Caravan Club and wild camping.

[Brian Kirby]

Having been a member of the Caravan Club for many years, I became concerned by the furore over a report in the March 2005 Club Magazine, of a Council meeting in January 2005, in which the Executive Secretary was reported making disparaging comments about motorhomers and wild camping.  Various individuals had written to MMM, and Forum, indicating their displeasure, reporting they had written in protest to the Club, that publication had been blocked, and so they had resigned.

In July 2006, a further Caravan Club member, having picked up the reports from earlier editions of MMM and checked back on the story, wrote saying he, too, had now resigned in protest.

Thinking it seemed rather unfortunate that the Club was loosing its motorhoming members over such a relatively minor matter, I thought they might like a chance to set matters straight.

I therefore wrote to “Club Magazine Letters” on 3 August 2006, as follows.

“I wonder if the Club could clarify its attitude towards motorhomes?  I ask, because I repeatedly read, in various publications and internet forums, statements that the Caravan Club is “anti-motorhome”.

This impression seems to have originated from the Club Council meeting of January 2005, as reported on page 10 of the March 2005 Magazine.  This report includes statements, attributed to the Executive Secretary, on the subject of “wild camping”.  It quotes him as saying, “the Club would not allow motor caravanners to call at its sites simply to empty tanks and replenish water supplies and then move on, as this would be encouraging wild camping”.

The report continues with a statement by the Chairman that he would be speaking on the subject of “wild camping” at a conference in Italy, adding, “wild camping was even more of a problem on the continent that it is here”.  It is not entirely clear what was intended by “wild camping”.  Unfortunately, the term lacks formal definition and has widely differing, mostly derogatory, interpretations: from occupation of land without authorisation, to authorised camping away from formal sites.  It can thus appear to encompass using land with an owner’s permission, and extend to using that wonderful network of motorhome service points across Europe, typified by the French “Aires Camping Car”, we so sadly lack in UK.

Inevitably, the report was brief, so may have over abridged what was actually said.  However, great offence does seem to have been given by the implication that those who do wish “simply to empty tanks and replenish water supplies”, would then move on to “wild camp”.  If that is indeed what was said, it is difficult to follow the logic of the argument.  Whatever was intended, I understand the result was several resignations from the Club, which seems a shame.

However, events have their shadow and, as stated above, this perceived attitude on the part of the Club continues to get publicity.  Motorhomers thereby gain the impression they will not be welcomed as Club members, and confusion results.  With one caravan in six now being a motorhome, and with the proportion of motorhomes rising, it seems a good time for the Club to clarify its stance.

May I add that I have searched for, but been unable to find, any report in the Magazine of the Italian meeting the Club Chairman was to attend, or what he, and others, had to say.  It seems this might be of interest to members.  Have I somehow missed this?

Brian Kirby”

We then went away and, on return, I checked the Club Magazines for a response.  There was none, so I phoned on 14 November to check whether the e-mail had got through.  The lady who answered said if I resent it, she would give it to the Magazine Editor.  This I did.

On 20 November, I received the following e-mail in reply:

“Dear Mr Kirby

The Editor, Gary Martin, has asked me to forward this reply to you.

‘The Club welcomes motor caravanners and caravanners equally – indeed we have enjoyed a growth in the number of motor caravanners in recent years and motor caravanners now make up 20% of the Club’s total membership.’

I hope this goes some way to clarify the position and assure you that The Caravan Club is definitely not “anti-motorhome”.

 I replied as follows:

 “Many thanks.  But, can you help me out please?  I'm not quite clear whether Gary's reply is for publication with my letter, or is just an assurance, on behalf of the Club, to me.

If the latter, it does seem to me that the club is missing a golden opportunity to state its case more publicly.

Thanks again and regards.”

The response to this was:

“Dear Mr Kirby

I have spoken to Gary and he has confirmed that this reply was purely a personal one, not for publication.

 

Regards”

Strange, isn’t it?  It seems the Caravan Club Magazine will not publish anything it deems critical.  I already know it will publish almost anything self-congratulatory.  I do not know if the Club Chairman travelled to Italy at his own expense or not.  However, it seems clear enough he was to attend the meeting in his capacity of Chairman of the Caravan Club.  Did he go?  What did he say?  I’ve searched the Magazine for reports of this meeting, and found none.  Why?  What other unreported meetings does the Club Chairman attend?  Why is this kept from the members, on whose behalves he presumes to speak?  Would any other members care to have a dig, and see if we can get a bit of democracy operating?

[docted]

Brian

Do you not think that it is a little niave to expect any organisation to print material which could be considered detrimental to it. I have said it before the neither of the "big two" clubs are anti-motor caravan they are simply anti-wild camping.

To an extent this could actully be considered as part of their "remit" insofar as wild camping ,IF NOT DONE WITH PROPER RESPECT FOR THE LAND AND ITS OWNERS, can result in bad press and public opinion for our hobby and the people who participate in it.

Additionally the "big two" are probably the biggest caravan site owners/operators in the UK and as a result look upon wild campers as lost revenue.

If either of the clubs was anti-motor caravn do you think we would be allowed to camp on their sites or join their membership?

If you feel so strongly about the way the Caravan Club goes about its business why not put yourself forward for election to its Council. I, and I am sure many others, would give you their backing.

 

Docted

[Norma]

ISSUE ONE is the business of THE CLUB and camping.

 

I would suggest that "The Club" will do three things:

 

First: become a major financial services conglomerate like the AA and RAC - it is well on it's way.

 

Second it will float making a lot of people rich at the expense of us 'umble. ever so 'umble members. I cite the AA and RAC and SAGA as role models.

 

Three: take a major position in a trans-european portfolio of sites as a way of getting access to tracts of valuable land.

See the commoditisation and multi-national investment in sites by investment houses, made clear by published

statements and in a private conversation with Trevor Watson.

 

ISSUE TWO is to deliberately play games with definitions to underpin this objective.

 

There is a distinct cultural difference between the "tuggers" and the "snails" (is that the right term?) which is used to distort reality.

 

Aire de Service is neither illegal parking or camping.

Safety is an easy trump card - I met a certain senior member of the club and this came up in conversation.

 

The argument was irrational and his wife repeatedly and emphatically told us we'll be gassed in our beds and in 'real' danger of our lives. (see separate strand)

The objective was to force us to use their sites, their facilities and make their profit. They had no answer to the right of French or German or anyone else to offer hospitality to motorhome users.

But be warned THE CLUB is actively lobbying Brussels to change the law in the interests of our safety ....

 

I just pray that the French will wave two garlic smeared fingers at these greedy sods and tell 'em that if a French commune wishes to set up a specially prepared place for motorhome users and welcome to their village these damn Brits can go .... themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

[Keith T]

Printing somehing 'detrimental' is one thing, but surely a subject like this should be rasied and printed in the letters to teh Editor, and teh CC cna then respond fully. I agree with the original letter, and can see no valid reason - it was not specifically critical of the issue and attitute in any harsh way, and I think was very well stated. Surely the CC is interested enough to put its own point of view! - whichever way that is, of course?

[Tony Jones]

I'm sure I remember reading a report in one of the motorhome magazines, to the effect that the CC's chairman did indeed go to the European meeting, and spoke quite forcibly against all forms of "non-site" camping - I've an idea he even criticised the French Aires specifically, but perhaps someone can fill in the gaps in my memory?

There's a very simple remedy for us - I left the CC a couple of years ago and I'm now in the Motorcaravanners Club. Yes, I know it's smaller, and its network of CL's is still getting established, but it's OURS, and it's wholeheartedly in favour of our chosen way of travelling and holidaying - whether we use sites or not!

If all the motorcaravanning members of the CC did the same, the MCC would soon grow enough to be able to run a larger network.

[Brian Kirby]

docted - 2006-12-05 6:11 PM Brian Do you not think that it is a little niave to expect any organisation to print material which could be considered detrimental to it. I have said it before the neither of the "big two" clubs are anti-motor caravan they are simply anti-wild camping. To an extent this could actully be considered as part of their "remit" insofar as wild camping ,IF NOT DONE WITH PROPER RESPECT FOR THE LAND AND ITS OWNERS, can result in bad press and public opinion for our hobby and the people who participate in it. Additionally the "big two" are probably the biggest caravan site owners/operators in the UK and as a result look upon wild campers as lost revenue. If either of the clubs was anti-motor caravn do you think we would be allowed to camp on their sites or join their membership? If you feel so strongly about the way the Caravan Club goes about its business why not put yourself forward for election to its Council. I, and I am sure many others, would give you their backing. Docted

Eddie

My present inclination is to resign my membership.  There is a saying that "you can always tell a closed mind, but not much!"  I can see no point in attempting to change their attitudes from within, I think the die is cast, and the minds are closed.  I don't know who, technically, owns the Club's assets, but their present corporatist attitudes do not sit easily with the claim to be a club.  A club would/should be owned by its members, and run on behalf of its members for their sole benefit.  I just get the sense that the present Caravan Club officers are running the show to suit another agenda, which seems to have more to do with maximising income than serving member's preferences.  Somehow the average member seems to be just one more bl**din' punter, a foot soldier to be tolerated, rather than a valued and equal member to be treated with attentiveness and respect.

Yes, naive or not, I do get concerned at organisations (including governments) that won't openly discuss and deal with criticism.  I don't mind if they defend themselves, justify their actions, or just say sorry, just so long as they respect their critics enough to respond.  I view pushing the awkward questions out of sight, or refusing to discuss conflicting viewpoints, as profoundly unhealthy and undemocratic. 

This is a group of people who take wheeled boxes into the countryside to "lounge" while watching television for God's sake; not quite MI6 - or the Oxford Union - is it?  It is suffering delusions of grandeur: it dreams it dwells in marble halls, yet it inhabits velour cushions on  photoveneer sofas and keeps its drinks in MDF "cabinets" with coloured plastic doors.

I think it quite likely there will be a move to float it, or sell it, at some time in the not too distant future.  That will be a great shame, but who will buy: MFI?

[Dave Newell]

Hi all, we were members of the CC for a couple of years but decided to resign when thet included the electric fee in the pitch fee so as to avoid fitting meters to pitches and actually charge people for what they used. I always found it ridiculous that in summer, when electricity consumption is lowest there is no restriction but in Winter when you need all the power you can get the CC put up notices asking people to use as little as possible, go figure!

 

We do occasionaly use CC sites but only for convenience. In september we stayed at the CC Longleat site for two nights at a cost of £22 per night! Yes I know we wouldn't have payed that much if we were members but it would still have been £15 a night. Longleat is a nice site but for that price I've stopped on commercial sites that offered a lot more for your money. We don't use CC sites enough to save the cost of membership so we'll remain non members.

 

The CC claim to be non profit making but how can site fees like these not generate profit?

 

We don't generally "wild camp" but we do occasionaly stop overnight in an out of the way spot where we don't bother anyone and move on after breakfast leaving nothing more than our wheel tracks.

 

The CC's lack of support for motorhomes and overnight halt areas is disgusting, IMHO.

 

D.

[Clive]

Must agree with Dave.

 

[Stuwsmith]

I "resigned" from the CC a last year because of it's perceived stance on non site camping and because I did not like the lack of choice in paying an overpriced charge for electricity to charge my auxillary battery. I think the only option MH users have if they are not happy with a club is don't subscribe to it. I see that the CC has put a big advert in the last MMM, they also ran a MH driving course at the NEC show recently so perhaps they are secretly concerned at MH "resignations" and comments on their attitude;shall look into the MH club after reading this thread.

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

If the Caravan Club were to be sold I think you'll find that the proceeds have to go to its members. It isn't a company with shareholders but is probably more like my golf club, owned by its members. If my golf club were to sell its land we'd all be thousands of pounds better off, but it won't, as we, the members, don't want to sell it!

Personally I think that the CC gives good value. For £34 a year I get 12 magazines, which I always enjoy reading and I think that their sites are excellent value compared to commercial ones - apart from which they are usually superbly maintained and free of the sort of people whose idea of a good site includes a noisy bar with 'entertainment'.

As for the practice of 'wild camping' which I always find to be an incongruous phrase - I used to do 'wild camping' when I backpacked with just a small tent and camped by a Lakeland tarn at 2000 feet, not parking by a loch in a luxury motorhome and switching on your Sky TV - we must accept that perhaps it is a little selfish. If everyone with a caravan or motorhome felt that they had the right to slap their outfit wherever the fancy took them these islands would be a more unattractive place and give even more ammunition to the Jeremy Clarksons of this world.

The CC and its executives are welcome to their opinions on 'wild camping' and if members don't like it they have two simple choices, leave the club or become one of its many unpaid volunteers and get yourself elected to the council and make your feelings known and try to change things. But you can't even win there - in the unlikely event that the CC came out in favour of 'wild camping' the club would, in my opinion, lose even more members as I'm fairly convinced that the vast majority do not approve of widespread 'wild camping'.

[chas]

I think that it is an excelent time for ex CC members to consider joining the other main club, the CCC. As far as I am aware they have not tried anything as biased and stupid of trying to control the desires of its motorhome members. I have been a member for over 35yrs and I would be the first to admit it is far from perfect. They do allow motorhomers the use of their facilities for several hours to empty wastes, and take on water, and use all that is available, I am sure they are not worried that it is encouraging (wild camping). I find their fees reasonable particuly if if you are over 55yrs old with a generous discount. Electricity is not paid for if not needed. If motorhomers who are CC members decide to resign, they should at least inform membership why and mention they are joining the CCC, as it appears to offer better terms for motorhomers. chas

[livewire]

I was a member when I had my caravan, but resigned after a week on a site run by various clones of Adolf Hitler.

 

I bought a motorhome and joined again to give me access to CL's.

 

I have come to the conclusion I hate the organisation. I will resign again. For instance:

 

I once told a warden I like to wild camp, he looked at me as if I had confessed to murder.

I found my wife 'worried' because I put a small refuse bag in the toilet block bin (it was dark).

All those signs and rules, especially that particularly patronising 'Everyone Loves Your Dog....On A Lead'

Being young(ish), I find I am lokked at with suspicion.

A warden once tild me that motorhomes were inconvenient because they often turn up without booking.

They clean the toilet blocks in the middle of the morning rather than at least busy times.

All day you have to put up with the drone of the mini tractors.

They are too expensive.

Similar to the McDonalds one characterless design fits all mentallity.

Most of the members are the 'conservative and cautious' brigade.

 

Etc. etc.

 

Sorry to rant, but have to release some pent up oppression. Have just been to a CL site!

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

Livewire wrote regarding CC members:

Most of the members are the 'conservative and cautious' brigade.

I like CC sites and last year I had two main holidays.

My first was in France were we sailed to Santander and had three weeks to get to Zeebrugge. Like always we're like gypsies and have no idea where we'll end up.

My second holiday found me once again satisfying my annual wanderlust and flying to Moscow for a few days before boarding the Trans-Siberian express for a four day stay near Lake Baikal in Siberia (four nights in a 4 berth compartment with three strangers). I then transferred to the Trans-Mongolian (two nights with three more strangers) and after a day in lovely downtown Ulan Bator spent four days in a tent on the steppes. Then it was off through the Gobi desert to Beijing for a few days. (Just one night but an even scruffier train!)

The previous year I explored Tibet before driving back along the Friendship Highway to Nepal. Five days in a four wheel drive that still got stuck every now and again. I stayed in lodges where you went to sleep smothered in Deet, just in case.

Conservative and cautious, that's me - where did you go this year Livewire?

[Keith T]

well, there's a seletion of views and opinions, all, in my view, equally justifiable, and equally 'opposable' if thats a word!

For us, yes, we will remain in the CC, it's good value, site standards are exc, and most wardens likewise. Commercial sites are very often overpriced, less good facilities, and overcrowded/noisy.

No we don't like the politics, but that goes for most organisations - eg National Trust, as much as CC.

C&CC we find even more of a law unto themselves, and as for charging £5 extra to arrive a few minutes before mid-day, well, I'm sorry, they won't be getting my money this year. Their wardens (sorry, Site managers) are far more hitler-like in atitude in our experience.

We too spend much of our main summer holiday period out of the uK, and it's no good trying to compare attitudes and facilities in France- the whole caboodle is so much easier and laid back, we've spent umpteen weeks in there most years for the last 10yrs, and never booked a site in advance, and mostly don't need to say how long you'll stay, just pay when you leave. Where can you ever do that in UK? Prices equally are much cheaper, apart funnily enough that generally electrics are more than UK, and for less amperage.

No we shall stay as we are, and reckon CC is pretty good value - but if something comes up we don't agree with, will continue to voice our opinions whereven and whenever suitable.

[mom]

I am a member of the CC, have been since purchasing my first motorhome 5 years ago.  My choice of club was simply based on advice from the previous owner of my van.

Initially, we used CC sites exclusively.  They provided predictable, clean and comfortable destinations as we learned the ropes.  I have personally never found the CC to be anti-motorhome at the site, though I can see the potential for frustration for the wardens as they try to cope with us being slightly more free of spirit.  Let's face it, the CC world was originally designed around caravans not by choice, but by reality.

There are a few things that I have come to dislike about CC sites...
1. Instructional signs.  I once counted 37 signs while walking from the van to the toilet block.  I didn't count safety signs... just those telling me how to behave.
2. Hitler wardens.  Very few in number, but they immediately set the tone for the week.
3. Cost.  Even steering clear of the electricity debate, the cost is high.  One of our justifications for motorhoming as an alternative to car and hotels was accomodation costs.  Some CC sites, per night, are now nearly half the room cost in some Premier Lodges.
4. I am occasionally made to feel "second class" when phoning in to the CC.  There are many great phone calls, but the odd occasional officious one.  As a paid-up member, it is the club's job to be friendly.

But I am also aware of the CC services and facilities I use.  I am a prodigious user of CLs, I use CC insurance, enjoy the magazines, use CC sites when absolutely necessary, use the European Sites books many times a year.  I see my subscription as gaining me access to these facilities rather than supporting a club that has certain principles misaligned with my own. 

I could write of other, different problems I have had with the CCC, so for me, I will stay with the CC but will support attempts like Brian's here, to make public the CC issues that involve us as motorhomers.

One thing that definitely needs to be better defined, though, is the term "wild-camping".  I believe that it means different things to different people, and I think that until this is sorted out, we will do ourselves no favours.  I use France Passion, and aires in France and the equivilent in other countries.  I have heard this refered to as wild camping.  In my eyes it isn't.  I have stayed in pub carparks and friends' driveways.  Is this wild camping?  I believe wild camping is parking by a cliff or a lake or in the forest, probably alone, definitely without facilities and with complete respect for nature.  If this is "wild camping" for most of us, then open, free for all wild camping would all but destroy that very beauty we are there to enjoy.  Can you imagine arriving by a particularly beautiful lake and seeing it completely surrounded by big white monsters?  And moving on to another only to find the same?  This happens on the continent often.  In my humble opinion, those of us who like to wild camp should do so with a little less noise....
Imagine if a successful campaign brought the CC out in favour of wildcamping.  Serval things would happen.  Firstly, more people would start doing it, a lot more.  Secondly, the CC and/or other organisations would seek to grab a piece of the pie.  Imagine it... wildcamping rallies, publically posted and promoted wildcamping lists.  Then the authorities would try to shut it down and eventually take away any chance to wildcamp at all. 

In my humble opinion, we should remain as we are, quiet, a few forums but no more, not enough wild camping to alert authorities (more than they currently are!!!).

Or do I have the wrong definition of wildcamping?

[livewire]

Frank Wilkinson - 2006-12-05 10:44 PM

Livewire wrote regarding CC members:

Most of the members are the 'conservative and cautious' brigade.

 

I like CC sites and last year I had two main holidays.

My first was in France were we sailed to Santander and had three weeks to get to Zeebrugge. Like always we're like gypsies and have no idea where we'll end up.

My second holiday found me once again satisfying my annual wanderlust and flying to Moscow for a few days before boarding the Trans-Siberian express for a four day stay near Lake Baikal in Siberia (four nights in a 4 berth compartment with three strangers). I then transferred to the Trans-Mongolian (two nights with three more strangers) and after a day in lovely downtown Ulan Bator spent four days in a tent on the steppes. Then it was off through the Gobi desert to Beijing for a few days. (Just one night but an even scruffier train!)

The previous year I explored Tibet before driving back along the Friendship Highway to Nepal. Five days in a four wheel drive that still got stuck every now and again. I stayed in lodges where you went to sleep smothered in Deet, just in case.

Conservative and cautious, that's me - where did you go this year Livewire?

I take my hat off to you with that list.However, I did say most, not all.I still reckon that when you walk around a club site, a lot of the occupants (esp out of season) give the impression that the most daring thing they diid that day was have an extra slice of toast for breakfast.

[Keith T]

...yes, Definately agree that a lot of caravnners seeem to stay in their 'van most of the day, and perhaps the furthest they go - usually with the car - is to the local shops.

 

So what, they are happy, and we are happy. It's their choice, and it's our choice to be more adventurous if we wish.

 

I still think overall the CC is good vfm, and reference to the site fees, well, yes there are sometime special offers at Travelodge etc, and indeed we have taken advantage of these on occasions. Equally the CC are price banded, and recently we had over a week at Abbey Wood, London CC site, the total cost was under £100, which took advantage of some of their 'mid-week' disounts. Not bad, in fact excellent value to us.

 

But, still, I say, each to his own, and let the others do what they will.

[david lloyd]

This subject was touched upon in the following thread:

 

http://forums.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=4731&start=1

 

After that debate I decided to stay (for now) with the CC to take advantage of the CL network but also, after the reassurances given by council members of the MCC, decided to give the MCC a try - particularly to support their 'campaign' to establish motorhome stopovers in this country. I believe it will take a nationally based organisation such as this (and supported by the motorhome press) to get such a scheme universally acccepted by local authorities.

 

Unfortunately, I haven't, as yet, received much satisfaction or benefit from joining the MCC and, unless things do improve, it will be this club I leave next year.

 

As I say, my reason for joining was largely to support their planned campaign for motorhome stopovers. However, after reassurances in private e-mails and in the Practical Motorhome magazine the 'campaign' launch doesn't seem to have happened in September or October or November or December..........

 

The promised new website with up to date facilities such as online membership has not materialised.

 

Their message boards still remain unavailable and the very real issues raised about N. Ireland and Scottish council members being suspended have not been publicly addressed to members (sounds a bit like Brian Kirby's original issue with the CC).

 

We are not big rally goers but the one rally I planned to attend at Eden Camp in Yorkshire over the Remembrance Weekend was cancelled. Fortunately (for me) I found out when I checked the website for arrival time information just before departure otherwise I may still be waiting for others to arrive.

 

So, all in all, I struggle now to continue to advocate membership of the MCC in preference to the other major clubs. If they can't give motorhome members what they want and deliver the goods they have promised then it's a case of out of the frying pan into the fire.

 

The Executives of the CC are just as entitled to their views about how camping is organised and, in this respect, they are seemingly following club policy but I do agree with Brian Kirby about the basic rights of members to have their views aired and not censored by club officials (paid or elected) prior to publication. At the time this was raised I also wrote to the Club bit received neither reply nor publication of my letter in the magazine.

 

I'm afraid it is a sign of the times where openness and democracy easily give way to corporate objectives and maximising revenues seems to be the primary driving factor behind many decisions that affect our everyday lives whether that be for leisure or living.

 

Regards, David

[Supertractorman]

An interesting debate on CC. If it is a members Club then it should be run by members for members. How many of us know who our local Board member is ? ( I don't ), is he or she MH biased or Caravan biased ( That definitely exists ).

If something is wrong then nail a Board member let them find the answer and come back to you, after all they volunteered to go on the Board.

We are all happy to moan about too many signs and grumpy Wardens, and my pet hate people who book up sites, never turn up, and the Club loses revenue, but no penalty put on the member. ( I nailed a Board member at the NEC on this, pity I did not note his name and telephone number ).

Its our Club lets seek action.

 

David

[shallowthroat]

Keith T - 2006-12-06 9:34 AM

 

...yes, Definately agree that a lot of caravnners seeem to stay in their 'van most of the day, and perhaps the furthest they go - usually with the car - is to the local shops.

 

So what, they are happy, and we are happy. It's their choice, and it's our choice to be more adventurous if we wish.

 

I still think overall the CC is good vfm, and reference to the site fees, well, yes there are sometime special offers at Travelodge etc, and indeed we have taken advantage of these on occasions. Equally the CC are price banded, and recently we had over a week at Abbey Wood, London CC site, the total cost was under £100, which took advantage of some of their 'mid-week' disounts. Not bad, in fact excellent value to us.

 

But, still, I say, each to his own, and let the others do what they will.

 

Actually, this is entirely the opposite of my experience and one that made me think hard about the move to a motor-home (MH). On many sites, both here and abroad I have noticed that it's the owners of large MHs who don't leave the site. And if you think about it, it's pretty obvious why. Towers have a car, which is ideal for touring the surrounding countryside and general sight-seeing. Owners of MHs, especially the larger ones simply cannot use the very narrow roads in some remote areas and have to be very circumspect, even in such mundane things as visiting a city, where many car parks are out of bounds.

 

I'm looking forward to my new MH and have chosen one under 20 feet (only just!) as I don't want to be stuck as often as the owners of larger ones seem to be.

 

Finally, in my experience, the sort of people who use CC sites are generally decent and respectable folk (I know there's always the odd exception) who enjoy the simplicity and rural locations of a typical CC site. The ones that I worry about are those who choose large commercial sites with clubs and bars and bingo. Again, it's their choice and good luck to them but it's not for me and it's not for the majority of people who stay on CC or CCC sites either.

[mom]

It seems that ever so slightly the issue has become on of Caravanners vs Motorhomers rather than CC vs other clubs.

Just one thing I'd like to say on the last few replies, and I am saying this meaning "many", definitely not "all" so please read this into my comments...

In this country, there are many, many more caravans than motorhomes, and it seems to me that most caravanners do it as a lifestyle thing rather than an exploring thing.  In other words, caravans seem to be used as a home away from home, with the caravan anchored down tightly, table lamp aglow, TV going sometimes the entire weekend, caravan washed on Sunday mornings rain hail or shine (well, I know of 2 who do this!!).
Motorhomers are usually on their way to somewhere else.  In other words, a site to them is a stopover, not a place of repose, and that is what rubs the wrong way with some wardens. 
Now I mean many, not all.  There are often large motorhomes (I call them spaceships) that, once anchored, can't leave for a long time.  And there are lots of caravaners who are never home, exploring everywhere around in their car and returning only because they are out of light. 

Contrast this with the continent, where there are a great deal more motorhomes, who are very much exploring as they go and always on their way to somewhere else.  Facilities (waste, water etc) have to be plentyful, sites have to be flexible and towns and villages see it as an opportunity rather than a burden.

Only when there are many more of us, will things change.

[Mel E]

Shallowthroat (what a pseudonym!),

 

I have to say my experience parallels yours - more motorhomes seem to be occupied during the day on CC sites than caravans. But each to his own.

 

And to all out there!

 

As to these continuing arguments about whether the Caravan Club is some profit making organisation or not, I can only suggest you study the Club's ByeLaws (downloadable from the CC web site).

 

In summary:

 

- it is required to be run for the benefit of members by elected members of the Executive Committee and Council.

 

- of course it can make a profit - how else will it get funds to develop more sites, services, etc. But it cannot DISTRIBUTE this profit - it must be wholly retained within the company (Caravan Club Ltd) that owns the assets on behalf of members - I asume it is limited by guarantee, just like your local, member-owned Golf Club.

 

- if you don't like the way it is run, do something! Start at either one of the Regional member units or go to the Annual Members' Meeting and have your say.

 

- Yes, it's big, but surely that's its strength? As other postings in this thread have indicated the smaller CCC and much smaller MCC have real problems generating the development funds they need to get anywhere near the CC's level of services.

[spartan3956]

I used to be a member of the CC but resigned my membership,I did feel like a second class citizen alway made to park on gravel hard standings never on their precious grass. yes ive met the warden from hell.

The amount of times ive seen cars pulling caravans off the grass pitch and leaving dirty great skid marks, the next thing they will do is to only allow 4 wheel drive vehicles on there at 2 tonne a time. I never ruin the grass with my motorbike.

I have wild camped while visiting friends and i dont think any nanny state should make rules to affect my human rights i dont leave rubbish i dont stay weeks on end.

So basically leave me alone.

Dont support them, dont join.

 

Pete

[Brian Kirby]

mom - 2006-12-06 7:50 AM

One thing that definitely needs to be better defined, though, is the term "wild-camping".  I believe that it means different things to different people, and I think that until this is sorted out, we will do ourselves no favours.  I use France Passion, and aires in France and the equivilent in other countries.  I have heard this refered to as wild camping.  In my eyes it isn't.  I have stayed in pub carparks and friends' driveways.  Is this wild camping?  I believe wild camping is parking by a cliff or a lake or in the forest, probably alone, definitely without facilities and with complete respect for nature.  If this is "wild camping" for most of us, then open, free for all wild camping would all but destroy that very beauty we are there to enjoy.  Can you imagine arriving by a particularly beautiful lake and seeing it completely surrounded by big white monsters?  And moving on to another only to find the same?  This happens on the continent often.  In my humble opinion, those of us who like to wild camp should do so with a little less noise....

Imagine if a successful campaign brought the CC out in favour of wildcamping.  Serval things would happen.  Firstly, more people would start doing it, a lot more.  Secondly, the CC and/or other organisations would seek to grab a piece of the pie.  Imagine it... wildcamping rallies, publically posted and promoted wildcamping lists.  Then the authorities would try to shut it down and eventually take away any chance to wildcamp at all. 

In my humble opinion, we should remain as we are, quiet, a few forums but no more, not enough wild camping to alert authorities (more than they currently are!!!).

Or do I have the wrong definition of wildcamping?

Michael

I am in total agreement with what you say above re "wild camping", including the proposed definitions and your reservations regarding the undesirable effects of parking 'vans in beauty spots.

[robin]

Mel E - 2006-12-06 12:25 PM

 

Shallowthroat (what a pseudonym!),

 

I have to say my experience parallels yours - more motorhomes seem to be occupied during the day on CC sites than caravans. .

 

Perhaps its more to do with the type of motorhomer's attracted to CC sites. I have never understood the mentality of arriving on caravan site with caravan or motorhome, pegging out awnings, safari rooms, tv aerials, etc, etc, but hey - each to his or her own. I don't understand the metality of sitting on a beach for two weeks holiday either.

 

Personally, I can't stand the CC or its sites network - for many of the resons aired above. I resigned two years ago.

 

One point not yet mentioned, the CCC does offer a MH service point only facility on many of its sites without the need to stay over.

 

I prefer the CCC sites because:

1, it is usually possible to get a pitch without electricity

2, there is a wide variety of campers (tents, caravans, motorhomes)

and.......

3, there are a few sites (e.g. Hayfield) that don't allow caravans at all

 

*-)