Parks V Tourism

Tasmania specific bushwalking discussion.
Forum rules
Tasmania specific bushwalking discussion. Please avoid publishing details of access to sensitive areas with no tracks.

Parks V Tourism

Postby Nuts » Tue 04 Jul, 2017 1:02 pm

Park Service Advertising
A few short years ago, on a level playing field, tourism business within parks was driven by quality. And the owners of these businesses could provide and back their 'product' with, at least, the assurance that our park service had some focus on a 'fair and equitable' partnership.

With constraints such as who was and how many were capable of participating in remote activities, restrictions on advertising remote routes, restrictions on constructing exclusive accommodation, it's true, a park concession was always more a lifestyle choice than a way to make lots of money.

Now, in a similar vein to business generally, and without the constraints of a separate tourism authority, we allow our parks to be subject to facilitate choices based solely on money. There are all sorts of examples of grubby interactions and reasons why this wont end well. Even the fact that there is an 'end' is in doubt. Nobody is particularly or personally responsible for what our parks will look like beyond their tenure, term or 'career'.

This PDF (below) isn't the sort of thing i'd usually share, or hadn't often as the usual avenues to express concern at least got a reasonable response. Now they are areas of concern for directives which are included in parks job description, so hardly an impartial agency (even if individuals within the service themselves do show great concern). Hopefully the fact of doing so is appreciated as of no personal advantage without the need to justify further (and i'll admit may be of limited interest). At least we should go into this with eyes open.

Park service now spruiking for 'select' advertisers:

PWS Advertising Prospectus.pdf
(1018.3 KiB) Downloaded 237 times
Last edited by Nuts on Thu 06 Jul, 2017 11:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
"The guides are all complaining there's mobile reception and hot showers," Godfrey laughs.
Nuts
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 7963
Joined: Sat 05 Apr, 2008 12:22 pm
Region: Tasmania

Re: Parks V Tourism (Part 1- Parks Advertising)

Postby slparker » Wed 05 Jul, 2017 8:36 am

I thought it was April the 1st for a minute.

McDonalds Narawntapu national park, anyone?
slparker
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1083
Joined: Fri 25 Apr, 2008 10:59 pm

Re: Parks V Tourism (Part 1- Parks Advertising)

Postby potato » Wed 05 Jul, 2017 11:56 am

Thanks for posting that, I didn't realise they have gone that far.
potato
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu 28 Jan, 2016 1:06 pm
Region: Australian Capital Territory
Gender: Male

Re: Parks V Tourism (Part 1- Parks Advertising)

Postby north-north-west » Wed 05 Jul, 2017 12:00 pm

It's just so bizarre that I now look back at my time with TasPAWS as being the Golden Age. This neo-con idea of everything being reduced to its monetary value and being exploited to the utmost is absolutely gut-churning.
%$#*&%$ the lot of them.
"Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens."
User avatar
north-north-west
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 11128
Joined: Thu 14 May, 2009 7:36 pm
Location: The Asylum
ASSOCIATED ORGANISATIONS: Social Misfits Anonymous
Region: Tasmania

Re: Parks V Tourism (Part 1- Parks Advertising)

Postby Turfa » Wed 05 Jul, 2017 12:23 pm

Not sure I see the problem here... they are selling ad space in a printed booklet. Seems like a reasonable thing to do.
User avatar
Turfa
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon 18 Jan, 2010 2:06 pm
Region: Australia

Re: Parks V Tourism (Part 1- Parks Advertising)

Postby whynotwalk » Wed 05 Jul, 2017 12:39 pm

This isn't "new" Nuts. The "Visitor Guide" booklet for "Tasmania's National Parks and Reserves" has had advertisements in it for many years. The advertising prospectus you've posted is sent out to a wide variety of businesses that are in, near or related to parks and reserves. These range from transport to accommodation to activity-based businesses. Businesses choose whether or not to be involved.

There are probably three motivations for these paid adverts. One is financial: the adverts help subsidise the considerable cost of PWS printing 100 000 of these booklets. The second is informational: park visitors often want to know about things like cafes, transport, accommodation and adventure options. The third motivation is about partnership: it's a way of showing that parks and businesses don't have to be on opposing sides. In fact a well run business, that is attuned to PWS values, can sometimes enhance conservation.

While some of these motivations may not be palatable to all, they're not inherently bad. Rather than rage against a few advertisements, I would save my wrath for proposed developments within our parks that genuinely threaten their values. But this prospectus? I don't see it as some kind of "thin end of the wedge".

cheers

Peter
Solvitur ambulando (Walking solves it) - attributed to St Augustine, 4th century AD.
User avatar
whynotwalk
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue 24 Jun, 2008 12:57 pm
Location: Cascades
Region: Tasmania
Gender: Male

Re: Parks V Tourism (Part 1- Parks Advertising)

Postby Nuts » Wed 05 Jul, 2017 3:48 pm

This one is an amalgamation of the Visitor Guide to Tasmania’s National Parks and Reserves with the 60 Great Short Walks booklet into one new visitor guide Peter. I understand that advertising has been available previously for these individual publications.


I do have more to add, and don't see any ingress into park values (and therefore park service activities) standing alone, but, for now:

Were these advertiser examples, in the prospectus, from those previous publications (anyone who may have a copy)?
I didn't see the last hard-copy iteration of these guides. The PDF versions had very little advertising.
"The guides are all complaining there's mobile reception and hot showers," Godfrey laughs.
Nuts
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 7963
Joined: Sat 05 Apr, 2008 12:22 pm
Region: Tasmania

Re: Parks V Tourism (Part 1- Parks Advertising)

Postby whynotwalk » Wed 05 Jul, 2017 5:58 pm

I'm not sure Nuts. The latest Visitor Guide I have is dated 2014. But I suspect these are "sample" adverts, as not all details are up-to-date.

And the 60 Great Short Walks brochure has not previously had advertisements. As this will be a much larger, general booklet, I reckon they're aiming to defray the costs as much as possible.

cheers

Peter
Solvitur ambulando (Walking solves it) - attributed to St Augustine, 4th century AD.
User avatar
whynotwalk
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue 24 Jun, 2008 12:57 pm
Location: Cascades
Region: Tasmania
Gender: Male

Re: Parks V Tourism (Part 1- Parks Advertising)

Postby Nuts » Wed 05 Jul, 2017 7:35 pm

Thanks Peter, i'll keep an eye out for the most recent Visitor Guide to Tasmania’s National Parks and Reserves booklet.
Understood, and the costs will be substantial. The advertising cost is neither here nor there for business, other than becoming another 'required' imposition.

I suspect the cost though will encourage mostly concessionaires. All listed without favour in alternate parks media.
"The guides are all complaining there's mobile reception and hot showers," Godfrey laughs.
Nuts
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 7963
Joined: Sat 05 Apr, 2008 12:22 pm
Region: Tasmania

Re: Parks V Tourism

Postby Nuts » Thu 06 Jul, 2017 12:37 pm

Received a 'lovely' message about this.. to which I wont be responding directly.

I've removed 'advertising' as a sub-heading. It may end up being a group of random contributions, if anything more at all.

I think, as one private parks shareholder, the public has every right to insights into the direction of their park management and later, the influence of money. But it's the lowest hanging fruit to start with and just this example of 'user pays' can stand alone. Others can piece together the potential for exclusivity (of limited places, timelines and revenue). As a 'prospectus', there has obviously been some level of negotiation to which the general stakeholder community has not been privy (and that is the point, 'corruption of process') but let's assume here, it's of the most benign type.

Will say, as a public response to that message, that 'professionalism' and 'respect', to me, focus on a commitment to wild places.

The term 'to me', this may be a little less usual than any accepted definition of how one is supposed to act. Can help it, but why should I? Don't have a problem with 'your' application for what these should mean. So too, 'privilege', a privilege to operate in wild places, very little perceived obligation to a public agency (for better or worse), who's constituents and direction change constantly. Never a focus on individuals, although they can become a consequence. Not necessarily on groups or other business.'Issues', as difficult as that can become. I would make apologies for any collateral damage, to anyone jumping up and down, even without them necessarily being able to explain why. Inevitable that the shoe will fit somewhere.
"The guides are all complaining there's mobile reception and hot showers," Godfrey laughs.
Nuts
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 7963
Joined: Sat 05 Apr, 2008 12:22 pm
Region: Tasmania

Re: Parks V Tourism

Postby Hold On » Thu 06 Jul, 2017 5:26 pm

Haters hate mte.
Sherrard /Godfrey, Currant, Pennicott, Walsh even. Not to mention the faceless multinationals lapping around park entrances. The real influence on public service. Good or bad, owners (and assets) move on. A fresh start, now from an new level.
Hold On
Nothofagus gunnii
Nothofagus gunnii
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed 10 Dec, 2014 6:52 pm
ASSOCIATED ORGANISATIONS: Nil
Region: Tasmania

Re: Parks V Tourism

Postby tastrax » Thu 06 Jul, 2017 6:19 pm

Previous version is available for download for free (and still will be) - http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/file.aspx?id=16546 and yes it had advertisements in it. I also suspect that any advert can only come from accredited PWS operators so in reality its an endorsement for their operations in a publication that is circulated widely.
Cheers - Phil

OSM Mapper
User avatar
tastrax
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1623
Joined: Fri 28 Mar, 2008 6:25 pm
Location: What3words - epic.constable.downplayed
ASSOCIATED ORGANISATIONS: RETIRED! - Parks and Wildlife Service
Region: Tasmania

Re: Parks V Tourism

Postby Nuts » Fri 07 Jul, 2017 11:51 am

Thanks Phil, yes a few advertisers in that PDF (unless there are more in the hard copy then i'm not seeing that huts group... (?)).

And yes, of course it's an endorsement. Either negating the need to look further or appearing that a company has passed some higher level of testing. From a partnership POV, an aleady paid membership, it is unhelpful. For the public, potentially grubby. The tourism industry body do this sort of thing with their publications and awards, none requiring more than capacity to pay, though appearing as more, in itself keeping participation (and attendance) up.

What should we expect, as follows from this, of the integrity of less-public examples on the tourism/parks partnership interface..


Hold On wrote:Haters hate mte.
Sherrard /Godfrey, Currant, Pennicott, Walsh even. Not to mention the faceless multinationals lapping around park entrances. The real influence on public service. Good or bad, owners (and assets) move on. A fresh start, now from an new level.


All good, I encourage them to be courageous.
Owners do move on, which makes naming current owners less helpful, but you are correct and what is left becomes the new norm. As far as what happens within park boundaries, I can't see anything more progressive than preservation. I'm sure there will always be a number (of park service and tourism staff) with a genuine care for wilderness, but we shouldn't underestimate peer pressure accounting for them, and the less imaginative. And 'being agreeable', from what iv'e seen, is an overarching attribute in climbing those ladders.
"The guides are all complaining there's mobile reception and hot showers," Godfrey laughs.
Nuts
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 7963
Joined: Sat 05 Apr, 2008 12:22 pm
Region: Tasmania

Re: Parks V Tourism

Postby Antechinus » Fri 07 Jul, 2017 12:42 pm

I have been following this thread and find it amazing that you would have received hate mail from what you have written here Nuts. Are the "owners" really that upset by what you have said or are they just trying to shut down discussion? Are they that scared of open discussions on a bushwalking forum? I feel like I am missing something here.
Antechinus
Nothofagus cunninghamii
Nothofagus cunninghamii
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat 11 Feb, 2017 11:44 am
Region: Australia

Re: Parks V Tourism

Postby Nuts » Fri 07 Jul, 2017 6:50 pm

'Antechinus'. The term I used was 'lovely', tongue in cheek but i'm hoping far from hate (lest I need to start feeling sorry for them).

Occasionally get messages and mail from here but if they don't go further than making statements, even identify themselves, then there's really not much to answer. And don't have a lot of motivation to ask.

I'm involved in a competing operation. It's understandable, to some extent, that the many people from owners to staff or even those in P&W who naturally think it's nobodies business, to think there is something to gain from speaking up. That my main concern is and has and will always be with private/ exclusive developments, a leg of tourism that possibly actually benefits their lesser competitors, or that I have far more interest (and history) in conservation (in a broad sense, even working in tourism) just wont matter to some people, I suppose.

Responsibility to wild places and respect is earned (an old-school 'fault'?)

So, I'm not entirely sure what the problem was other than what was mentioned. Maybe just an in-forum attitude thing, maybe concern for what else may come out. Not sure. They are welcome to discuss, in a post.

Do you have anything to ask or add? (not that i'll be around for a few days but please do, and welcome to the forum)
"The guides are all complaining there's mobile reception and hot showers," Godfrey laughs.
Nuts
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 7963
Joined: Sat 05 Apr, 2008 12:22 pm
Region: Tasmania

Re: Parks V Tourism

Postby Antechinus » Fri 07 Jul, 2017 10:09 pm

Thanks for the response Nuts, that clears things up a bit even if I still don't understand their issue. I don't see why they can't join the discussion and express their point of view. Seems to suggest that they either can't be bothered explaining it to us or their argument doesn't stack up.

I find these discussions interesting as it is a complicated issue and only getting more complicated as the number of visitors continues to increase. I see your point that the appearance of private operators in Parks literature makes it appear that the operations are being endorsed by Parks, especially to interstate and overseas visitors. If money is an issue should we be increasing park entry fees so that they don't need to resort to this? I tend to agree that Parks should be removed from any commercial operations and it isn't a great look for them to be singling out particular businesses in their literature. Either all operations should be mentioned in the same size/font for informational purposes or none. Makes me wonder about Pennicotts links with the 3 capes track. Hmmm where to stand on that one...

There are so many issues that need to be thought through clearly at the moment so that Tassie doesn't become loved/commercialised to death like so many other parts of the world. Cradle Mt and Freycinet are crazy now in summer! Would love peoples opinions. Should tourists be spread across more places? Should Parks operate any new infrastructure inside NPs as per the 3 capes track? Is it ok to have multiple types of walkers (independent walkers, guided walkers and private huts) on the same track? How much lobbying is being done by commercial operators in these changing times to benefit themselves rather than for what's in the best interest of the NPs? How many people can access the different areas of the state before an unacceptable amount of damage occurs? These are just some of the questions looping through my mind! Think I need a bex and a good lie down.
Antechinus
Nothofagus cunninghamii
Nothofagus cunninghamii
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat 11 Feb, 2017 11:44 am
Region: Australia

Re: Parks V Tourism

Postby Nuts » Mon 10 Jul, 2017 5:56 pm

Good questions. And at what stage do incursions become 'unacceptable'?
Spectacularly complex. For the faithful, support for self-funding, or support for 'economic creep' does not support our national parks, or even the park service (beyond, in this case, support for alleviating a minor headache). It's support for the very worst outcomes imaginable, probably more so for those that aren't yet imaginable.

It's understandable that, here, few may bother. I can hardly be bothered. Last week this was one of several partnership highlights, not a shock, just a reminder of the ingress, one that can be pieced together by considering the finished product without seeing a prospectus. This issue along with cutting green tape for a flood of new operators, compliance/advertising concerns for the tourism authority (similar to this one).. a weekend spent searching for a rumored work site within our WHA for which the public is led to believe relevant stakeholders (inc. partners) had been informed..

The past few years have turned conservation within reserves, into a joke. There is no conservative approach, just a battle of economics V environment, leveraging assumptions of 'best practice' and even the terminology of conservation against- wild places.

fwiw, the only 100-year-plan, with the best outcome for our reserves in mind, probably would require only publicly owned and operated business within parks. The economics may not stack up (which is why we see a basic state owned model on the Tasman Penn. and the 5 star given to private operators) but who cares. Boundaries need to have meaning.
"The guides are all complaining there's mobile reception and hot showers," Godfrey laughs.
Nuts
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 7963
Joined: Sat 05 Apr, 2008 12:22 pm
Region: Tasmania

Re: Parks V Tourism

Postby Antechinus » Mon 10 Jul, 2017 9:16 pm

You have certainly got me questioning Nuts. I'm not at the coal face so mostly only hear what is going on from conversations with others, the news and places like this. I seem to only have a tiny part of of the whole picture. It saddens me to hear that changes are occurring in such an insidious way. If the government/public service wants to change things they could at least have the courage to state what they want to do/are doing and why so that their aim is clear to everyone. I find it disturbing that they try to slyly move forward whilst hiding their intent. Who are the people/organisations currently questioning this "progress" and trying to make sure we don't just bow to the economics but live up to the WHA requirements? Or are they MIA which is why it sounds like people are giving up? Where is the media?

Do you mind if I ask what the work site in the WHA is and what's happening? Can understand if you don't want to say.

I agree, boundaries do need to have meaning and it sounds like some toes are overstepping them.
Antechinus
Nothofagus cunninghamii
Nothofagus cunninghamii
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat 11 Feb, 2017 11:44 am
Region: Australia

Re: Parks V Tourism

Postby Lost » Tue 11 Jul, 2017 10:01 am

I find it interesting that up in NSW they are reviewing the management plan of the Royal National park http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/parkmanagement/royal-new-plan-management.htm at least the Govt up there let the public have their say.

Interesting in that ten years ago it was and still is to some extent that commercial activities were very hard to get the rights to do business in this park. All the shacks were to be pulled down but an agreement was reached that when existing owners pass they will be pulled down. At Garie the YHA shack burnt down they were not allowed to rebuild.

Interesting that a Tasmanian hiking company wants access to do business in this park and have pushed the benefits of tourism to the park and state. Think they might find it a little different to Tassie. Wonder if they have heard of Bushcare Bob a fierce defender of the Royal.
Lost
Nothofagus gunnii
Nothofagus gunnii
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun 20 Mar, 2016 1:06 pm
Region: Tasmania

Re: Parks V Tourism

Postby Nuts » Tue 11 Jul, 2017 12:17 pm

Anything I could add, at this point, would be an anticlimax, Antechinus. Iv'e probably covered enough ground.. The outcomes are easily imaginable if you follow the progression of this new drive to explore ways of extracting income from within parks. Another finite, extractive process. Pleanty of people questioning directives related to this, individuals, NGO's. I'm not sure where the political alternatives are, doubt anyone politically sees any headway in total opposition to private operations. I suspect the pool of people who care is small to begin with, even if there wasn't division within us.

I'm not sure we can say we've not been informed, not very thoroughly informed? Not convinced that the vision extends far at all? There's been no intent in seeking input for management planning that involves opposition to the overall plan or 'vision'. It's true, if these projects are representative of good direction, on behalf of enhanced access for the less able or in support of good conservation practice, rather than otherwise almost totally reliant on economic advantage, there should be nothing to fear in exhausting a public consultation process. Welcoming the chance to do so even. At least then there's an opportunity for people who actually use these places to express concern over and above the public mandate (one relying on an equal vote to all those who may never visit).

Thanks for your understanding, don't have much stomach just now, to pinpoint that project. And I don't know a lot more of it than was released with the EOI.

That's interesting Lost, found documenting of private hut proposals in the Blue Mtns (among the many references iv'e squirreled away) but couldn't find anything for the Royal NP.. (which i'd heard mention of). I too was under the impression that infrastructure was being removed, with park values in mind.
"The guides are all complaining there's mobile reception and hot showers," Godfrey laughs.
Nuts
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 7963
Joined: Sat 05 Apr, 2008 12:22 pm
Region: Tasmania

Re: Parks V Tourism

Postby Nuts » Thu 15 Nov, 2018 9:38 am

I should acknowledge that the director did respond to questions on this. I'll do the right thing and keep that as a personal response.

In the same vein though, I notice the service again just won a tourism award, in TICT's eco-tourism category for The Three Capes Track, edging out little 'Hobart Hideaway Pods'..

Personally I'd rather my park service support an ecologists definition of 'eco-tourism'. And give some thought to equity in their ongoing enterprises.

Where does that lead, with 'eco' replacing 'nature-based' anything goes. And as if the service couldn't snap up any and all awards given the public purse and joint management.


Let's just say there's no point approaching marketers with such concerns.
"The guides are all complaining there's mobile reception and hot showers," Godfrey laughs.
Nuts
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 7963
Joined: Sat 05 Apr, 2008 12:22 pm
Region: Tasmania


Return to Tasmania

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: iaindtiler, L_Cham_67 and 8 guests