pazzar wrote:I'm all for making our NP's more accessible to all, but a line has to be drawn.
pazzar wrote:Perhaps we enhance the nodes that we already have? Lake St Clair has so much more potential. Cockle Creek could be much more than it is. We don't need to be focusing on the more remote areas in order to increase tourism in our NP's.
GPSGuided wrote:pazzar wrote:Perhaps we enhance the nodes that we already have? Lake St Clair has so much more potential. Cockle Creek could be much more than it is. We don't need to be focusing on the more remote areas in order to increase tourism in our NP's.
So you are in fact suggesting continued restriction rather than increased access as purported. Nothing wrong with that view of course.
pazzar wrote:But is development of existing infrastructure really restriction? It is only restriction if the services from those nodes don't increase.
pazzar wrote:So accommodation nodes along the SCT would mean that the track needs an upgrade. Who is going to pay for this? The PWS certainly aren't in a position to do this after the Three Capes Track. Will we be seeing track fees to walk the SCT? Expensive trip once you include flights in to Melaleuca.
I'm all for making our NP's more accessible to all, but a line has to be drawn.
GPSGuided wrote:Mixed feeling on it. So much depends on the detail in the planning and execution. Hard to be categorical.
GPSGuided wrote:To me, the real way to conserve is just to stay out.
headwerkn wrote:Very true. No one wants a 300-room hotel complex dropped in the middle of the WHA - and I doubt any developer would be that naïve/stupid to even contemplate it, let alone try to make it happen.
But a handful of appropriate huts or glamping-type platform tents well hidden and located off the main track, with limited/managed visitor numbers and fly-out waste management sounds doable; something more accessible for those not able to hump out a multi-day hike, yet not spoil the area for those who can...
GPSGuided wrote:I sense of the current debate is fundamentally one that relates to open or close that first door to development. The position statements made on either side is just this and all the talk on "access" and "jobs" are just window dressing. The gap b/n the two camps is pretty wide and it's no surprise it could lead to a bunfight.
pazzar wrote:Perhaps we enhance the nodes that we already have? Lake St Clair has so much more potential. Cockle Creek could be much more than it is. We don't need to be focusing on the more remote areas in order to increase tourism in our NP's.
headwerkn wrote:GPSGuided wrote:To me, the real way to conserve is just to stay out.
To me, the real way to conserve something is to make people truly appreciate it... and to do that, people need to experience it first hand.
Lock people out and you take away many people's reason to give a damn.
DanShell wrote:headwerkn wrote:GPSGuided wrote:To me, the real way to conserve is just to stay out.
To me, the real way to conserve something is to make people truly appreciate it... and to do that, people need to experience it first hand.
Lock people out and you take away many people's reason to give a damn.
I agree with this statement 100%.
north-north-west wrote:Some things cannot be experienced first hand by any more than a very small number of people before they are damaged.
north-north-west wrote:But it can't be done. Some things are simply physically impossible. No amount of ingenuity can get masses of people - especially those without reasonable experience and preparation - through the Western Arthurs, for instance, without irreversible damage.
Sometimes we have to accept that.
jdh573 wrote:The fact that we are discussing this issue means that any thought of preserving wilderness is lost. We dont need tourism (or as they say in NSW "multi-use" of National Parks or Heritage areas where even mining is contemplated), there is plenty of other land (at market prices) for all this development. Such elite developments are not part of any democracy but for those with money. Besides which as the population grows there will be more and more clamour from more and more people as they all want to see the beauty of our fast disappearing wilderness.
Mechanic-AL wrote:If the long term interests of the state are really what the men in suits are trying to look after then they would have found some way to farm these timbers under ideal conditions so that they continue to be available without destroying large tracts of wilderness.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests