For Sale - Pristine Tasmanian Wilderness

[Nuts]

But its a win for 'culture'? Or is 'culture' now a scapegoat? Confusing!

[vicrev]

And where do the traditional owners fit into the picture,or do they ??? ......

[vicrev]

The silence is.....deafening.....

[Mechanic-AL]

Yep.
even from the traditional owners.......

[Nuts]

Divided? Disengaged? I'm not certain vicrev, here we have representatives showing concern for their role as well as for the wider context of a weakened set of intrinsic wilderness values. Yet the draft management plan would have us believe that changes have support from traditional owners, iirc that part of the reasoning was a re-positioning of support with greater emphasis on cultural values?

(as it would appear to a non-traditional owner).

[vicrev]

The cultural values have never changed....somewhat confused by "a re-positioning of support with greater emphasis on cultural values "...is that Tas Gov spiel, or from elsewhere ? ....

[Nuts]

I didn't say cultural values have changed vicrev?
Re-allocating wilderness zoning with a cultural emphasis was the theme of (excuse for?) new directions in the recent management plan review.
Have you followed this process?

[vicrev]

Nuts,I did not say you said the cultural values have changed.......I said cultural values never change & stand by that...& which recent management plan is this?...is it in consultation with the Elders ?....have I followed the "process" ?.....which one,this time ?........

[Nuts]

Yeah, ok, I considered that to be a stand alone comment, fair enough. Tedious communicating here sometimes.

The recent new TWWH management plan. The draft, submissions, discussion of objections, the planning 'process'. There is a copy of the executive summary on here (and it's implications are behind this and similar topics).

Some of the broad concerns were outlined in TWS Submission Guide at the time:

Submission Guide-TWWHA-small.pdf

(249.57 KiB) Downloaded 861 times

[gayet]

An announcement re approvals granted

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-11/t ... ks/6537784

At least these don't seem too invasive at first glance

[north-north-west]

First two don't sound too bad. But I don't see why the tree-top challenge has to be in the NP. Any suitable forest location would do - although they'd have to keep that bit of forest safe from logging . . .

[Nuts]

I'm hesitant to mention any particular project, in our little state, doing so in any negative light will only get harder as new companies and precedents become established..

To me, It's encouraging to see that some have already fallen through, i'd like to think that the green tape has been made excessively onerous by the conservationists in the park service. Without any quantitative analysis, the announcement of any jobs being 'new', by reference intimating something positive for state coffers (and the point of such concessions), is a furphy.

[Nuts]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-05/v ... es/6916910

"Sensible Appropriate Development"..

[north-north-west]

Yes. An appropriate acronym.

What does it take to get through to these *&^%$#@! that 'development' and 'wilderness' don't go together?

[Mechanic-AL]

The words 'private' and 'World Heritage Area' don't belong in the same sentence together.
Unless it is to declare that there should NEVER be any private enterprises in World Heritage Areas.

[vicrev]

Not only so called World Heritage areas..........

[vicrev]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-05/visit-tasmanian-wilderness-while-you-can-lonely-planet-urges/6916910

"Sensible Appropriate Development"..

Just read this , thanks Nuts..............Do not agree with Sensible Appropriate Development , bit like saying I''m just a little bit pregnant?..........development is exactly what it says & where mega buck investment is concerned,the investment overrides all other factors,environment included.........I was up to Green Island last year & it is an absolute disgrace, bleached,broken coral , boats still operating full bore as if it is still pristine reef ,( the tour operators blamed the situation on abnormal, cyclonic conditions,what a load of crap,the reef has had seasonal cyclonic conditions since Adam was a pup!) as far as I am concerned it is a environmental disaster,It's like how many more dollars can we squeeze out of these stupid tourists........all I'm saying is be very,very careful Tassie,you might just lose the reason people go down there.....

[flyfisher]

float plane landings in previously
off-limits wilderness areas such as Lake
Judd, Lake Petrarch, New River Lagoon,
Prion Beach, Port Davey, the Frankland
Range, Travellers Rest Lagoon, Lake
Olive, Lake Rotuli, Lake Ina and the
Walls of Jerusalem.

We went through this crap a few years ago, and now we have to fight it again. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
These special places would just be ruined by planes and helicopters for a few dollars. Sold for 40 pieces of silver.

FF

[vicrev]

Follow the money trail flyfisher,the end, as always, would be a shocker....

[scrub boy]

Personally I think the debate should be a little more nuanced than 'no private interests' EVER in the WHA or that it is all about a money trail to greed. I'm sure many people on this forum have enjoyed the access to Melaleuca and the walks beyond courtesy of the services offered by the privately owned Par Avion, I have met many people who have enjoyed our wild areas through guided walks and tours provided by private businesses in the WHA who otherwise would not have been able to do so themselves. As always it is about balance and that is where the debate should be. If you want to make lots of money, investing in tourism in the WHA would be well down the list, you need to be committed that's for sure because I suspect it is not easy. By the by, float plane landings can and have occurred currently in Port Davey, even places such as Lake Petrarch are currently potentially permissible sites under current arrangements. That some of these haven't been taken up can probably be put down to cost, public opposition and lack of support from government. If aircraft access is to be allowed the irony is that it is probably better in really remote areas away from tracks as the likelihood of anyone being there is very low. The WHA is a very big place, I can't help but feel that is should be possible to allow for a little more to happen, if its done in a smart way. I would like the opportunity to pitch in with 3 or 4 mates and be able to be dropped in somewhere with our gear to start a remote trip as is possible in many parts of the world. It's not just necessarily about the rich end of town.

[vicrev]

Personally I think the debate should be a little more nuanced than 'no private interests' EVER in the WHA or that it is all about a money trail to greed. I'm sure many people on this forum have enjoyed the access to Melaleuca and the walks beyond courtesy of the services offered by the privately owned Par Avion, I have met many people who have enjoyed our wild areas through guided walks and tours provided by private businesses in the WHA who otherwise would not have been able to do so themselves. As always it is about balance and that is where the debate should be. If you want to make lots of money, investing in tourism in the WHA would be well down the list, you need to be committed that's for sure because I suspect it is not easy. By the by, float plane landings can and have occurred currently in Port Davey, even places such as Lake Petrarch are currently potentially permissible sites under current arrangements. That some of these haven't been taken up can probably be put down to cost, public opposition and lack of support from government. If aircraft access is to be allowed the irony is that it is probably better in really remote areas away from tracks as the likelihood of anyone being there is very low. The WHA is a very big place, I can't help but feel that is should be possible to allow for a little more to happen, if its done in a smart way. I would like the opportunity to pitch in with 3 or 4 mates and be able to be dropped in somewhere with our gear to start a remote trip as is possible in many parts of the world. It's not just necessarily about the rich end of town.

Mmm...........Tassie is unique ,there is nothing like it anywhere in the world ,& it should remain so.....as it is....no compromise....once it 's gone it is forever.......politicians are not environmentalists & never will be ,they have to pander to the current feelings of their voters......you don't think the almighty dollar has much bearing on gov policy?...dream on !!...........you would like the opp to be dropped in with 3-4 mates ,nothing like the droning of a few choppers overhead to spoil a nice peaceful bushwalk for other walkers !....you are also saying to be able to be dropped in like other parts of the world ? ...leave Tassie as it is,that is what makes it unique...!....I would have thought to walk in on designated tracks would be much more environmental friendly ?.......Having re-read this ramble,I could be wrong,maybe people really do want & would welcome the commercial development,it is up to this generation to get involved,get rid of the political spiel & corp.development wish lists......whatever,i probably won't be around to see the end result.

[north-north-west]

I can understand them wanting the occasional float plane at places like Port Davey, but Judd and Petrarch are within a day's walk of good roads and have walking tracks (even if they are a little muddy at times). The only justification is that ridiculous 'not everyone can walk' line, which can be used to support any development, anywhere.
Can't walk to Petrarch? Then you can't walk to Ossa, so lets have a helipad there so you can reach Tassie's highest peak. And one on Oakleigh. And on Eldon Bluff. And High Dome. And Murchison. And Sorell. And what about the Orion Lakes? Or Oberon? Or . . .
There's just no end to it once you start, and there will always be people with money who don't care about the impact they're having, they just want the access and the exclusivity.

It's our responsibility to protect these places. As has been said, once they're gone, that's it, there's no going back.

[scrub boy]

'Ramble'? I thought my post was a reasonably articulate contribution to the debate. I assume anyone who sees no place for private operators in the WHA won't fly into Melaleuca as a matter of principle or use the ferry on Lake St Clair, will not utilise a private operator for a pickup post Franklin trip or indeed enjoy a latte and panini at the Mt Field cafe. No doubt we need to tread very carefully in this space, it seems to be very difficult to undo either a physical structure once in place (think Hydro huts still on the Gordon etc) or indeed a policy position that opens a particular door, but nonetheless I think some things really can be, dare I say, 'sensitive and appropriate'.

[vicrev]

Whoa....I was referring to MY rambling on ,not yours ...

[scrub boy]

Ah, I see. My mistake. Apologies.

[vicrev]

No worries....

[Nuts]

I think you've hit the nail on both heads vicrev. The concern is not so much for what we would collectively view as 'appropriate' but what it means to those using the term On us. Some of the projects are clear evidence that our views and what we expect from wilderness managers differ. While I don't disagree with scrub boy I'm afraid it's not a capped conclusion but yet another set of open ended precedents. History shows it so. Especially for those who see infrastructure as 'appropriate', I really don't see any role in preserving wilderness for these people. The message isn't only for the standing government but those in the park service seemingly all to happy to comply. Moreso.. S.A.D seems to also include many nature lovers, greenwashed into believing their Access is the only counterpoint here of concern. Some of these projects involve the direct and unnecessary Destruction of WHA wilderness.. and that does overstep the line.

[Nuts]

Tasmania's peak tourism industry organisation described the Tasmanian Greens guide to Sustainable Tourism released today as a thinly veiled ideological attack on Tasmania's ecotourism sector.

Tourism Industry Council Tasmania CEO Luke Martin said at the core of the 'guide' was a blanket ban on private infrastructure in Tasmania's national parks and reserves.

"This policy today represents the very darkest green agenda in Tasmania, and is plainly out of touch with the more reasonable Green Parties across Australia and New Zealand who embrace the critical role the private sector plays in the conservation and presentation of protected areas.

"Under the Tasmanian Greens' Guide to Sustainable Tourism, Australian tourism icons including the multiple Australian tourism award-winning Maria Island Walk and Cradle Huts Walk, the extraordinary Pumphouse Point, the celebrated Three Capes Track, and the iconic Freycinet Lodge would never have been permitted.

"These products are synonymous with Tasmania and celebrated throughout the world for their sensitive approach to ecotourism, and in creating sustainable jobs in regional Tasmania.

"Frankly the Greens policy today is an insult to the operators of these businesses and their hard working Tasmanian staff.

Mr Martin said the tourism industry was fed up with the Greens opportunistic attacks on the industry.

"Just last month before the federal election Bob Brown and Peter Whish-Wilson were trumpeting the tourism and economic potential of a Tarkine National Park.

"Today their party has released the most extreme policy statement attacking the very tourism operators who we want to encourage into the Tarkine.

"Under their policy tourism operators would be banned from establishing any kind of private visitor infrastructure within a Tarkine National Park - no huts, no standing camps, no accommodation of any kind; nothing.

"The Greens can't on one hand champion the economic contribution of tourism while attacking our nature tourism operators and investors with the other."

"It's rank hypocrisy of the most galling kind, and I suspect most Tasmanians see this for what it is."

[farefam]

Such a hard topic. No doubt every one of us has benefited from some form of infrastructure or activity in a National Park (a toilet, an access road, a track, a guided activity etc etc). And every one of us had had an impact , no matter how small, even if you're one of the few who try to offset that impact through volunteer conservation work in the parks. What is the appropriate balance? If people can't experience a sustainable taste of the WHA then they'll have less reason to stand up against any foolish attempts to degrade it, or lobby for much needed extra funding to preserve and hopefully extend its boundaries. I'm thinking along the lines of Weindorfers much quoted view about everyone being able to come and appreciate it for all time. Does the proposed trans-Tarkine walk fall into that category? If well planned I'm inclined to think it does.

Quite a few of us would think that sustainable tourism jobs are better than clear felling or quarrying. On the other hand in the Northern Territory there are plans to defile part of the the ancient beauty of Katherine Gorge with a hideous tourist skywalk. Are they going to build a chairlift to the top of Uluru or The Olgas or Jim Jim Falls next? Thankfully most project proposals that are stupid fall over in due course.

After thinking about this for many years I'm inclined to think that activities and infrastructure need to be assessed very carefully on a case by case basis. Visitor infrastructure should be placed as discreetly as possible to minimise its effect on the overall view field and experience. As National Parks are primarily established for nature preservation it's probably better that adventure activities like wirewalks and treetop walks be kept to the margins of the Parks, or in a similar pocket of land adjacent to the Park. I'm certainly not in favour of new developments anywhere in the core wilderness zones of the Tasmanian WHA. In the 21st century we ought to be humble enough to decide to just leave some spots alone for their own well being, instead of placing them at risk just to line our own pockets. After all, Mother Nature has managed perfectly well for millions of years without our input.

The comment about float planes or helicopters being restricted to remote spots sounds pretty valid in terms of minimising impact. Although I remember a couple of Par Avion flights circling around me while I was on the summit of Federation Peak (core wilderness) I don't recall it being bothersome; they were just gone and forgotten in a few minutes. I've never really noticed their planes any time on the South Coast track. Ditto when the sightseeing flights were running across The Reserve.

Perhaps best that the experts at National Parks have the significant say with the rest of us staying vigilant! If you really are in favour of, or against a particular proposal then spare some time to write to the relevant authorities. From personal experience you'd be quite surprised at the power a well thought out and written comment can have on some of the decision makers. But as Olegas Truhanas said, you've got to have realistic ideas and solutions if you want your opinion to be taken seriously.

[north-north-west]

Infrastructure is one thing.
Private infrastructure is something else. It turns a part of what is public property into de facto private property. Not. In. Our. Parks!