat/trailer/caravan licences, GST and supporting the local businesses as they travel, Not to mention the Income Tax paid to the government.
Greed far outweighs the motive for conservation at 99% of the places that charge these fees.
These places will end up killing their "Fatted Calf" by making it too difficult to arrange a booking and charging ever more exorbitant fees for an unserviced piece of dirt in the middle of nowhere because at the end of the day it will become just too hard and expensive to take the family away for a camping trip and the Grey Nomads that just about Every tourist destination relies on for their livelihood wont be able to afford the fees and many of them are not tech savvy enough to be able to do this online booking that is becoming so popular now.

End of Rant

I disagree.
Not completely but almost.

Tourists welcome to a point.
Myself and most residents in Central Oz have had enough of entitled tools blasting through the place, destroying the roads, tracks and eco system, towing their overweight phalluc symbols at stupid speeds.
Does anyone know how many hundred tonne of firewood are taken from the arid environment so tourists can do their best Russell Coight impersonation?

Toilet cassettes emptied on, in and over the facilities provided and anywhere they are not.
Steeling every piece of soap, toilet paper or courtesy item so they can "free camp" and "cheap travel"
Has anyone been dismayed or wondered about the numerous signs at rest stops/ servos, telling visitors that it isn't their right to take what they want?

Free camping is the new buzzword among the entitled travelers and the wholesale destruction of large areas around here is the price I/we pay for these tools to exercise their "right"
Fuel excise and rego tax doesn't even come close to the cleanup let alone the damage.

The reality is tourists not staying in a completely controlled environment i.e. Van park/motel/supervised camp are , for the most part, vandals, thieves and cost the residents and councils far more than the supposed precious dollars they bring.

Some are probably thinking "back packers" but there is no exempt demographic, the responsible campers are the minority not the norm.
If the tourist dollar doesn't cover the cost imposte of the tourist the cost goes up. If the tourist doesn't like it don't come.

Tired of watching the "reason" people come to visit being destroyed at worst and consumed entirely at best by tourists.

Maybe IF the paid rangers National Park or Council did their job then these arseholes that ruin it for everyone else would be caught and fined and from what I have read these fines are not insubstantial.
Not every tourist is a Tosser and increasing fees will do absolutely Nothing to deter these privileged ratbags that have No respect for the land that they are "Borrowing", Hefty fines will not only deter such behaviour they will more than pay for whatever cleanup is required.

Originally Posted by AndyG

Having installed 3 mobile towers and paid for it, so as to expand the coverage to critical areas to my Company, i have some ideas, i can assure you it is not cheap, then the back haul is a whole separate matter, so would be interested where you are getting your facts from.
Given Australia is fairly flat, lets assume each tower can do 15km radius, or 700 sq km. Which is very generous, Australia about 7.7 sq km , so 11,000 towers @ how much ?,. Not a problem, now what will our new phone rate to pay for those towers in the Nullabore. Or will you propose a user pay system based on usage per tower.

Of course it would be a whole lot easier analogue, but we are in a digital world now

Yes it's expensive but it's a matter of priorities. The FG already has a program to fund improved mobile services, so it is a question of how much money the community wants to put into communications. Sure there would be varying opinions.
Focus would be on towns, villages and highways and places people want to go. Rather than duplicate for each company there should just be one organization for the towers and then companies would pay to operate on them. Call costs are already averaged across the nation.
It can be done, I think.

Wow Strangy, that's quite a rant mate. Of course I have to agree with a lot of the sentiments expressed but can I please point out a few things in response;
Unless they actually own the land, there is no reason why someone who lives near a particular feature or location is any more 'entitled' to it than someone whose home is some distance away. People near me who have property adjoining state forest often seem to think that they are entitled to plunder it for firewood. A few years ago a bloke who lives on a property surrounded by national park, lit a fire that destroyed an area that my family has enjoyed for over 30 years as well as costing a man his life. I'm sure he felt that he was more entitled to do this than I would have been as I live an hour or so away.

The 'phallic' reference is of course spurious; I don't ever plan to own a caravan but I doubt that those who do find them to have any resemblance to a penis even at a subconscious level.

Those who live closest to any particular area seem to have the greatest sense of entitlement to it, and of course the traditional owners seem to be the most pragmatic land users of all. I wonder how many residents of outback towns provide their firewood needs from the surrounding area, as well as feeling justified in going out and pinging the odd kangaroo for entertainment. All in a night's fun for many country boys I have known.

When I travel within Australia and camp as I do so, I don't consider myself to be a 'tourist'; I am an intensive-care paramedic who happens to be on holiday. I am not impersonating Russel Coight or anyone else (except perhaps when I make reference to the Majestic Bull Ant or suggest it's 'time to hit the road'), I'm simply doing what Australians have done since 1788. By next morning, the only sign of my having done so will be tyre tracks.

A couple of years ago I got a haircut in Katherine. The woman who cut my hair was doing nothing when I arrived and there was no-one waiting when I left. As far as I could see, mine was the only money she made that morning. She spent most of the time she was cutting my hair, complaining about the 'tourists' in the town, to which nebulous group she no doubt considered me to belong. Like many people I have come across in outback towns, she seemed to consider herself to have some kind of celebrity status by virtue of being a 'local'. By comparison, a large percentage of the people who happened to be passing through the town on holiday would have been more intelligent, more polite and considerate, have a far wider range of life skills and a much more interesting life in general. But just 'tourists', of course.

There was a poster in the general store in Tibooburra last month with a slogan to the effect that people in the outback deserve the same infrastructure as people in the city- it was specifically in reference to mobile phones. This means, of course, that they want people who do not live in the outback to pay for it. The reality is that outback life is hugely subsidised by the majority population who live in populated areas.

We stayed at those sites along the creek at Bell Gorge some years ago, but found as Chris said earlier, that they'd been closed for some time when we last went there.
Apparently too many of the morons who stayed there thought the creek was a rubbish tip and threw all their rubbish in it resulting in the closure of those sites. So we went back to the Silent Grove camp site.
I'm not sure what was worse, the French tourists who insisted on ****ting all over the seats as they stood up for a crap, or the number of louts who suddenly appeared armed with shovels and fuelled with beer when our companions shouted out about a snake in their camp site.
I managed to stop them slaughtering the snake which was an olive python until the ranger appeared who told them there was a huge fine for anyone caught killing wildlife there.
We also went to Mitchell Falls for a day trip from the river camp site off the Kalumburu Road and it was non stop helicopters back and forth to the falls. Noisy and dusty and we won't go again.
Not much respect shown for the "aboriginality" of the Kimberley that a student asked us about in the Bungle Bungles. Didn't see any of them around looking after the place either.
AlanH.