Bushwalk Australia

The draft 'recreation zone' plan for Frenchman's Cap is open for comment from 14th April.

http://parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=48009 - Frenchmans draft plan from Parks website

Even implemented by the park service, to my eyes, this growing sprawl is a disgrace.! If this is considered eco-tourism, what would such a development look like that was not

And building an army of support by proxy with every new visitor, who only see the benefit's of comfort, ie. not a lot further than the nose on their face.
And an army of casual employees, considering themselves doin' good, feelin' green.. why not work an inner city hotel, some nice eco-pics on the wall




If the sprawl of huts, outbuildings tanks and treatment/operational facilities is necessary, they necessarily have no place in wilderness

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/we ... s-paradox/

Looks like us taxpayers are now 50% funding the Southcoast private huts! They are 'grants' but I am not sure if they are ever paid back!

https://www.business.gov.au/assistance/ ... recipients

Disgusting!

They haven't rated much of a mention, but, just so we are all aware, there is actually an existing guided walk industry on this track and has been for several decades.

Another angle on this is the slow burn-off of these companies in favour of these new proposals. I can guarantee if any government had injected anything like that sort of funding into the existing industry (ie. on support, on the track and on public facilities) their return would have been comparable. And most importantly for WHA, the impact minimal.

On some tracks there would be an initial boost to the camp based tours from such a proposal, on this track the proposal shortens the itinerary to a point where I doubt there will be any net benefit.

And as we see, when these greedy characters get their windfall, and without mentioning the less obvious day-to-day influence they are afforded over and to keep down their camping opposition, they then continue the grant-mining to attempt to take that remaining business as well, such as this on The Overland Track:



Or such as that same company's spread to Frenchman's or WoJ and everything that implies for remaining scramble to support a growing number* of slowly failing business elsewhere and at the ultimate expense to public places for those prepared to camp (and a continual lobbying to keep public facilities minimal).

Of course, the alternative will be for these pioneering companies to spread to tracks, and routes that currently get very little commercial tourism. And it doesn't take a lot of imagination to expect just who will then follow.

* 'Growing' as, at the other end of this 're-imagining', this government has seen fit to allow open slather new small business entrants concessions to try their luck.

Code: Select all

It provides a new opportunity for people to walk in this remarkable wilderness in safety...

So they can guarantee no really bad weather, eh?

With the added pressure of no spare days and no carried tents= hogwash... of course with private charter evac, troublesome news headlines can be minimised, profits can be safeguarded.

tastrax wrote: They are 'grants' but I am not sure if they are ever paid back!

It would depend under which funding program it sits under. The way the model of grants are moving at the commonwealth level, it might never be intended to have this grant payed back.

Can not fathom...is there actually anything we can do?? Blahhhh!! Feeling pretty frustrated & useless...

weetbix456 wrote:Can not fathom...is there actually anything we can do?? Blahhhh!! Feeling pretty frustrated & useless...

We keep protesting.
Marches, petitions, letters to MPs and MLCs and all the rest. Join one of the groups working against this crap. Donate time if you can, money if you can.

It may not be possible to stop it, but if we don't try there's no chance at all.

Grants are exactly that - no repayment needed but if tied to specific outcomes that are not delivered then repayment of unspent portion would be normal. If repayment is part of the deal then it would be described as a loan.

The list of complete arsehats getting huge dollars in that grant process is sickening, from those commercialising our wilderness to others that are simply cutting it down. I feel ill.

Announcement of taxpayer funded private development for SC track
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-04/federal-funding-for-private-huts-in-tasmania-wilderness-area/9724798

gayet wrote:Announcement of taxpayer funded private development for SC track
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-04/federal-funding-for-private-huts-in-tasmania-wilderness-area/9724798

Unsurprisingly Mr Johnstone won't talk on the record to the media(no doubt under advisement of govt).....I guarantee you the $20m of funding Hodgman announced for a "new walking track experience" in the last election campaign will go to further works on the SCT to make sure the well heeled, high paying clients of Mr Johnstone keep their feet dry. And meanwhile the NW Coast gets no Trans-Tarkine-Track.

Can't be too long at all now before the S.W. Cape circuit pops up on the 'development' radar.
That'll be a *&%$#! sad day.

"The new guided walk will raise the profile of the Huon Valley and Far South areas as a tourism destination and bring lasting benefits with increased visitation, new accommodation and cafes, new tourism and transport operations, the same way the Overland Track, Three Capes Track and Derby mountain biking have done for their regional communities."

I call BS on this! This proposal is entirely private, and will only bring in punters who have the $$$. It is highly unlikely that money would be spent in the region, as the basic itinerary would be: Fly to Hobart (maybe stay a night), fly to Melaleuca, 6 days of walking, then bus back to Hobart and fly home. I doubt the tour operators will be doing detours to small towns in the Huon Valley where "lasting benefits" will be seen. I wonder how many tourist dollars are being spent in the Tasman region from Three Capes walkers? I would guess that it is not that much, but happy to be proven wrong.

Throwing up examples such as Derby are not relevant as it is not entirely privatised. Because the general public have access to the facilities, the flow on effects to the community are positive. Not the case with the SCT proposal.

Yes its very different to Derby and even the Maydena mtb development... but it sounds good and that's all the tas gov cares about in their announcement.

The closest example is the Cradle Huts. I wonder how the punters who struggle on the Overland will go on the Ironbound etc. Perhaps the recue helicopter will get a few more callouts each year.

potato wrote:The closest example is the Cradle Huts. I wonder how the punters who struggle on the Overland will go on the Ironbound etc. Perhaps the recue helicopter will get a few more callouts each year.

This. The SCT is a big step up from the other guided walk locations in Tassie. I can't see many glamping punters being real keen on stripping down to ford Faraway Creek, Louisa River and South Cape Rivulet. Or hanging for a day in their hut waiting for the conditions on the Ironbounds to improve.

Any idea where to direct letters of opposition?? I agree SBS - how a trans-Tarkine track hasn't been placed on the cards over this $$$ funding into privatisation boggles my mind..plus, there are already operators running trips along the SCT!! This is going to cut them out completely. So so harshly unfair - as they haven't even had a mention! I feel the camping experience in general is part of our bushwalking heritage values. And completely agree with potato..SCT days are HUGE & constantly challenging in comparison to OLT..yep I'd be expecting bridges to start popping up on the ideas list next idiots.

252,000 people visited Dove Lake last year, and were likely accommodated locally, 'regionally'. Less commercial walking groups stay up there than ever before! I'm not aware of the private huts group ever staying there. I think it's safe to suggest using this example of the model as a driver for regional growth is also Hogwash. Do they buy a pie?

And..so it follows, this is the crowd proponents would have diverted to a Tarkine NP and trail.
ie. A vast majority needing little more than road based infrastructure yeah?
New tracks will hardly increase any notable support base, very likely pave the way for ingress of development and greed...as we have seen??!

And, goodness me, among our 'Greenies': Bob backs the Tarkine Trail, The Greens think the Lk Geeves proposal is ok.. just the other day i hear Richard Flanagan throwing up the notion of grand tracks off the back of Wello. Is there some tricky, desperate political maneuvering or is the support as cute/populist/capitulating/nutty and ill-considered as it seems?

Nuts wrote:And, goodness me, among our 'Greenies': Bob backs the Tarkine Trail, The Greens think the Lk Geeves proposal is ok.. just the other day i hear Richard Flanagan throwing up the notion of grand tracks off the back of Wello. Is there some tricky, desperate political maneuvering or is the support as cute/populist/capitulating/nutty and ill-considered as it seems?

We need some sort of base for our economy. Tourism is a good way to go - but you need a certain amount of infrastructure even for real eco-tourism (and not the 'green boot' blitz Hodgman et al are trying to push.) That means more tracks - and yes, we do mean just tracks - to spread the load.
It is possible to set limits on these things. As Flanagan said - 'on our terms'. Let the tourists come. Give them something to do. Give them limited access with the minimum needed to minimise damage.

Nuts wrote:
The Greens think the Lk Geeves proposal is ok

Where did you hear this quote?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-29/e ... al/7555172

NNW I disagree. Or should I say agree/agree/disagree... And I could listen to some of these people all day but surely..(!) by now it's becoming obvious just how little these tracks (can reasonably) contribute relative to the other existing or potential tourism economy. 'On our terms' is a nice sentiment but is in opposition to the government we are having, or will likely have. It should be recognised that any new tracks will be in addition to squeezing every drop out of 'the big five' and the spread they encourage. There's no reason to expect new tracks wont also be exploited at the next opportunity. There's so many good 'environmentally sensitive' alternatives, they just don't seem good enough when there's somewhere not tracked through or then un-built

OK Nuts, what are these other 'environmentally sensitive' options you insist exist?

Which one in particular NNW? I'm not the most qualified to pin down many specific alternates (other than question the status quo by broad, learned concepts).

A conservationist view must surely be to make activities fit with, rather than add too, existing impact? This may restrict the use of some parks to car traffic and short walks, bike tracks on closed roads, waterway trails etc. Lot's of potential for inclusions that don't involve hardening (or softening) and damaging more remote, and more fragile, and more wilderness. Opposition to recreational creep should be a foundation for green groups and the greens (ie. not needing a changed position), yet opposition that exists is clearly politically altered.

From nearly 30 yrs around bushwalking tourists, personally I don't accept this increasing necessity for collateral damage on their behalf. I love introducing new people to the bush but don't hold any great faith in the added value of community support for wilderness, in the scope added by remote walking tracks ( or the type resulting from private huts in particular). I'm no economist but can't see, and haven't seen quantified, any outstanding or relative economic benefit from these, very likely, less than 5% of park visitors?

PS Oh, then there was The West Coast Tourism Authority's Cradle to Queenstown Trail and the state governemnt's pre-election ''mystery' track, somewhere.. anywhere.. how many more?

anyway... It is a good question NNW. It's a shame there wasn't one cohesive place where everyone could be involved in an answer, and pollies held to account 'on Our terms"; I doubt anything will relegate bushwalking tourism to something left to grow organically but: What environmentally sensitive alternatives are available that would fulfill the same objectives? (as new tracks to remote places or over-developing existing tracks).. What exactly are 'Our' terms?

Even worse to consider is that elections are not free, or rigged. Then it's just their agenda at the expense of sound public infrastructure, with money flowing to absolute sustainable and ecologically sound practice but accessible to all walkers not just $$$ people.

For those interested....

https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/helicop ... fbeventtix

Knowing the EDO it'll be worth attending.

Freewalker68 wrote:Even worse to consider is that elections are not free, or rigged. Then it's just their agenda at the expense of sound public infrastructure, with money flowing to absolute sustainable and ecologically sound practice but accessible to all walkers not just $$$ people.

Let's call it a shining ideal caught in a dismal situation. Is there any hope for these few wild places unless they can somehow be protected above political influence.. unscrupulous developers (or the soft green resistance assistance)..