If you’ve camped anywhere popular over Christmas or Easter, you’ve probably felt it. That low-level tension when you roll into a spot expecting a chance at a riverbank camp, only to find the whole frontage blocked out. Not tents. Not campfires. Just caravans parked nose-to-tail, nobody around.
That’s exactly what sparked the latest debate along the Murray River at Davis Beach near Tocumwal. Footage doing the rounds shows a row of unattended caravans sitting in absolute A-grade positions, with travellers questioning whether those sites were actually being used, or simply held for later.
This isn’t about whether people are allowed to camp for long periods. It’s about what camping means. Traditionally, camping has implied presence, you’re there, you’re set up, you’re part of the shared environment. Once a campsite becomes something you can reserve by parking a van weeks early and leaving it empty, the whole dynamic shifts.
So the real question isn’t “is it legal?”. It’s whether this is how public camping was ever meant to work.
What the rules say, and what they don’t
On paper, this one isn’t black and white. Parks Victoria allows extended stays along parts of the Murray, with a maximum camping period of up to six weeks. That’s generous by Australian standards and reflects how heavily these areas are used during peak seasons.
But rules written for extended stays weren’t designed with unattended camps in mind. They assume someone is actually living there, not just storing a caravan as a placeholder. That’s where the spirit of the rules starts to clash with how they’re being used.
At the same time, Goulburn-Murray Water has made it clear that reserving public foreshore for exclusive use isn’t permitted. That applies to gazebos, pontoons, structures, and arguably anything left behind to prevent others accessing shared space.
The result is a grey zone. One authority says extended camping is allowed. Another says reserving space isn’t. Campers are left guessing, and frustration fills the gap where clarity should be.
Courtesy vs entitlement on the riverbank
This is where the conversation gets uncomfortable, because most of us know the difference between legal and reasonable. Parking a van early and staying put is one thing. Parking it early, leaving for days or weeks, and expecting the spot to remain untouched is another.
Free camping has always relied on a shared understanding. Take your turn, don’t overstay your welcome, and don’t lock others out. Once entitlement creeps in, that unwritten agreement starts to crumble.
For families travelling full-time, day trippers just wanting a swim, or 4X4ers chasing a night or two by the river, empty caravans blocking access don’t feel like camping, they feel like exclusion. And when enough people feel excluded, the pressure builds for enforcement, bookings, fees, and fences.
We’ve seen this pattern before. Popular spots don’t get shut down because of numbers alone. They get regulated because behaviour forces management’s hand. That’s the part worth paying attention to.
Where do we draw the line?
Nobody wants more rules. Nobody wants rangers policing camps like a caravan park. But doing nothing isn’t neutral either, it quietly shifts public land toward whoever dumps their caravan there early, whether they’re present or not.
So maybe the better question is this: should a campsite only count as “in use” if someone is actually using it?
That doesn’t mean banning long stays. It doesn’t mean rushing people through. It simply means recognising that public space works best when access stays fluid and shared, especially during peak periods.
If we want free camping to survive in places like the Murray, the solution probably isn’t tighter legislation, it’s better behaviour before someone else steps in to enforce it for us.
So what do you reckon?
Is leaving a caravan unattended fair enough?
Or has that crossed a line that puts public camping at risk long-term?
