Charging for children

A couple of months ago (August, p10) we ran a letter from a reader, Ian Bradshaw, who advocated that charges for children on campsites needed to be lower to encourage families with children to take touring holidays (and charges for dogs introduced to help offset this), and create the future generations of campsite-goers… Here are your responses:

I needed to reply to Ian’s letter regarding charging for children at campsites, but not for dogs.

As a motorhomer, always with our dog, I have to say that the reason for charging for children is for the facilities, which dogs do not use, and the excessive clear up that needs to happen when children turn up.

Very often there is a play area that costs money to install and upkeep; generally, dogs have no real facilities at club sites… maybe a corner of the field, sometimes not even that.

Having recently come back from a week at Slapton

Sands, it was very clear when Friday arrived and the families appeared, because the state of the toilets declined rapidly.

Not all families or children are responsible, but we have all seen it so let’s not pretend it’s not a fact. Also, during this week we experienced no decline in facilities due to the numerous (well behaved!) dogs that were on site. Again, for balance, not all dog owners are responsible and clear up after their pets.

We also regularly visit sites where we are charged for our dog, so we are not against paying, but the dog facilities are usually so much better; for example, the Old Oaks in Glastonbury, where there is an excellent dog area, a dog

shower block, a cooling-off pool, etc, so facilities we are happy to pay for to support.

No doubt there will be more debate on this one!

Gary Chapman

In response to the strange anti-canine views expressed by Ian Bradshaw about the two big clubs not charging for dogs, I think he needs to bear in mind that many people choose this type of holiday because other choices of holiday are more limited if you have a dog and many families with children have dogs, too.

Dogs do not use electricity or shower blocks and the majority of other facilities on sites. Many sites don’t provide on-site dog walks, either, and dogs need to be kept on a leash. Children, on the other hand, do use similar facilities to adults and many spend a lot of their time using electronic devices (unlike dogs).

I do think that many commercial sites are exploiting dog owners by charging up to £4 per dog per day for minimum dog facilities. Many don’t allow access to on-site bars or restaurants, but still provide children-specific entertainment for the first part of the evening.

I am not anti-children or anti-anyone who chooses to enjoy the freedom that

camping brings. Dog owners pay their membership fees the same as anyone else and should be entitled to holiday as such.

There is also no mention of the fact that many (not all) people with grandchildren, as Ian states he has, enjoy reduced site fees and club membership as well as being able to travel freely on buses for no cost despite being able to afford hugely expensive motorhomes and ’vans.

Perhaps there is a debate to be had here, too, instead of trying to penalise dog owners who often feel like they are second-class citizens in many areas of society.

S Knight

Ian Bradshaw raises an interesting question as to whether people with dogs should be charged for each animal in order for parents to pay less for their offspring.

I’m a single camper with a dog and, more often than not, end up paying the same pitch fee as a couple, which doesn’t seem equitable to me since I use half the facilities.

Some campsites charge a nominal fee per dog (usually about £1) and I accept that charge, albeit rather begrudgingly, if I’m also paying the same as a couple.

Perhaps the clubs should consider charging less for children, but that shouldn’t be at the expense of us who don’t camp with children and have canine companions instead. After all, my dog doesn’t take daily showers and he generates far less rubbish than a large family.

Lizzie

Ian Bradshaw’s letter regarding a perceived unfairness of charging for children and not pets did indeed raise an eyebrow for me. I have yet to see a pet use electric for charging its phone or tablet or use WiFi to get on social media, nor have I seen a pet use the hot water in the site shower block or significantly add to the rubbish to the site’s bins. It is to cover these costs the sites charge for children.

Facilities for pets usually amount to a dog walking area and a poo bin, hardly in the same league, in my view.

Similarly to Ian, I’ll clarify

my personal situation to avoid accusations of self interest by stating I have neither children nor pets.

David Williams

Well done, Ian, for raising the issue of the proliferation of dogs on campsites. We have also seen outfits with several dogs (our record is five large hounds) and agree with his suggestion that both clubs need to address the imbalance in charging for children and not for dogs.

Clubs need to recognise the investments made for both children and dogs and ensure that at least some of these costs are recovered so that those of us with neither children nor dogs are not effectively being surcharged for facilities we do not use.

It would seem right, as Ian suggests, to reduce the fees for children to encourage more families to enjoy the benefits of the outdoor life while then making a daily charge for each dog brought in recognition of the facilities provided at every site.

Check-in procedures would then allow wardens to remind dog owners to abide by the club rules, which, sadly, are often not observed to the discomfort of all.

Richard & Debbie Houston

Thanks to Ian and, yes, it’s a good idea to charge for dogs on sites. Could we have more sites designated ‘no dog’? Regrettably, twice this season, we have had dog poo on our pitch.

Given the financial pressure on families, perhaps more sites could let children go free. We would love to see more children and fewer dogs on sites!

Phil Clarke