Mudgee, some of your comments suggest that you have a view that almost everyone does exactly the right thing. From a person who lives in a high tourist area, this is simply not the case.
"Not rubbish the place etc!" Yes, I suppose this was the case in medieval England. Things are a little different now. It seems that many like to leave rubbish around on public and private land.
"If you don't like public..... move way out of town, don't come to town!" That is often the exact reason why people buy their own little piece of paradise - yet the public still arrive and want use of that paradise.
"Suburbia.... we all have to put up with people living 10m away from us !" That is the choice of people that live there.
"But some think money buys exemption!" Um, shouldn't it? Isn't that the reason we can buy or lease things? If I lease a building in the middle of Bendigo, doesn't that mean that I should have sole access to it? If there is a tap in that building does that mean anyone should be allowed access to re-fill their water bottle? I know this is an extreme example but buying or leasing something does provide exemptions - otherwise everybody would be allowed to go absolutely anywhere.
"You should never been allowed to lease it in the first place PERIOD!" That may be the case but let's look at the alternate scenario. There are many, many kilometres of stream side in my area (N.E Vic) that are on crown land that have no leases and are 'maintained' by the relevant land manager. Any guesses as to what vegetation covers 95% of that stream side? Blackberries, blackberries and more blackberries. Can you camp there? No, too many blackberries. Can you fish there? No, too many blackberries. Are these areas actually looked after by the 'land manager'? No.
However, I will use a relatives area as an example. He does have a riverside property with about 500 metres of excellent river frontage. But it was always excellent. When he purchased this property 40 years ago it was covered thick in blackberries. He hacked a path with a machete just so they could reach the river for a swim. And then, over many years he slowly cleaned the entire length of the river up. He planted natives, he repaired banks after floods, he fenced off stock from the river, native grasses have appeared that haven't been seen for decades - all the while he payed for the access to this piece of land that gave him no monetary gain. It gave him thousands of hours of work and thousands of dollars in costs. It also gave his family a place they could enjoy without 'Joe Public', a place for friends and many, many visitors that he consented to being there a place to camp and fish. People he trusted to not leave rubbish, to not leave gates open, to not bother his stock or machinery that were on his freehold. Over the time he has let a few unknowns on (he is a very generous person) and some did the right thing and others did not. When the latter asked for access again they got a simple "No".
Now isn't that a system that works? Or should he spend those thousands of dollars and hours for no financial gain so that every single person, good or bad, can use that area to camp with as many people as they want for as long as they want? Surely he can't be expected to pay the lease fees AND wear the cost of maintaining the area if it is going to be open slather and he has absolutely no say in the matter at all?
But you know what the alternative is? Without that lease and without that maintenance it will revert (within a few short years) to that completely unaccessible, completely unusable stretch of river that no-one ever went to. Honestly, I have travelled much of Australia and this spot is an absolute gem...but it didn't get that way by a fluke of nature.
"on land YOU DO NOT OWN!" Lease holders know they don't own the land. Isn't it great that they do all of this work even though they don't own it? And all of the work they do is currently able to be utilised by those that are prepared to walk along the river point from a public access point, canoe or boat down the river, they can stop off with a picnic basket, fish, birdwatch - whatever. They just can't camp without permission.
"Your a nutter!" People have varying views and they come to these views for many reasons. Some can see both sides of the story, some would like a little from column A and a little from column B and some have views that do not take into account the needs, costs or work that others may have so that they can gain what they want from the situation. Resorting to name calling is generally a good sign that the arguments one is making are not standing up to scrutiny.
JD3 - "some rule or legality that allowed access to X amount of "chains" along rivers and creeks in Victoria". Yep, you are spot on. The public are allowed to walk along something like a 20 metre wide strip of land from the river bank to fish, etc as long as they access from a public access point (bridge, reserve, park, etc). They can also only walk along leasehold frontage. There are some (but very few) freehold sections of river frontage.
Cheers, N.E.