Bushwalk Australia

Snooping around the net, found this: http://www.sydneycoastwalks.com.au/tour ... king-tour/

"Your first day of hiking ends with a leisurely afternoon at our private, waterfront campsite at Wattamolla, halfway between Bundeena to Otford. Our support team has already set up camp, so you’re free to swim in the freshwater lagoon or nearby protected beach while we cook dinner. Join a game of beach cricket or just relax with a cold beer or wine. The next morning enjoy a hot breakfast to prepare for the day of bushwalking ahead."

Sounds idyllic, doesn't it ... thing is, NPWS phone enquiries claim there's no such campsite. They say the only campsites along the coast track is N.Era. I'm unaware of any inholdings within RNP around wattamolla, but I could be just ignorant.

Seems, on the face of it, like NPWS isn't averse to doing some kind of commercial deal for a bit of sneaky camping. At $500 per person per day, there'd be plenty of money available to smooth out any little paperwork hitches that might arise.

Colin.

Curiouser and curiouser. I emailed NPWS,

Are there any campsites at Wattamolla, or nearby, in the Royal National Park?
If not, are there any inholdings or special permits available for camping at Wattamolla?

and received the unequivocal reply from them

There is no camping at Wattamolla and no special exemptions to do so. The nearest campsite on the coast is at North Era and must be booked.

Seems hard to reconcile with "breakfast at Wattamolla" photos on the company's website.


It's worth noting that the company, and this tour, is linked from the NPWS's own website.

Sounds like a private commercial event. Guess NPWS is entitled to permit such activities. The following page has more info about "them".
http://www.sydneycoastwalks.com.au/about-us/

It's really poor that they let private companies use the campsite at Wattamolla, but generally visitors are not allowed to!

A few years ago you were allowed to camp at Wattamolla but they stopped it as apparently it was only a trial. Currently the only place that you can camp without paying a bucket load is at North Era. Unfortunately that campsite is currently closed for a few months whilst they repair the pit toilet.

I just can't believe that this is allowed to occur. I have spoke to RNP rangers on multiple occasions about the issue, and have provided input for the parks Plan of Management, but I really don't think that anything will be done to allow camping at Wattamolla for general national park users.

With the government short of money at all levels, it's no surprise NPWS will be under financial strain to "make money".

$449 for what is basically a day walk available to anyone? I don't think so.

Lindsay wrote:$449 for what is basically a day walk available to anyone? I don't think so.

I guess it's for those who don't have the know-how or international visitors who wants a small taste of local camping. Not a bad thing if NPWS can take a good percentage from it to support its main line of work. I am positive on it.

GPSGuided wrote:Sounds like a private commercial event. Guess NPWS is entitled to permit such activities. The following page has more info about "them".

I don't know what a "private commercial event" is. Apparently, nor do the NPWS staff, as they told me there were no exemptions available for camping at Wottamolla. None. Clearly this isn't true, as the mob mentioned above has a "an exclusive ocean campsite."

It's not the "campsite" part of it that has me wondering, it's the "exclusive" part. If NPWS is entitled to make money from commercial use of facilities, and the intent is to make money, shouldn't there be an auction or something?

Allchin09 wrote:A few years ago you were allowed to camp at Wattamolla but they stopped it as apparently it was only a trial.

You're talking about Providential Point? From looking at the photo above, where the breakfast was being cooked, with guy lines in the background, I would say it's not Providential Point, it's somewhere right in the main picnic area.

GPSGuided wrote:I guess it's for those who don't have the know-how or international visitors who wants a small taste of local camping. Not a bad thing if NPWS can take a good percentage from it to support its main line of work. I am positive on it.

Sure. I understand that RNP has a lot of ecological load, it being the most visited park in the NPWS system. I understand that access to it needs to be rationed, and I can even kinda understand that an economic "rationalist" government would prefer it be rationed by price, although I don't much like it.

However, the price is not being set by a public auction, because as far as I can see the deal was done without public input or knowledge, so said economic "rationalist" would not be getting an optimal price for alienating public land in this manner, and that's just inconsistent. The usual name for that kind of inconsistency is corruption.

So if you're positive on it, because it makes money for NPWS, you should be positively over the moon about the idea of driving the price to a realistic level by means of competition.

Colin,

Camping used to be available at Providential Point, and that is the same spot were I have come across people camping with a private company before.

The RNP rangers that I have spoken to definitely know about private companies using the area as a camping ground. I was told that in the past they allowed them to do so and the agreement to do so hasn't run out yet.

Not sure if that is the true story though...

I understand that the NPWS are underfunded and need to take what ever money they can get, but I'm certain that they aren't receiving $400 for each person that camps at the site and I would be quite interested to find out how much they charge. I have no problem with operators charging such a high price as they are providing a service (cooked food, setting up of tents, etc) but I don't believe that the use of the campsite should be restricted to some people, and not others.

My only thought is by only permitting private organisations to use the area, they can hold someone directly responsible for any damage caused. I know they have had issues with other areas in the park and with it all being so accessible and the large number of visitors (over 4 million last year), not everyone has the correct attitude towards the bush.

I'm attending a talk on Aboriginal History in the RNP this Sunday, and I will be sure to inquire about the issue once again with the NPWS. I will also speak to members of the Friends of the Royal National Park and see what their opinion on the matter is. Let me know if their are any specific questions you would like answered.

Allchin09 wrote:Camping used to be available at Providential Point, and that is the same spot were I have come across people camping with a private company before. The RNP rangers that I have spoken to definitely know about private companies using the area as a camping ground. I was told that in the past they allowed them to do so and the agreement to do so hasn't run out yet. Not sure if that is the true story though...

I didn't know anything about that, I doubt many people did. I'd be interested to know the terms of the license.

Allchin09 wrote:I understand that the NPWS are underfunded and need to take what ever money they can get, but I'm certain that they aren't receiving $400 for each person that camps at the site and I would be quite interested to find out how much they charge. I have no problem with operators charging such a high price as they are providing a service (cooked food, setting up of tents, etc) but I don't believe that the use of the campsite should be restricted to some people, and not others.

I agree on all three counts. I'd be amazed if NPWS got $40 per person, but would be interested to know.

Allchin09 wrote:My only thought is by only permitting private organisations to use the area, they can hold someone directly responsible for any damage caused. I know they have had issues with other areas in the park and with it all being so accessible and the large number of visitors (over 4 million last year), not everyone has the correct attitude towards the bush.

Sure, they would be entitled to require an organisation using the facility to provide a bond, have public liability insurance, specific insurance against damaging the place, etc. RNP gets heaps of use, that's got its good and bad consequences.

Allchin09 wrote:I'm attending a talk on Aboriginal History in the RNP this Sunday, and I will be sure to inquire about the issue once again with the NPWS. I will also speak to members of the Friends of the Royal National Park and see what their opinion on the matter is. Let me know if their are any specific questions you would like answered.

Watch out, Alex, I've set the cat among the pigeons ... if you mention it to the rangers/staff at RNP, don't get too close to the edge of the cliffs while you're doing it I reckon feathers are going to be flying by tomorrow morning, if anyone bothers to check their email. One hopes, for their sake, that the head of NPWS knew about this deal already.

I would be interested to know what the FoRNP think about it, if they know about it, what they know about it. I don't mind deals being done with public property, I just don't like them to be secret.

colinm wrote:Watch out, Alex, I've set the cat among the pigeons ... if you mention it to the rangers/staff at RNP, don't get too close to the edge of the cliffs while you're doing it I reckon feathers are going to be flying by tomorrow morning, if anyone bothers to check their email. One hopes, for their sake, that the head of NPWS knew about this deal already.

I would be interested to know what the FoRNP think about it, if they know about it, what they know about it. I don't mind deals being done with public property, I just don't like them to be secret.

Haha.

Don't be too critical of the rangers, after all they aren't the ones making these decisions, they are just following orders from those above and doing their jobs!

I'm on good quite good terms with one of the Senior rangers from RNP, and she has agreed with me on issues, such as the restriction of topographic information provided to tourist, before so I'm sure she won't push me of any ledge. I will be careful though!

I'm sure that those in upper management know about what the sites use, but that doesn't mean that everyone in the NPWS that you talk to will. The person that you initially emailed regarding camping at Wattamolla failed to mention that the Era site was closed.

I guess one of the hardest things with many issues similar to this, is finding out who can help you, who can't help you and who the people you need to fight are!

I think it would be safe to say that the rangers at the Nasho know about commercial activities held within the park.

I spoke to the person in charge of Royal, Heathcote, Kamay Botany Bay and a few other NPs today about the camping situation in the RNP, specifically at Wattamolla.

She said they had so stop camping by the general public at Wattamolla when someone pointed out that it went against the RNPs Plan of Management. Apparently this did not affect commercial operators. Currently the Plan of Management is being re-written, and camping throughout the park is being addressed.

She did say however, that a great deal of funding had been allocated to upgrading the 'Coast Track' and it's facilities. This includes campsites, access to the track from other sections of the park, and ease of access from public transport. She said that the plan is to open multiple campsites along the length of the track. Each of these campsites will be used by both commercial operators and the general public. The idea is that in order to ensure the campsites are sustainable, campsites which commercial operators make use of are to be looked after by the commercial operators. That way rubbish disposal and the upkeep of ablutions will be managed by the commercial operators for both themselves, and the general public.

I think that this is a great step in the right direction, and I can't wait to see these campsites in the RNP. I believe that the 'Friends of Royal' are closely linked to the upgrade, and more information about the work to be done on the Coast Track can be found on their website - http://friendsofroyal.org.au/royal-coast-track-update/

So much of the park is trashed/overused/deer infested etc, at least the NPWS is recovering some money for this usage, and would have some degree of control over what happens at on the site.

It isn't like this is the only premier ocean-side campsite in the park. Let them have it. If you look around you will find numerous other sites which are on par with this that truly are "exclusive" to those who care to look.

Clarence

Clarence, I understand that it isn't the only premier ocean-side campsite in the park, but unlike some other National Parks, bush camping is only permitted in approved areas, no exceptions. Unfortunately the only approved ocean-side campsite is closed for repairs, so there are currently no places to bush camp in the park without going against park rules...

Trust me, I'd be camping at ocean-side places like Little Marley if you were allowed to!

She said they had so stop camping by the general public at Wattamolla when someone pointed out that it went against the RNPs Plan of Management. Apparently this did not affect commercial operators.

Here's the PoM text:

It is proposed to progressively restrict bush camping to North Era and Uloola Falls in Royal National Park and to Heathcote National Park. Camping will not be permitted outside designated camping areas.
Bush camping will be prohibited elsewhere in Royal National Park.

Apart from the odd distinction between "camping" and "bush camping," the PoM is pretty clear when it says "camping will not be permitted outside designated camping areas." There's no mention of exceptions for commercial operators.

I guess one would be justified in concluding that Wattamolla is a designated camping area, as camping has been, and apparently is still, permitted there. One would therefore presumably be justified in ... well ... camping there.

Alternatively, I guess NPWS could produce the documents designating it as a camping area, and one could have a look at how they've done it.

It just occurred to me that the "commercial operators" could just use Wattamolla contrary to the regs, the "park rules," and the plan of management, and just treat any fine as a cost of doing business. That would be a commercially sustainable model, and could work reliant upon the NPWS just winking and tacitly agreeing never to escalate the prosecution upon repeated "offenses." So that would be selective enforcement.

It's also possible, I'd guess, for the Minister to grant them a license to camp wherever he likes. The regs are written pretty broadly.

Maybe one of the new camp sites will be Little Marley? Some great sites there behind the beach amongst the trees but a shocking amount of rubbish though.

K

Looks like the way of the future. Plan for Centennial Park.


http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/aglamping-we- ... 2qcp3.html

There are always more than one way to look at an issue.

One positive with a controlled commercial operator is that they can be held fully responsible. With open camp sites, too many campers take no notice of the etiquettes and pollute and damage the environment, but never held responsible nor pay for the damages.

To me, I have no problem with general members of the public who are willing to pay big dollars to enjoy what a more exclusive group of the community have enjoyed. Not as if there are no other or even nicer camp sites to access along that coast. Wattamolla is a high volume tourist area, hardly a premium site to set up camp in my book.

kanangra wrote:Maybe one of the new camp sites will be Little Marley?

There is already a drop toilet in the scrub behind Little Marley.

I remember my older brother camping in this area with the scouts many, many years ago. It was a bugger of a walk from the road with all the gear they had (dad was really impressed).

colinm wrote:Apart from the odd distinction between "camping" and "bush camping," the PoM is pretty clear when it says "camping will not be permitted outside designated camping areas." There's no mention of exceptions for commercial operators.

There's an out clause later on:

The Service may licence appropriate commercial activities in the three areas which do not affect the natural and cultural heritage and the public's use of the areas.

Who would want to camp in the Royal anyway, ever been in there on a Sunday arvo during summer? If it didn't have waves and my family didn't live there I'd never enter it again.

Go west young man...embrace the solitude.

This is Ian and Tara Wells, owner operators of Sydney Coast Walks – one of two Commercial Tour Operators who have NPWS permission to camp at Providential Point, popularly referred to as Wattamolla.

We hold a 10 year Premium EcoPass License (License number 10/1016) issued by NPWS that allows us to guide walks within NSW national parks. We pay an annual license fee and an additional per head / per day park usage fee for each of our guests. You can read more about the EcoPass program at http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/parksecopass/.

In addition to our EcoPass, we tendered for a Competitively Allocated License (CAL) to use the campsite at Providential Point. This was a public tender process. We pay an additional annual fee to NPWS for this licence and an increased per head / per day park usage fee for each guest who uses this site.

The Plan of Management amendment was open to public submission and we submitted to it like all concerned parties could.

We are one of the founding members of Friends of Royal, a group that “aims to support the diverse groups of people who have a special interest in benefiting the visitor’s experience in Royal National Park.”

We’re also Advanced Ecotourism Certified - a nationally recognised TQual accreditation program. It is awarded to businesses that, “provide an opportunity to learn about the environment with an operator who is committed to achieving best practice when using resources wisely, contributing to the conservation of the environment and helping local communities.” Read more at http://www.ecotourism.org.au/eco_certification.asp.

We are passionate about Royal National Park and founded the business to share this with others. Until last year we were known as Royal Coast Walks because we operated solely in Royal National Park. As well as a personal love of natural areas, it is now in our business interest that the park – and Providential - be kept in the same, or better, condition that we find it.

Different types of people of varying interests and abilities enjoy national parks. We enable people to experience the Coast Track as a guided walk by providing the expertise, gear and camp setup – a model that is widespread in Australia and overseas. We’re extremely proud to receive positive feedback from both locals and international guests who walk with us, such as, “This was the best part of our trip to Australia”.

As you can see from the screenshot of our Facebook page, we also host Clean Up Australia Day activities at Wattamolla and have done so every year since the business was founded in 2009. We welcome you to join us next year to help clean up this beautiful site.

I see. I didn't know this kind of thing existed. NPWS staff responding to the public didn't either. I don't think much of it.

Sydney Coast Walks wrote:This is Ian and Tara Wells, owner operators of Sydney Coast Walks – one of two Commercial Tour Operators who have NPWS permission to camp at Providential Point, popularly referred to as Wattamolla.

We hold a 10 year Premium EcoPass License (License number 10/1016) issued by NPWS that allows us to guide walks within NSW national parks. We pay an annual license fee and an additional per head / per day park usage fee for each of our guests. You can read more about the EcoPass program at http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/parksecopass/.

In addition to our EcoPass, we tendered for a Competitively Allocated License (CAL) to use the campsite at Providential Point. This was a public tender process. We pay an additional annual fee to NPWS for this licence and an increased per head / per day park usage fee for each guest who uses this site.

The Plan of Management amendment was open to public submission and we submitted to it like all concerned parties could.

We are one of the founding members of Friends of Royal, a group that “aims to support the diverse groups of people who have a special interest in benefiting the visitor’s experience in Royal National Park.”

We’re also Advanced Ecotourism Certified - a nationally recognised TQual accreditation program. It is awarded to businesses that, “provide an opportunity to learn about the environment with an operator who is committed to achieving best practice when using resources wisely, contributing to the conservation of the environment and helping local communities.” Read more at http://www.ecotourism.org.au/eco_certification.asp.

We are passionate about Royal National Park and founded the business to share this with others. Until last year we were known as Royal Coast Walks because we operated solely in Royal National Park. As well as a personal love of natural areas, it is now in our business interest that the park – and Providential - be kept in the same, or better, condition that we find it.

Different types of people of varying interests and abilities enjoy national parks. We enable people to experience the Coast Track as a guided walk by providing the expertise, gear and camp setup – a model that is widespread in Australia and overseas. We’re extremely proud to receive positive feedback from both locals and international guests who walk with us, such as, “This was the best part of our trip to Australia”.

As you can see from the screenshot of our Facebook page, we also host Clean Up Australia Day activities at Wattamolla and have done so every year since the business was founded in 2009. We welcome you to join us next year to help clean up this beautiful site.

Ian and Tara, that's great, good work.

Sydney Coast Walks wrote:This is Ian and Tara Wells, owner operators of Sydney Coast Walks – one of two Commercial Tour Operators who have NPWS permission to camp at Providential Point, popularly referred to as Wattamolla...

Thanks for the clarification and keeping up the responsible approach.

Ian,Tara, it seems that NSW Office of Environment and Heritage require that any commercial activity in a national park be "compatible with the aims and objectives of the particular plan of management of the park or area."

I'd have thought that the explicit wording of the RNP PoM, the part where it says no camping will be allowed outside the areas listed (which do not include Providential Point) would render any camping incompatible with the aims and objectives by virtue of being explicitly forbidden.

Is there a different RNP PoM currently in operation which removes these explicit restrictions?

tom_brennan wrote:There's an out clause later on:

The Service may licence appropriate commercial activities in the three areas which do not affect the natural and cultural heritage and the public's use of the areas.

Yes, but IIRC (without going back to re-read it) the examples cited are things like the kiosks at Wattamolla and Garie.