Lophophaps wrote:"In the available time it is not possible to create and check an economic model. I can say with some certainty that on balance of probabilities the regional economic input fro a large number of people fishing and bushwalking will exceed that of a much smaller number being flown in.
geoskid wrote:"*&^%$#! - You have no way of knowing that - your research is incomplete!"
Actually I know with certainty about balance of probability. It's a legal concept, an area that has seen my involvement for decades. Magistrates and presiding members agree with me much more than they disagree. I write good prosecution briefs and have won a lot of cases. My prosecutions work record is three years, one case every six weeks or so, one case lost, and that though trickery. Privately I've won against a lot of people and entities, including ASX top 100 companies, a lawyer who was charged with a crime ( a criminal lawyer!), the police and many more. I'm in court next week, and I'll win that, solid case, again.
My view about the economic model is based on over 30 years of analysing such matters. Further, as far as I'm aware the Riverfly 1864 figures are unavailable, and in any case they keep changing the way the business will be run. Apart from that, as advised above there's not enough time for me to master hundreds of pages of Halls Island information so I'll keep it short. There's plenty of entities and people to cite who have had far more time than me to address the issues - TWS, HWC, EDO, AAT, etc. They also know more than me and I defer to their expertise.
I made a submission about the Falls Hotham Alpine Crossing, which at 17,500 words was one of the longest and most detailed. I totally destroyed the proposal, and none of my points has been denied or challenged by Parks Victoria. Given time I could write a similar submission about Halls Island. I write submissions like I write briefs.
geoskid wrote:Every one! Go figure! A lot of science - I'm sure! Is anyone surprised 'the vast majority have similar or identical points'? So long as you don't think any of this is a scholarly exercise, no harm done.
Science relies on facts, so the conclusions by scientists will be similar if not identical. The same applies to conclusions about the TWWHA. If the rules say that something is proscribed or details the aims and these will be breached by the Halls Island proposal, then of course comment about these aspects will be the same in different submissions. I see limited point in quoting my long list.
bogholesbuckethats wrote:I have no problem with sharing any part of the TWWHA with newcomers just as long as their experience does not negatively impact the experience of other users.
Thornbill wrote:Not at all. As long as those "newcomers" are using the area in a way that complies with the various management objectives of the area, then I have no issue. The proposed development as it currently stands it as odds with these objectives, hence my opposition. It has nothing to do with privilege, ownership etc.
Well said. The first is the best short summary of the views of most bushwalkers, anglers and similar users regarding wild areas that I have seen.
Myrtlegirl, thanks. I will still aim to have most finished by COB on Monday, but the extra time allows more research.