Decline in visitors to Uluru and Kakadu

petengail · Guru

Decline in visitors to Uluru and Kakadu

NeilandRaine · Guru

We went up the centre last year and speaking with other travellers the general feelings were.
At $2.00 a litre for fuel is it worth it.
The Rock has become too commercialised
and the worst was the bloody terrible mouse plauge every one was talking about.

Many comments about Kakadu were the same. I think Liechfield (spell check) has as much to offer as Kakadu.
I know a lot of people regard both places as must see but when your on a budget sometimes it is a case of next time.

jimbo · Guru

We are the Most expensive Nation on Earth I read some where..Is it any wonder Numbers drop at these Prices......Bought a Haveoline premieum Plus 10w-30 oil for Gennie one litre at $11'99 what a rip off Is there no control over pricing anymore...

_wombat_ · Master (of Mischief)

Great news about Kakadu, I am pleased to hear numbers are down, could it be because of the fee's charged by Kakadu? this is one of my very rare complaints, why should we as grey nomads (visitors to NT) have to pay $25 each to get into a National Park ?

When if you live in the NT you get in for FREE, we spend a great deal of money getting to the NT and then get slugged with this fee, I have sent emails to MP's asking this question and guess what, no replies.

We will not go to NT again until the fee at Kakadu is removed, Kakadu is the only thing worth seeing in NT, Kakadu is a great place to visit but I object to the fee's.

As has been mentioned Liechfield is a much better option IMHO.

OK, now I must get off of my soapbox.

ken thomas · Guru

When you have to pay $25 per head to get into what is Australian land is a big turn off especially when our brothers and Northern Territory residends get it for free
Ken

BobnBev · Senior Member

We spoke to people that went there, some time back and said it was KaKadont.. to pricey we didnt go......

Gerty Dancer · Guru

With the huge numbers of tourists going to Ayers Rock and the Olgas it really was necessary to put all that infrastructure in, like good roads, special car-parks for best sunset viewing, toilets etc. So now tourists have to pay for it. Some of you in another thread said you camped near Ayers Rock in the old days when there were no facilities and commented how lovely it was to do that. We cant anymore and a lot of the pleasure is gone for that reason. We went there last time we were in Alice but not again.

As for Kakadu and Litchfield, we'd been there before but could only go to limited places because of last years late Wet and flooding and crocodiles had closed many of the best spots. So we had a look at Fogg dam wetlands and a cruise on Corroboree lagoon which was absolutely marvelous. Wouldnt bother with Kakadu again. The Corroboree caravan park is one of those "cheap and cheerful but a bit scruffy" places, and we enjoyed it.

Cupie · Guru

The great thing is that we all have different likes ....

For my part I prefer Kakadu to Litchfield, but enjoy both. Maybe you have to work a bit harder for your reward in Kakadu.

Then on the other hand I prefer The Olgas to Ayers Rock but very much enjoyed the climb to the top of the rock more than the walk round it.

I have difficulty with the high cost of entry to many of these 'attractions' as well as for the man made ones in theme parks. But when going into those areas I budget for the rip offs as much as I can & leave appropriate remarks in visitors books etc where provided.

rockylizard · Guru

Gerty Dancer wrote:
With the huge numbers of tourists going to Ayers Rock and the Olgas it really was necessary to put all that infrastructure in, like good roads, special car-parks for best sunset viewing, toilets etc. So now tourists have to pay for it.

Gday...

Quite right Gerty. The "tourist industry" is geared for the 'holiday market', a) domestic holiday makers with their two week holiday each year; b) international traveller with their two week holiday, who expect a comfortable stay and are willing to pay for it; and c) backpackers who are passing through for a few days and are prepared to pay for it. Each of these also expect to have "organised tours" to see the things that the 'attraction' has to offer. Their stay is not long enough for them to spend the time to research what to see and do.

To attract these tourists requires the 4 or 5 star accommodation etc and the "tourist industry" must provide this infrastructure, comfort and organisation to attract the visitor. I remember when Yulara decided to put in the airstrip and negotiated with the airlines to fly flights from Tokyo to Brisbane, change once and then fly direct Brisbane to Yulara. In those days, the weekly average spend of a Japanese tourist was $3,400. Not to be sneezed at if you want to make a quid in the "tourist industry".

The problem for us (the grey, budget conscious, informed traveller) is we are not as 'time conscious', know what we want and usually have researched the things we want to see. We also have to ensure we don't bust the budget (despite the label we wear that we spend the Kids Inheritance).

So, whilst I can understand the way the 'industry' has gone, it is hard to accept.

Those of us who subscribe to this forum and travel extensively are most definitely in the minority of 'tourists/travellers' that frequent these attractions. For that reason we do not, and will not ever, figure in the 'tourist calculations' of the high profile attractions - they are making their money from those who are willing to pay. If I was in their business I guess I would too.

Having said that, I am so glad I have seen The Rock etc years ago and these attractions are definitely not on my agenda of things to see. Although, I would still love to actually be there to see the rain falling on and running off The Rock - and get some great photos.

Thankfully there is so much of this country to see, we will never see it all before we leave this mortal coil.

Cheers

John

_wombat_ · Master (of Mischief)

Cupie wrote:
The great thing is that we all have different likes ....

For my part I prefer Kakadu to Litchfield, but enjoy both. Maybe you have to work a bit harder for your reward in Kakadu.

Then on the other hand I prefer The Olgas to Ayers Rock but very much enjoyed the climb to the top of the rock more than the walk round it.

I have difficulty with the high cost of entry to many of these 'attractions' as well as for the man made ones in theme parks. But when going into those areas I budget for the rip offs as much as I can & leave appropriate remarks in visitors books etc where provided.

cupie, you should not have to budget to get into Kakadu.

I will assume you have paid your taxes all of your life in Australia so why should you and I have to pay again, Kakadu is a National Park run by the government you and I have paid taxes to that government and now they want more from our pocket's.

Another question I have aksed MP's is why is there not a reduced fee for pensioner's, another question not answered by our tourisum minister Martin Ferguson MP

Hylda&Jon · Guru

I havn't got a problem with paying to get into Kakadu but NT people should have to pay also.

The rangers supply slide nights, guided walks and talks at the 3 main campsites which more than makes up for the $25 entry which, incidently, covers 2 weeks of camping there from memory.

If people only stay for a day or so then it's there loss, Many of them are probably the people that also complain about there being not much to see. It takes more than a couple of days to see the beauty of kakadu

Cheers

Jon

_wombat_ · Master (of Mischief)

Hylda&Jon wrote:
I havn't got a problem with paying to get into Kakadu but NT people should have to pay also.
The rangers supply slide nights, guided walks and talks at the 3 main campsites which more than makes up for the $25 entry which, incidently, covers 2 weeks of camping there from memory.
If people only stay for a day or so then it's there loss, Many of them are probably the people that also complain about there being not much to see. It takes more than a couple of days to see the beauty of kakadu
Cheers
Jon

Yes, the rangers do a great job but the entry fee does not include 2 weeks camping, you can camp in the caravan sites within Kakadu and also in the NP ranger area's and these ranger site's are only about $5-8 a night not bad for a site with showers.

Kakadu is a great place to visit but I do object to paying my taxes and then having to pay again to get into Kakadu.

Gerty Dancer · Guru

_wombat_ wrote:

Another question I have aksed MP's is why is there not a reduced fee for pensioner's, another question not answered by our tourisum minister Martin Ferguson MP

NSW National Parks are free to pensioners. I'm not sure if that meanss NSW and ACT pensioners or all of Australia.

Even though they are called National parks, they actually are state-run, hence the differences. Took me a while to figure that out, the term "National" had me tricked.

_wombat_ · Master (of Mischief)

National Parks here in WA are run from Canberra, parks run by WA state are conservation parks, that is how it was explianed to me, I thought we all lived in the same country, too many government bodies and it will not change.

cannylass · Senior Member

We were there and I think its really over rated when i asked about the cost to get into see the rock the lady agree'd the price was not right but said it was not the Territory fault its the federal government who is to blame and I did not want three days to see it might be ok for some as its been said Lichfield is a much better option. And Kakadu lots of the road were closed, so we were told not to bother going people came back very disappointed.

milo · Guru

I can see peoples points about the fees, and they could do something for the real greynomaders and pensioners etc
i look at places like Kakadu and The Rock, as places that we'd probably only go and see once in our lifetime..
but then you have the tourits and back packers from overeseas..and i gues to it would take alot to maintain these parks etc..

i dunno, just my thouhts

billy the kid · Veteran Member

Sorry to correct you Wombat old boy, but all national parks , marine parks and conservation parks inWA are managed by the dept. of environment and conservation WA

Hylda&Jon · Guru

_wombat_ wrote:
Hylda&Jon wrote:
I havn't got a problem with paying to get into Kakadu but NT people should have to pay also.
The rangers supply slide nights, guided walks and talks at the 3 main campsites which more than makes up for the $25 entry which, incidently, covers 2 weeks of camping there from memory.
If people only stay for a day or so then it's there loss, Many of them are probably the people that also complain about there being not much to see. It takes more than a couple of days to see the beauty of kakadu
Cheers
Jon
Yes, the rangers do a great job but the entry fee does not include 2 weeks camping, you can camp in the caravan sites within Kakadu and also in the NP ranger area's and these ranger site's are only about $5-8 a night not bad for a site with showers.
Kakadu is a great place to visit but I do object to paying my taxes and then having to pay again to get into Kakadu.

Oops! sorry, I forgot about the seperate camping fees, Hylda jogged my aging memory about it also, She reminded me of 2 nice rangers that let us off a couple of days at different sites there which was much appreciated.

I still didn't mind paying the fees & we were travelling only on my single disability pension & a tiny bit of money that was all gone before we even made it home.

Have to admit it would be nice to have a discount for pensioners though.

Cheers

Jon

barrie · Guru

IT'S CHEAPER TO HOLIDAY ABROAD NOWADAYS BECAUSE OSSIE TOURIST OPERATORS ARE THE GREAT RIP OFF MERCHANTS, YOU ONLY HAVE TO LOOK IN THE SUNDAY PAPERS AT THE PRICES BEING CHARGED FOR OVERSEAS HOLIDAYS

_wombat_ · Master (of Mischief)

billy the kid wrote:
Sorry to correct you Wombat old boy, but all national parks , marine parks and conservation parks inWA are managed by the dept. of environment and conservation WA

are you saying that the minister of tourism The Hon Martin Fergurson is not telling me the truth?

rockylizard · Guru

_wombat_ wrote:
are you saying that the minister of tourism The Hon Martin Fergurson is not telling me the truth?

Gday...

He IS a politician isn't he ? ? ? ?

cheers

John

_wombat_ · Master (of Mischief)

rockylizard wrote:
_wombat_ wrote:
are you saying that the minister of tourism The Hon Martin Fergurson is not telling me the truth?
Gday...
He IS a politician isn't he ? ? ? ?
cheers
John

Good point RL biggrin biggrin biggrin

billy the kid · Veteran Member

It always amazes me how politicians can use the term "the rt. honourable", especially Martin Fergusen.

_wombat_ · Master (of Mischief)

here below are the questions I asked two MP's

I then read to story about numbers decline at Ulura and Kakadu, and as Genda was mentioned I decided to email this company, see below my questions and their answer to my email.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Genda,

I have just seen http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-07/tourist-numbers-decline-at-uluru-kakadu/3762172

Do you not think the entry fee to Kakadu is one of the reason's grey nomads are not going into Kakadu?

Can you please advise, why I as a visitor to the NT have to pay $25 each to get into Kakadu?

And more important why the local residents get in for FREE?

I have emailed MP's trying to get answer's to my questions above, guess what no replies to my questions.

I suggest you have a look here http://thegreynomads.activeboard.com/forum.spark?aBID=51933&p=3&topicID=47160397

A reply to my questions would be appreciated.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is Genda's reply:

GDay,

Theres not a real lot that I can ease your mind on here. For starters people have to realise that both Uluru and Kakadu parks are both Commonwealth reserves. They are Aboriginal owned, but they are leased out to the federal government to administer. As a result of this arrangement, no one in the NT has any real say in any of the policies that are put into place. My wife and I run a small backpacker camping tour and our prices are among the cheapest in Darwin. However, the extra $25 that people have to pay is in my opinion absolute bull****. The client receives nothing else for that fee, and on top still has to pay for even the most basic of campsite. The wet has a big part to play in the opening and closure of places as well, and not even the government has any control over that.

I dont believe any person over retirement age should have to pay for entry into any national park in Australia and I sympathise with you and your fellow Grey Nomads, and therefore all people who will miss out on an otherwise amazing part of our great country.

Im sorry that this wonderful park has started coming to this, and I wish you and yours all the best with your future travels.

Best Regards,

Genda Campbell

Owner/Operator

Phone: (08) 8988 5004 or 1300 551 112

Email: info@kakadu4wdsafaris.com.au

Web: www. kakadu4wdsafaris.com.au

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you can see from Genda's reply they also believe that pensioner's should not have to pay a fee, can I now suggest you ALL drop an email to Martin Ferguson MP Martin.Ferguson.MP@aph.gov.au

Pointing out that pensioner's need an exemption from the fee the same as NT residents, we are all Australians, we all live in the same country, we all pay or have in the past paid our taxes, get off your backside Martin Ferguson and do something for pensioners.

_wombat_ · Master (of Mischief)

This is my eamil to The Hon Martin Ferguson

The Hon Martin Ferguson AM, MP The Minister for Resources and Energy; Minister for Tourism.

I have just seen http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-07/tourist-numbers-decline-at-uluru-kakadu/3762172

Do you not think the entry fee to Kakadu is one of the reason's grey nomads are not going into Kakadu?

Can you please advise, why I as a visitor to the NT have to pay $25 each to get into Kakadu?

And more important why the local residents get in for FREE?

Why is there no discount for senoir's and pensioner's?
Our older community members have built this country and in my opinion they should get in to ANY National Park for FREE.

I have emailed our PM (Ms Gillard) twice trying to get answer's to my questions above, guess what no replies.

I suggest you have a look here http://thegreynomads.activeboard.com/forum.spark?aBID=51933&p=3&topicID=47160397

Kakadu is a great place and well worth a visit, but I will never return there while an entry fee is in place, a few years ago the fee was taken off, it has now been back on for a couple of years and now the numbers entering are dropping, when will you guys in charge wake up and treat Australians as equals, not one rule for NT residents and buggar the rest of the country.

A reply to my questions would be appreciated.

Yours Faithfully

wombat

Joe · Senior Member

Jeez - it's only $25 each! After the cost of getting there that amount must surely be seen as peanuts.

Why is the money charged? Well, take a look at where the funds go - some of it goes towards maintaining the park and providing facilities and some of it goes to the traditional owners because, well, they own the place.

Why do locals not have to pay? I am not sure of the REAL reason, but I strongly suspect that it has something to do with the fact that numbers of people live within the park boundaries or travel through it to their homes in Arnhem Land. These people should not have to pay simply to get to their homes so they have to be considered an exception. In addition, they do not want to have visitors to their homes, for example people going there for sorry business etc, to have to pay just to visit them. Any solution to this would also have to be seen as not being racially discriminatory and so all of us NT residents have free access.

Nicholstones · Guru

I don't mind paying to get into some national parks, the upkeep of somewhere like Kakadu must be huge, with hundreds of kilometres of roads to maintain, many day use areas and camping grounds and squillions of hectares of bush to look after. Many other national parks (particularly in WA) also have entry fees. I do think that $25 per person is too steep, and that the fee should be per vehicle like it is in other parks. Per vehicle is also much easier to police, as rangers can check cars in car parks without the owners having to be there. I don't know how they can check per person - there are no booths or anything at the entrances.

03_troopy · Guru

Joe wrote:
Jeez - it's only $25 each! After the cost of getting there that amount must surely be seen as peanuts.

Why is the money charged? Well, take a look at where the funds go - some of it goes towards maintaining the park and providing facilities and some of it goes to the traditional owners because, well, they own the place.

Why do locals not have to pay? I am not sure of the REAL reason, but I strongly suspect that it has something to do with the fact that numbers of people live within the park boundaries or travel through it to their homes in Arnhem Land. These people should not have to pay simply to get to their homes so they have to be considered an exception. In addition, they do not want to have visitors to their homes, for example people going there for sorry business etc, to have to pay just to visit them. Any solution to this would also have to be seen as not being racially discriminatory and so all of us NT residents have free access.

If you are just passing through, you can get a pass and don't have to pay the $25.00 per head.

Joe · Senior Member

03_troopy wrote:
Joe wrote:
Jeez - it's only $25 each! After the cost of getting there that amount must surely be seen as peanuts.

Why is the money charged? Well, take a look at where the funds go - some of it goes towards maintaining the park and providing facilities and some of it goes to the traditional owners because, well, they own the place.

Why do locals not have to pay? I am not sure of the REAL reason, but I strongly suspect that it has something to do with the fact that numbers of people live within the park boundaries or travel through it to their homes in Arnhem Land. These people should not have to pay simply to get to their homes so they have to be considered an exception. In addition, they do not want to have visitors to their homes, for example people going there for sorry business etc, to have to pay just to visit them. Any solution to this would also have to be seen as not being racially discriminatory and so all of us NT residents have free access.
If you are just passing through, you can get a pass and don't have to pay the $25.00 per head.

Trouble is that you'd need to be able to read, write and generally communicate in English in order to apply for a pass.

That's not always a viable option, especially with people who are less than around 45 years old who weren't required to attend school.

Joe · Senior Member

Cupie wrote:
The great thing is that we all have different likes ....
For my part I prefer Kakadu to Litchfield, but enjoy both. Maybe you have to work a bit harder for your reward in Kakadu.
Then on the other hand I prefer The Olgas to Ayers Rock but very much enjoyed the climb to the top of the rock more than the walk round it.
I have difficulty with the high cost of entry to many of these 'attractions' as well as for the man made ones in theme parks. But when going into those areas I budget for the rip offs as much as I can & leave appropriate remarks in visitors books etc where provided.

I agree with the highlighted comment above - a very acute observation.

Kakadu is a huge place and there are so many wonderful things to see in there that you'd be able to spend months in there and still not see it all.

The biggest problem is, as Cupie said, that you really do have to work to see them. If anyone has been to see Jim Jim Falls and recalls the track in you will know what I mean, and that particular walk of less than a kilometre each way is one of the easier places to get to with many others requiring hours of walking and a reasonable level of fitness.

Anyone heading in there with two weeks to see what they can and (particularly) without a 4WD or the willingness to drive it through some reasonably rugged terrain will end up milling around with the bus tour crowds to see those fenced off "attractions" and will wonder what on earth the fuss is about.

Yes, Kakadu is a fantastic place, but you do have to work to enjoy it.

Litchfield - another great place and a favourite with people who don't want, or are unable, to put in the effort needed for Kakadu. Almost everything is accessible via bitumen or (short) smooth gravel roads so people with a 2WD can get in to see things easily. It is also MUCH smaller than Kakadu so you can drive through it and zip in and out of the main places in one day.

I love Litchfield - it is closer to Darwin so day trips are easy and it is beautiful.

Litchfield also has a few 4WD only tracks that are worth the effort if you are so inclined. The Reynolds River track is the best known, but the north of the park has some interesting drives and then walking tracks that take you up on top of the massif. These are generally not publicised and are kept for local use, mostly because these tracks parallel rivers with big bitey things in them and you need a level of awareness not found in a southern or overseas tourist to traverse them with some degree of safety.

The Rock - It is probably the most controlled large natural attraction in Australia and I loathe being herded along with the hoi polloi, but it really does have something about it that is worth experiencing at least once. The Olgas are lovely and are a better walking experience, but for me they lack the mystique of the rock.

Oh yes, even NT residents need to pay to go to see the rock although we can get an annual pass if we wish - an option that I chose.