Posted on 12/01/2018 23:46
If you could, what five changes would you make to the clubs rules, procedures, systems etc.
Mine would be
1) book 12 months ahead on a rolling basis
2) be able to book late checkout
3) pitch anyway on your pitch, nose in, sideways etc
4) never have all toilet blocks closed at same time for cleaning
5) more full service pitches
no moaning about rules are rules, you signed up etc, I just wondered if there were any common
threads.
Posted on 21/01/2018 10:18 byMoulsey I am disappointied you should have selectively quoted me and cut it short of the point where I commented on the position being reversed on CAMC sites.
This might not be a recognizable scenario to those whose experience is restricted to CAMC sites where it is the other way round but it is the case everywhere else.
Posted on 21/01/2018 10:49
Apologies - I didn't read the last sentence of your post accurately David.
But I would still dispute this notion that club sites are overrun with dogs - there were certainly more at Ross Park last year than on any club site we stayed on.
1 person likes this
Posted on 21/01/2018 10:07 by eurortravellerAbout 30 independent campsites here in Cornwall alone are now saying no dogs at all. Some of them very highly regarded sites like Padstow Holiday Park, St Ives Bay, and Pentewan Sands - and it doesn't seem to harming their attendance figures. Other very popular sites like Polmanter have a one dog limit. Are things going that way in other counties?
Posted on 21/01/2018 10:58
But Padstow Touring Park, in a great spot for Padstow (walking distance) does take dogs for a small fee. 
And so does the Ayr Caravan Site, in St Ives.
Not getting into a dog discussion are we, hope not?! Most sites take dogs.
1 person likes this
Posted on 21/01/2018 10:58 by brueBut Padstow Touring Park, in a great spot for Padstow (walking distance) does take dogs for a small fee.
Not getting into a dog discussion are we, hope not?! Most sites take dogs.
Posted on 21/01/2018 11:58
The CMC is a dog friendly organisation and long may it remain so. It puts no charge on caravanners if they want to bring their family pet to the campsite.----However to stop camp sites being overrun by canines, it is important that they set an upper limit for the No Charge concession. Therefore the concession on the first dog, with subsequent dogs being charged for, makes perfect sense. A win win situation all round. Will suit those who don't have dogs and those who bring their dog with them. ---Dog pack owners, on the other hand, volunteer to bring extra dogs, and as such, will have no objection to paying the CMC a per night charge for any dogs exceeding the one for free. -- If not, what's to stop a caravanning Huntsman turning up with a hunting pack of hounds.
K 
1 person likes this
Posted on 21/01/2018 12:18
where the words good practice were used in my world it always alluded to something, some practice, that had either addressed a problem; or had been implemented and had had a measurable effect.
In either event there had to be a known problem, concern, issue... and more importantly it was given the title good practice only when there was a measured improvement.
So to those asking for limit or charge per dogs and claiming this is good practice can I ask:
a) what problems, issues, concerns are there on club sites (as per the OP) with the number of dogs that need addressing?
btw I don't have a dog but with 19 years of going to club sites I have never seen any problems with number of dogs, and wouldn't care if the outfit next to me has any or ten.
2 people like this
Posted on 21/01/2018 12:19
Could someone please define "pack" for me? I have a strong suspicion that I might in the past have travelled with a "pack". Although, no one has ever complained, or had cause to complain to my knowledge. We are a very well behaved, rule following outfit on the whole.
1 person likes this
Posted on 21/01/2018 09:40 byIt is good practice in my opinion and that is based upon long and extensive experience of using sites, the majority of which charge and usually limit numbers. It discourages travel with small packs and strikes a fair balance between the minority who travel with dogs and the majority who dont. This might not be a recognizable scenario to those whose experience is restricted to CAMC sites where it is the other way round but it is the case everywhere else.
Posted on 21/01/2018 12:22
hang on dave, a bit selective there? long and extensive experience of using sites, the majority of which charge and usually limit numbers
Didn't you say that you use club sites very rarely now? So I assume your sentence refers to over there?
A question:
a) what problems have you experienced on club sites with number of dogs, recently? last three years shall we say?
No point asking what problems you have had over there if there are not replicated on club sites?
Posted on 21/01/2018 12:19 by TakethedogalongCould someone please define "pack" for me? I have a strong suspicion that I might in the past have travelled with a "pack". Although, no one has ever complained, or had cause to complain to my knowledge. We are a very well behaved, rule following outfit on the whole.
Posted on 21/01/2018 12:44
the issue now is that this 'ideas' thread is moving rapidly into 'dark' territory, and if folk were to answer CS' question, this would fire even more dog debate....is this the right thread?
arent any upthread 'dog' comments just posted in line with a list of wished for 'changes'...
whether folk have seen how their changes might work elsewhere is (literally) neither here nor there....its sparked an idea..
this could apply just as appropriately to poorly designed MHSPs as it does to dogs.
the thing is....'dogs' is a far more volatile subject than MHSPs and will draw (perhaps) the 'wrong' comments from either side...
i could answer Corners' question myself, but it wont help the thread.
onepjg
Motorhomer