Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing

[eggs]

I stand corrected. The rough one page map did not show the same connection to the Diamantina Spur as the full document.

The day walk Diamantina to Harrietville is definitely a big one, but would solve the Diamantina Spur Hut issues.
For a more wilderness appeal, maybe they could place a similar structure out near Mt Loch or near the start of the Razorback at the Hotham end.

[paidal_chalne_vala]

The Diamantina hut and the Blow Hard huts are already there at the Hotham end of the Razorback. I would be keener to see the Bon Accord spur hut rebuilt and be made free to all to use. Yes a dunny and water tank would have to be installed there but the BA Spur/ Razorback/ Mt FT / Bungalow spur loop is a super circuit hike all year round .

[Lophophaps]

I've started a list of some quite interesting sections of the DMP. This is intended as a resource so that submissions can be made, and for interested people to see the holes in the plan. I've got as far as page 50, probably missed a few things. Please add to this list and post a better version. Note that quotes must be exactly what is in the plan. Brief comments are suggested. Thanks

This is my second list, deleted due to list three, posted below a few minutes ago.

[eggs]

I am not sure of the "views" at a few locations.
At Tawonga tent platforms they show the view straight into the hillside and not over the open valley basin?
The same at Red Robin Battery tent sites.

The pamphlet reeks of some consultants earning lots of money for motherhood statements and web searches.
As with much bureaucracy, you get the impression they have never run a real business in their whole lives. It is enough to merely state what they imagine will happen.
Recreational industry is not a primary industry - it does not produce a product that adds value.
Rather it is "recreational" meaning that it is a consumer of wealth that was created elsewhere by people who have time on their hands.
That needs to be borne in mind when folk put out great statements about the industry that is created for the locals.
Tourism ventures are very unpredictable and it seems like a huge ask to expect the ramp up of usage predicted in this document.
I am not aware of any analysis comparing the planned revenues for these kind of ventures with the final results to see how accurate they were.
I have been to Echo tourism spots on the Dampier Peninsula and the tip of Cape York and being remote and out of the way, they really struggle to survive.
They end up being run down and consequently poorly frequented. A bit of a "catch 22".

I notice the nod to schools using the area for a wilderness experience - er that is exactly right.
Having seen these groups out on the plains, it seems they are pitched at the experience of survival with a lack of facilities, not the attraction to more facilities.

[north-north-west]

The pamphlet reeks of some consultants earning lots of money for motherhood statements and web searches.

If you do a little research into the DMP consultants, they're urban landscape designers. As far as the bush goes - They know nothing. Who the *&%$#! blue blazes hired this bunch of overpriced irrelevancies?

[paidal_chalne_vala]

"Oh Pitiful hour !, oh woeful day ! " ( The tragedy of Julius Caesar by W. Shakespeare).

[Lophophaps]

With apologies to John Keats

O WHAT can ail thee, bushwalker
Alone and palely loitering?
The sedge has wither’d from the lake,
And no birds sing.

***
The deeper I go into the report the more disenchanted I get. NNW is right - they are landscape designers. The DMP has more holes than a Swiss cheese. Here's two comments I wrote a short time ago for my list above.

Page 67 details the Diamantina River Camp. This advises that: Camping platforms will be installed ... to take advantage of viewing opportunities. Adaquate (sic) placement and construction techniques will be required to withstand flooding scenarios." This is just babble, a mangling of the English language by a writer that uses complicated forms of words to attempt to impress. Does not work. Viewing opportunities is laughable. Note that the platforms must withstand scenarios, not floods. There's no mention of safety. So a bushwalker could be on a purpose-built platform that withstands scenarios (and presumably floods) but the bushwalker is washed away and drowns. Seems okay to me. A few lines down has "stories of teh (sic) landscape". This is a common typo, one I often make. My word processors are set up to automatically correct it, with important works checked by other people. The DMP has not been properly sub-edited, and there are many typos. This one stood out, quite inadequate.

Page 69 details Federation Hut. "The Federation Hut visitor site (sic) currently (sic) provides a setting (sic) for group and individual camping (sic) which will continue to function as such." More mangled English. "The platforms will be installed to be protected from the prevailing north/ northwesterly (sic) winds." Great, and the rest of us, in the camping ground catch the weather on the north side of the ridge. The site features include a "Natural (sic) spring for water collection (sic) located down (sic) northwest spur (sic)." Sorry, the water is on the Tom Kneen Track, and it's up. "Potential for helicopter access". Was not the toilet choppered in? The shelters do not appeal.

Woe and alack for the Bogong High Plains, Feathertop and the English language.

[paidal_chalne_vala]

Keep it up LOPS.I will go through the whole plan myself this weekend now that I have almost calmed down and stopped putting pins in my Parks Victoria voodoo dolls! .

[Xplora]

A new track is also proposed from Rocky Dam to Cope hut so that people can boat across. I have almost completed my list per page number (as requested for the submission) but my head is spinning from the repetition. They say it all hinges on the partnership with private business but in fact it hinges on the numbers they say will want to come. Next week I will try to find out how they worked the numbers out and how they expect to grow it bigger than Milford track (14000 pa) and the OLT (8000 pa). After that I will set out my major points like Lops has done but it could be huge. My focus has not been on the typo errors and grammar but I can see after reading it there is little direct connection with the area. This is still a draft version and revision will take place. The areas Lops has pointed out does show the plan was not put together professionally. PV has a team of Landscape architects working on this project (see early posts) but if they are the same team who designed the eyesore at Wallace's hut carpark then we are in trouble. Ever noticed the love heart seats on the deck. Very hard to sit on as well. Not much room on the pointy end. The plan also included construction from local materials. Are they using material from the High Plains? More environmental damage. I suspect by local they mean the North East but then that has no relationship to the High Plains so it will not fit in. Dinner Plain by the way only has walking and skiing according to the map. At least it is open most of the time. An iconic walk should not need marketing or branding to draw people. The plan admits the iconic walk market is 'cluttered' so they have to make this one more attractive to compete. This is probably why they are moving to fancy accommodation and food which makes it different. When you think about your submission I would suggest you think about the target market as well. The plan admits people like us will leave because the wild experience is gone. None of the work on the tracks or rest stops is for our benefit and they know this. Platforms and boardwalk are more about getting people off the dirty ground. Perhaps they will have to be sanitised regularly as well. Comfort in nature is the group they want because they believe they will pay for it. My major focus is on the environmental damage through tracks and signs which is costing the public purse huge based on an idea pushed by Nth East tourism and Falls Creek resort with dodgy numbers. Also it will be the directed toward exclusion of the ordinary walker in preference to private business. I have also contacted some horse people who ride the area and asked them to spread the word. They will no longer have any access to and from the Kiewa if steel and wooden steps are put in from Weston's.

[Lophophaps]

The following list has some quite interesting sections of the DMP. This is intended as a resource so that submissions can be made, and for interested people to see the holes in the plan.
This is my third and hopefully last post, and replaces the second one. There's a lot of words, and it's probable that I made mistakes in transcription. If citing the DMP, please check any quotes.

Page viii "Taken together, the total number of walker nights is expected to increase from 17,000 in 2016 to 60,500 by 2026."

Page 30, Diamantina Hut is on the wrong side of the road.

Page 31 has a map. While just for the purposes of the DMP, the map is misleading. There's a lot of difference between Cope Hut and Cope Saddle Hut, and this is not made clear.

Page 31 refers to "Camping Grounds". Some places, like Cope Hut, have camping grounds, and others, like Campbell Yards, do not The map implies that camping is not done unless there's a camping ground. Funny, I've camped all over the high plains.

Page 32 says "Walk track widths will respond (sic) to ecological communities, topography and geology, varying between 400mm (sic) and 1200mm (sic) for both single and side by side walking." A track 1200 mm wide is too wide for a remote region, quite out of place, and adds extra cost.

Page 32 says "Space rest stops between overnight nodes at key links or roughly 3 to 5 kilometres apart." This is wrong. Bushwalkers rest on flat areas, at track junctions, at water, and in sheltered spots, at intervals of about an hour.

Page 32, in fine print says "Diamantina River Camp-Mt Feathertop 8.5km (sic) - 760m (sic) climb - 7 hours Grade 4". Page 47 says the climb is 450 metres. Oh, dear. It's unclear if the distance is intended to be to the Diamantina Spur camp or Federation. Certainly it's uncommon to camp on the summit. Regardless, this is a very slow pace.

Page 33 says "Utilise existing trails (sic) where possible". Why is there a duplication of the existing track from Tawonga Huts to at or near Westons Hut?

Page 33 says it will take five hours to walk the 16 kilometres from Falls Creek to Cope Hut. Page 42 says three hours. Oops.

Page 36 has a rather poor layout that breaches good design rules and is arguably in breach of equal opportunity requirements. People with poor vision will find it hard to read page 36, and much of the rest of the DMP.

Page 37 details marketing. Marketing for the walks promoted to date has major errors of fact, clearly showing that those involved have no idea what they are doing. Offers to address these issues were ignored. What hope for anything better in the future?

Page 39 says that roofed accommodation will provide "a sense of safety, comfort and relaxation in nature". This sense could be a negative. After Gadsen in 1943 it was recognised that huts could be a hazard, luring people into places they would not otherwise go. Real safety comes from experience, fitness, stamina, gear and judgement.

Page 42 has a heading "Round the lake", citing three hours to walk the 16 kilometres from the start to Cope Hut via Heathy Spur and the AAWT. This is quite fast! Page 33 says it will take five hours. The words "round the lake" normally mean close to the water. The tracks are distant from the water.

Page 44 suggests a side-trip from Tawonga Huts to watch the sunset from Mt Jaitmathang. This is insane! The descent from Mt Jaitmathang is steep in places, rocky and wet, hard enough in the day, a hazard at night. Also, if people want a sunset from Mt Jaitmathang, why not camp near the summit or at the saddle SW of the summit? Finally, having climbed to this saddle one then goes back to Tawonga Huts, it's necessary to climb it again the next day. I don't have that much energy.

Page 44 has a new track from the saddle south of Mt Jaithmathang SE to very close to the pole line, then SW to near or at Westons Hut. What a waste of money! There's already a track, and the ridge SW of the saddle is easy.

Page 46. The white dots are trail (sic) markers and rest stops. This is preposterous. Why have a marker on a clearly defined track? We manage fine with no seats.

Page 47 "The most physically challenging of all segments provides walkers with a Grade 4 track to conquer. Diamantina Spur heaves up from the valley floor, rising 450m (sic) in roughly 1.5km (sic)." What about the other 280 metres? The total climb is about 750 metres. Mountains are not conquered. We climb them by grace of good stamina, tenacity, experience and kind weather. As for heaving up …

Page 48. It gets worse. There's trail markers and rest stops at Tom Kneen Track and on the summit of Feathertop. Merde. A seat and summit sign are totally out of place. Those with long memories will recall the fate of the FCV signs.

Page 50 says that walkers can have lunch or buy books at Hotham. Um, Hotham is closed in summer. "If not yet tired, the trail continues on as the Australian Alps Walking Track". Goody, not tired, I'll do half the AAWT, just decided this. Oops. Love the grammar.

Page 54 says "A range of accommodation options will be provided ...from basic camping to comfortable and fully serviced roofed lodging." Strange, the camping options have been there for decades. It's good to have a roof on lodgings More seriously, there may be a place for lodges, but let the operator pay for it. Also, lodges breach zoning requirements.

Page 54 says "Provide varying levels of comfortable weather protection to increase seasonal use." Oh, dear. I would really love to know what this means. Is it the tunnel option? Enclosed gondolas? Toilets with roofs and - luxury - walls? Note the last three words, increase seasonal use. It seems that the lodges that are meant to be summer only may stay for winter. And how do the unfit bumbly masses get there? Skidoo? Helicopter?

Page 56 details accommodation. "Design and build to have a light footprint ... do not build facilities in Remote and Natural Areas". This effectively approves of building in a Conservation zone like The Razorback. This is a major change of zone status, and must be opposed.

Page 59 says that "Dispersed camping will be prohibited within 500m (sic) of the trail." This is a one kilometre swathe that includes Heathy Spur, near The Park, near Cope Hut, the north shoulder of Mt Cope, Mt Jim, Weston, Blairs, Diamantina Spur, Feathertop, and The Razorback. It is believed that the Harrietville Caravan Park is unaffected. This one kilometre swathe is totally unacceptable.

Page 59 "All camping facilities will require a booking and fee". Not going to pay. I know heaps of places to camp away from the masses and fees.

Page 59 advises that camping grounds are "designed for groups of up to 30". First of all they are camp sites. What on earth is a group of 30 doing there? Or do they mean 30 people, as in five groups of six people? The clarity of the DMP leaves much to be desired.

Page 60 details the privatisation of the Alpine National Park. Read it and weep. in June 1979 the Land Conservation Council handed down its Final recommendations for the Alpine Study Area. At page 58 the LCC discusses recreations and says "Council believes that, in some areas, activities such as these can be conducted without detriment to other values." So the LCC saw detriment as an issue, and sought to avoid this. The LCC also saw that in some places it may not be possible to have two recreations. LCC page 60 has a heading Bushwalking. "As the (Alpine Walking Track) passes through areas recommended for a number of different uses, it will be necessary for land managers to give special attention to the protection of the environs of the track." The long-adopted LCC principles of 37 years ago are being ignored. Do we have to reinvent the wheel?

The page 60 development guidelines include "En suite bathrooms where appropriate."

Page 62 says that the Rover Scout Chalet is "protected by Snow Gums to the north and overlooking the Bogong High Plains to the southeast (sic)". Odd, I thought the hill did the protecting and the high plains are clockwise in the SW to east. I'm wondering if the writer and people checking the DMP know the region at all.

Page 63 has a map of the Cope Hut environs. There will be two camping areas, the current platform one and another due south of the hut. Each will have a shelter. There's new tracks, including steeply northish from the platform area to the road. The only common area is the toilet block. This hut plan is a mistake. It's only a few minutes from the Falls Creek road, and attractive to non-walkers. The new shelters make it more so. It would be far simpler and far less expensive to do nothing. Just leave it. No shelters, no new tracks. The over-development of a tranquil place will detract from its value.

Page 67 details the Diamantina River Camp. This advises that: Camping platforms will be installed ... to take advantage of viewing opportunities. Adaquate (sic) placement and construction techniques will be required to withstand flooding scenarios." This is just babble, a mangling of the English language by a writer that uses complicated forms of words to attempt to impress. Does not work. Viewing opportunities is laughable. Note that the platforms must withstand scenarios, not floods. There's no mention of safety. So a bushwalker could be on a purpose-built platform that withstands scenarios (and presumably floods) but the bushwalker is washed away and drowns. Seems okay to me. A few lines down has "stories of teh (sic) landscape". This is a common typo, one I often make. My word processors are set up to automatically correct it, with important works checked by other people. The DMP has not been properly sub-edited, and there are many typos. This one stood out, quite inadequate. It's also inadaquate.

Page 67, bottom right in a small faded thin font is advice that "Further site analysis will be required prior to any detailed design is to be undertaken." The idea is brilliant but the form of words is not.
Page 68, the big one, top of Diamantina Spur. The "clearing is large enough for helicopters ... structures will be installed on the protected southern side of the ridge amongst existing (sic) Snow Gums". Enough has been written about this repugnant concept. "Servicing access (by) transport drones will be considered". So not only will there be helicopters but drones. Merde. A song. Tune: Home on the range
Drone, drone is a pain,
To bring rich walkers their booze..
Trad walkers not found,
Masses gather around,
Noisy impact for us and we lose.

Page 69 details Federation Hut. "The Federation Hut visitor site (sic) currently (sic) provides a setting (sic) for group and individual camping (sic) which will continue to function as such." More mangled English. What does “as such” mean? "The platforms will be installed to be protected from the prevailing north/ northwesterly (sic) winds." Great, and the rest of us in the camping ground catch the weather on the north side of the ridge. The site features include a "Natural (sic) spring for water collection (sic) located down (sic) northwest spur (sic)." Sorry, the water is on the Tom Kneen Track, and it's up. "Potential for helicopter access". Was not the toilet choppered in? The shelters do not appeal.

Page 72 has a heading "Trail Design Principles". The words trail and track have been used before, but I reckon it's time to take a stand. We walk on tracks. The map at page 44 has "Fainter Fire Trail". It is a track. Again if the writer cannot get simple basics like this right, what hope for more abstruse concepts?

Page 72 advises that "The Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing will be designed to create a distinct trail look and experience that differentiates the iconic offering from its connecting trails. The FHAC will be different: traditional users kicked out, campsites ruined, views spoiled, wild experience gone, crowds, unhappy people, groundwater pollution and high costs. More seriously, the tracks exist. The FHAC is a mind game, marketing and paying to walk, totally at odds with the way things are.
Page 73 has a heading "Track Grading System" and refers to the Australian Walking Track Grading System. So if the standard refers to a track, why does the DMP refer to trails?
Page 73 says that "By providing a standardised (sic) level of (sic) difficulty (sic) or track grading, users are able to gauge whether a particular track is suitable for them." This is a good concept but often does not work. The problem is that bumbly walkers do not have the experience to accurately assess much more than a grade 3 walk.

Page 76 refers to widening tracks. This should be done sparingly, and in most places is not needed. Having a track about 400 mm wide in nearly all places will save money. Steps are also mentioned. Steps should only be in places where there is erosion or environmental degradation, or where there is a safety aspect. People have been going over steep ground on the high plains for decades without many problems. If a walker cannot manage steep sections then that walker should not be there. Please don't tame our wild and beautiful places to suit an unfit inexperienced walker who is at risk unless harder parts are made like a suburban park.

Page 80 details existing huts. "Huts will be cleaned and repaired where necessary for increased use; will include benches, basic bunks if already provided". Que? More mangled words. What is meant by the bunks comment? The smaller SEC huts cannot have bunks. Cope Saddle Hut is missing from the list, and may still need a new door. The last time I was there I felt an affinity with the door, which was unhinged.

Page 84 details regional economics. The big flaw is that the regional or high country spending does not draw a distinction between those who visit primarily for the valley and those that walk in the alps on a multi-day trip. Also, do the figures include the ski season? This is not stated. As a matter of urgency the page 84 figures need to be clarified.

Page 84 says "The High Country received 27,200 international overnight visitors ... (and) ... nearly 1.5 million domestic overnight visitors". Call it 1.5 million. In other parts of the DMP there is reference to "walker nights". Is this similar to "international overnight visitors"? I do not know. As is the case in many parts, the DMP's form of words is muddy. But let's assume that "walker nights" is similar to "international overnight visitors", and domestic as well. If so, then the new bushwalkers add 60,500/1,500,000, or 4%. This is not much. Another query. Is the 1.5 million figure for the entire alpine region, including access points and mountains such as Mansfield, Stirling, Buller, Lake Mountain, Baw Baw and Snowy Plains? More detail is needed. The source is cited as Tourism NE, which seems to exclude Gippsland. The DMP is raising more questions than it is answering. Not good at all.

Page 84. The lack of adequate English and maths is getting annoying. "Ski season visitors had a decline of -40.4% from the previous year". This should be "decline of 40.4%" with no minus sign. More seriously, using one year in isolation as a basis for a projection is very ill-advised. What is needed is the annualised figure for the last ten years. If the writer knew about the annualised concept, he or she would or should have included it. So it seems that this simple maths concept is beyond the ken of the writer. The DMP was checked multiple times. Nobody knew. I often use annualised figures to smooth the outliers.

Page 85 has a brilliant typo. Left column, second set of dashes: "Factors that may increase demand include weather the accommodation that the new visitors require ..." Actually the word is "whether". Oh dear, oh dear. To make my day the next dash starts "Whether the attractions …"

Page 85 says "The existing (sic) trail as it operates (sic) today has a relatively high level of difficulty (sic)". Most of the track or close to it (as in near Diamantina River) is easy walking, albeit exposed for perhaps 90% of the way. Only DS is hard, and that's very hard. There's also mention of "walking products". A walking track is not a product. The language used reeks of a consumer item, a marketing plan that does not fit what we or any user is on about. The dearth of understanding of this by the writer has made the DMP less than it might have been.

Page 85 cites demand, increasing in the 3-6% range. So how is it that the FHAC increase is closer to 13%? Of course this was based on a false figure of 17,000 walker nights.

Page 86 details the type of users. Current bushwalkers are described as "Adventure seekers" and are consider to be catered for. Correct, but if the FHAC goes ahead in the form in the DMP we will not be catered for.

Page 86 has a heading "Expected Hiker Profile". This starts by citing recent research. Do tell, which research? Without this crucial information, the entire basis of the DMP is questionable. It is instructive that the source of the research was not stated. This research needs to be urgently identified.

Page 86 advises that "Experience seekers look for ... high quality pre-trip information". Methinks that should be high-quality, but I'm unsure.

Page 86 refers to "a range of walking products and activities that engage in the site and regional offering". This description is one that does not sit comfortably with me. I just go walking, it's not a product, and I don't engage. Bushwalking is just being there, the freedom of the hills, enjoying nature in sunlight and storm, friendship and skills hard won through experience. This seems to be lost on the writer and the perhaps the purported experience seekers. Bushwalking is more than ticking places off a list: Grampians Peak Track, tick; OLT, tick; Milford Track, tick.

Page 87: "There are an estimated 17,000 walker nights per year on the trail". There's also some statistics that need clarification. "The Alpine Shire captures 25% of the visitors to the High Country with 61% of international visitors engaging in bushwalking, 27% of domestic visitors and 10% of day trippers." Oh dear. There needs to be a breakdown by where they come from and what they do. I reckon that the vast majority of people visiting the region go on a bushwalk. Question is, how many would or could go on a medium-hard 4-6 day walk if one was offered? The commercial figures show that very few do the easier walk via Dibbins Hut and Swindlers Spur. Based on this, I suggest that there would be a smaller number for the much harder Diamantina Spur, which would be a struggle for most. People who have walked DS are unanimous - it's steep and hard. The DMP allows about seven hours to climb DS, very slow, a time for an unfit person with low reserves. The numbers are simply not there to do this climb.

Page 87 says "it would be expected that around 50% of the adventure seeker market will be lost as these walkers seek more remote and physically challenging experiences." So the plan is to have half of current bushwalkers go away. How little they know our love of the mountains.

Page 87 advises "Due to the number of trails in the Alpine National Park and limited user data, it is not possible to estimate the use of the Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing on these numbers alone. Current walker numbers were estimated based on a 2007 Parks Victoria survey combined with growth forecast data for regional visitation." The sentence starting "Current walker numbers" is about user data. So the writer says it's not possible to estimate and then says how it was done. As ladies will be reading my words my response to this brilliant piece of logic and writing cannot be stated. Older readers will recall Graham Kennedy's crow call. Like others I've been there, read the log books, seen the reality. Only a handful of people go Westons-Blairs-DS. It is most probable that very few if any start from Falls Creek bound for Westons and DS by going up Heathy Spur. The best estimate from people on the ground is 100-400 people a year Westons-Blairs-DS. This is rock solid evidence that I would happily use in a Court of law, provide under discovery or have in my brief or particulars of claim. I've used less solid evidence and won cases.

Page 88 details walker numbers. "It is widely recognised that a large part of the walking experience is the opportunity to engage with nature in a peaceful environment. Crowds are not tolerated, especially by 'high yield' walkers." What is a high yield walker? Is this like a dividend yield? Is there franking? (Sorry, investment-babble, could not resist it.) The writer then says "if is (sic) desired to limit the number of walkers to 60 on each of the five segments of the trail, the number of camping permits at each of the four camping nodes may be limited to this number." And what of the current bushwalker who camps where she wants when she wants? Will she be unable to do this? Page 87 says that 50% of current walkers will vanish.

Page 89: "From these data, it can be seen". Can nobody involved in preparing this report write grammatically correct English?

Page 89 has a chart of camping platform bookings. Bushwalkers make bookings based on Parks Victoria information. If this information was provided by a commercial entity it would be actionable under section 29 of Australian Consumer Law, prohibiting false or misleading representation in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services. Governments are exempt from section 29. As bushwalkers become aware that it is not necessary to book or pay for camping, platform use will fall. Parks Victoria decline to make their information accurate. Also, people on the ground have seen the low use. The most I saw was at Dibbins Hut on one trip, with many more camped away from the platforms. Others have said that platform use is low. At $80,000 each they are a huge waste of money. I wonder if there was an adequate tendering process. I suggest not.

Page 92 has the project benefits. The figures are suss. There's no maintenance figure, which would be in the region of $500,000 to $1 million a year. Staff, repairs, helicopters and the like add up. The Minister said that there will be no extra funds; has this changed? I do not know. If not then other parts of the regional budget will have to be cut. Certainly there will be track fee income, but it will be well short of PV costs.


Page 92 advises that a "consumer surplus" is defined as "an additional amount some users would be prepared to pay but are not asked to pay." This surplus is included in the income. Time for another crow call. There's an income estimate based on 60,500 walker nights in 2026, some $14.3 million. I note with considerable amusement that the figure is $14,352,745. Hint: it's okay to round. See ASIC Corporations Instrument 2016/191 for an idea of what is involved. In the DMP table, rounding to the nearest $1000 works. I may be missing something about a critical point. The expenditure of $22.4 million is likely to be in FY17. Why is the 2026 income figure of $14.3 million used? Surely the correct approach is to look at the total cost over time - I like 10 years - and see how that compares to income. I've done that and the results are not pretty at all, still checking. Another person gets a return of 0.7:1. That is, spend a dollar and get back 70 cents. We need more data, like management costs. However, on balance of probability on the information before me it seems that the FHAC will run at a loss. I cannot say more as the DMP finance information is flawed. Further and better particulars are needed. Urgently.

Page 92 excludes maintenance and operations costs. Oops.

Page 93 says that "capital expenditure ... can be expected to generate 52 direct full-time jobs ... It is estimated that after approximately ten years there will be a total of 80 jobs created." Considering the income shortfall, this is a very expensive regional job program. I cannot comment further as the DMP figures are muddy

Page 94 is about costs. I'm aware that some costs are miles too much. I wonder if there's been a proper tendering process. However, this is offset by government projects invariably costing much more than planned. I'm used to making finance decisions based on incomplete data. The DMP is in a new category, where very little is certain and much of what has been stated as true is demonstrably false. For these reasons there's no point attempting to analyse the figures. Just for a laugh, top of column two has "The High Quality Accommodation". Might even be true. Just under that has "The 4 (sic) locations ... identified in a high level cost plan". Good. Cost plans should be high and level. Crummy layout in the page 94 table: soft fonts, poor contrast, hard to read, arguably breaching equal opportunity provisions. Not good.

Page 95 has headings "Foundational Documents" and Project Enabling". Again the words are hard to read. I have no idea what these headings mean. Am I alone? The words Branding strategy et al should have been tabbed and explained. The Segment layout underneath is in breach as well. Does nobody know the law? Or is the information of so little import that it does not matter?

Page 96 deals with business models. Again, a poor layout makes it hard to read, in breach, and I'm not going to bother, too hard. My take is that if a business entity wants in the business pays for it. The best way to do that is to start gently and see if the market is there, amending the plan as time progresses. This is what Aldi did, and it worked. Woolworths did not do this with Masters and it bombed badly. So start gently.

Page 97 deals with staging, doing the job over time. The concept detailed seems reasonable. However, the Dibbins Hut option should be done first as the cost is very low and it will enable the market to be assessed. The present route is like Masters. Dibbins is Aldi. Note that funding is not guaranteed.

Page 100 says that "Tour operators will have first option on bookings ... independent walkers who are prepared to follow a set itinerary are allocated a share, subject to availability" There's a like provision for those with no set itinerary. Traditional bushwalkers will be squeezed out.

Page 100 says there will be 240 daily permits, or 60 at each campsite. This is a lot.

Page 101 deals with making bookings like the OLT. Not happy. There's no need for regimentation, and I for one will never pay to visit these places. I'll camp where I want and you will not see me. Most places I go to have minimal people. But I pity the walker that just wants to walk up Bungalow Spur and climb Feathertop from a camp at Federation or camp on Heathy Spur. The freedom of the hills is vanishing.

Page 101, last dash. Risk management may involve "Communication techniques to undertake that encourage visitors to be fully aware ..." I'd do that if I knew what it meant.

***

A final word. I'm aware that some users such as those on horseback will be denied access. There is no mention in the DMP about benefits on the south side, such as Omeo or Glen Willis. The FHAC has been driven by NE Tourism with scant regard for those on the south. I'd like to assure these people that I am interested in their situation and think that they should get a fair go.

[Chev]

Excellent notes, thank you Lophophaps.

I have been thinking more about the estimated benefits of the proposal. Yes, they look to be overstated mainly by using highly optimistic visitor numbers and the highly dubious 'consumer surplus'.

Leaving that - and other problems with the cost:benefit model - aside, I think we can also question the extent to which estimated increases in on- and off-track spending represent a true economic benefit. Will the track really stimulate new growth in tourism spending? Are people really going to start taking extra holidays because they can now do this 'Iconic Walk'? I reckon most visitors will just be reallocating their normal recreational spending: walking the track, instead of going to the great ocean road, or the Aus Open final, or whatever. The same applies to the estimated travel benefits. Will people really be spending more on transport or will they just be travelling somewhere else? (The main exception I can think of is international visitors who travel to Victoria specifically to do this walk. How big is that market?)

It is hard to say if any of these issues are addressed in the cost: benefit analysis, because so little informational is provided. But I think the argument can be made that the model is too narrow and misleading. Yes, some businesses in this particular region benefit, though probably not as much as projected, but these benefits will be largely cancelled out by reduced spending elsewhere. Taking a wider view, the net societal benefits much less than claimed.

By contrast, the public capital and recurrent costs will be quite real, cannot be met by income from the proposal, and may come at the additional cost of reduced funding elsewhere in PV's operations.

Does this line of thinking hold up?

[eggs]

Yes Chev.
None of the existing iconic walks started overnight as big ventures.
They grew steadily over the years as reputation grew.
But recreational dollars will always be very sensitive to the overall state of economies.
Perhaps no one has noticed that the current bunch of economists have no idea how much damage a "stimulus" does.
Hey - if it does not work - do it again, only bigger - that should work!!???

I think the prospect of failure is quite high.
Its strange when you think of how little has been done to restore the iconic Mt Buffalo Lodge just across the way.
And that would have a much better business case for it.
Some got the impression there that parks don't want people to visit the place.

[Lophophaps]

Chev, your reasoning is sound. I may be miles out in my financial assessment. Fact is I cannot tell until the muddy words and figures in the DMP are expanded. There's a legal phrase, further and better particulars. The consumer surplus is very suss.

Recreation is like crime. An area has a high rate of burgs, so more visible police presence, security lights, fences, etc. All that does is move the thieves to another place. I was going to Western Australia but now I'll go to the FHAC, OLT, or the like. Tourism dollars are displaced from WA to FHAC et al. "These benefits will be largely cancelled out by reduced spending elsewhere. Taking a wider view, the net societal benefits much less than claimed." Quite so.

I cannot see a big international market for FHAC. As Eggs said, OLT et al grew slowly. This is my Aldi way. PV are going down the Masters path, and that led to a major loss for Woolworths, share price down from $35 to $22. Ouchies.

The political attraction for the FHAC is that it's flash. Seen to be doing something, support for the local community. By the time the reality hits the state government and MPs may well be gone, and if not, there's always excuses. People forget. Not this little black duck

I spent a lot of time reading the DMP and keying the above. I'm too close to the DMP. Would someone be able to write and post some questions to ask PV and the contractor?

[paidal_chalne_vala]

Someone on ski dot com has said that having a helipad built on the top and the bottom of the Diamantina spur makes heli ski trips from the two major ski resorts instantly possible and the bush walking plan could be just a Trojan horse for the real scheme.
I object to both schemes!.

[Lophophaps]

PCV, thanks for the information. See tab 10 at
http://forums.ski.com.au/xf/threads/fal ... 39/page-10

"I don't really care if they put in a couple of huts and charge you to use them. Banning camping though is a bit of a stretch."

"I'm most worried about the possibility of an entity like Hotham Resort Management having management rights over the Razorback and Feathertop itself. This is hopefully an irrational fear, but I wonder if it opens the door to stricter regulation and more paying for BC access and use, particularly given that the Master Plan limits its discussion of skiing to resorts and XC skiing".

"Regular Mums and dads" as the Lib Labs call them and their offspring who want an affordable self directed camping /walking holiday in the High Country cannot afford this kind of thing. By putting the Price up at Tidal River and Lake Catani per night to $50-60 per night people are just staying away . The money that they would/used to spend in nearby towns on the way there and back is not being spent. Towns such as Fish Creek and Foster which are near Wilson's Prom. N.P. are not getting that incidental input from visitors who went to Tidal River for a week every year or so. A Ranger at the Prom told me that since P.V put the price to car camp at The Prom up to nearly 60 clams per night per car, people are just plain and simple staying away. They are going to other places where you don't have to pay to car camp along the Gippsland coast."

"They want to put handrails up the ridge line of Mt. F.T. and a big sign on top of it in case you forget where you are!. In winter that would a big hazard for snow sports people who are sliding down the slope on a snow board/ skis/ split boards etc. as well as a travesty and an abomination of the beauty of the mountain in winter. The sign on top of Mt. Bogong was thrown away by some angry bush walkers some years ago. They, quite rightly took umbrage to having the natural environment turned into some kind of signposted tourist lego land. The people who put this draft plan document together are in fact urban landscaping consultants who don't seem to have been to this area at all."

"This is mt feathertop. its vics second highest mountain, and arguably australias most mountainy looking mountain. yeh man lets build more *&%$#! on it ey? Sounds like a great idea - so the suit whose never spent a night in a tent can "earn" his salary coming up with the drivel in that 'masterplan.'"

"'no free camping within 500 metres of the teail' great, so no freedom to choose a nice spot on the Razorback."

"You got it. Also if the preferred commercial operator, let's call them Decadent Bushwalking for example, have some well heeled clients that don't want to share the trail with the great unwashed they can book up all the available allocation for that period (for a relatively small amount in their world) and have exclusive use on that section of the National Park....at least in regards to overnight walkers."

"The high-end guided tour market is obfuscating the true goal here - expanding the influence of RMBs at Hotham and Falls. A track like the Milford gets something like 15k walkers a year, and whilst the Feathertop area is beautiful, the proposed walk is no Milford or Routeburn, and won't get anywhere near the inflated numbers they forecast."

"Helicopters?!! buzzing around feathertop to bring in fresh hot towels WT *$&# is parks smoking?! this is a disgrace."

"By 2020, no bushwalker shall need to walk more than 2klm before finding a hut. And no child will live in poverty!"

There's a lot more on similar lines, and some that generally agree with the DMP, on the ski.com website. Note the comment about The Prom and people staying away when the prices went up. I've seen like reports for other Victorian parks. Will the DMP prices put off trad walkers or the new ones? Any ideas?

[Lophophaps]

I've looked at the DMP in depth and continue to be unimpressed. There's too much information that does not make sense, is false poorly sourced or a combination of these. Christmas approaches, and many will be planning trips, unable to devote enough time to responding to this ghastly report. The only option is to ask for more time, with the deadline put back to early 2017. This will not affect the implementation. It will take months for PV to review the submissions, then a final report, then the Minister decides. Tendering takes months. Can't do much on the ground in winter. So it will be a year or so before any works are undertaken.

Hence, I suggest that as many people as possible write to the Minister and suggest that the date be put back to 1 February 2017. The Minister is:
The Hon Lily D'Ambrosio, Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change
Level 17, 8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne, VIC 3002
Phone (03) 9637 9504
Fax (03) 9637 7580
lily.d'ambrosio@parliament.vic.gov.au

The main points to make are:
* There is too much information to assess by 19 December 2016.
* An information evening a week before the deadline gives insufficiant time to consider.
* There are massive errors in the DMP, notably the number of visitors.
* The figures need to be expanded to be useful.
* Due to the above, if the DMP is implemented, there is a very high chance that millions of dollars will be wasted.

Be respectful, polite and factual. The Minister probably has only minimal knowledge of the process, as this would be delegated to PV.

Once we get more time then it will be possible to get more information from PV. No reply yet to my email of a week ago, so I think that the Minister is apt.

I thought that we had fought and won these issues before. Alps at the crossroads. Bogong NP. Victoria needs an Alpine National Park. AWT then AAWT forming a backbone for a contiguous park of international repute. Now this FHAC disaster. Not happy.

When fees at the Prom were increased people stayed away, went to less expensive places. This is so for other parks. Tourist numbers at nearby towns dropped. Does anyone have any solid figures for this?

[paidal_chalne_vala]

I have sent this today by e mail. I will also send a snail mail copy by express post so they can't pretend it never arrived.
I will send the same to the others who have had their e mail addresses supplied by LOPS.

"
To
The Hon Lily D'Ambrosio,
Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change
Level 17, 8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne, VIC 3002
Phone (03) 9637 9504
Fax (03) 9637 7580
lily.d'ambrosio@parliament.vic.gov.au

Sender:
name and address supplied

3rd Dec. 2016
REGARDING THE FALLS CREEK TO HOTHAM ALPINE CROSSING WALKING ROUTE DEVELOPMENT
RE:DRAFT MASTER PLAN.(DMP)
See this web link for access to the document in question.

http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/assets ... P-2016.pdf

Dear Minister
I am deeply concerned about the new Master Draft Plan. The closing date for submissions is Dec. 19th 2016.

The Public Meeting about this issue is on 12th Dec. 2016

There is far too much information contained in this Draft Master Plan to properly assess its merits and flaws in any comprehensive way by Dec.19th 2016.

An Information evening set for Dec. 12th 2016 which is a week before the deadline , gives those who are concerned about this matter insufficient time to consider the ramifications of this document.

There are massive errors in the Draft Master Plan notably the projected or expected number of visitors who will pay to use this scheme.

The number of visitors to this part of the Alpine Nat. Park (that covers the Bogong High Plains, The Razorback and Mt. Feathertop ) , that currently use this area for bushwalking & self-guided low environmental impact recreation as stated in the DMP is also incorrect.

These figures need to be expanded and verified with cold hard evidence to be useful.

Due to the above factors, if the DMP is implemented , then there is a very high chance that millions of dollars will be wasted.

Parks Victoria is already struggling on a slim budget, to maintain what it is already entrusted with and that which it is responsible for to manage and maintain .


The idea of having to pay a high fee to camp , hike and/or horse ride in this area if private operators are permitted to go ahead with the development of a natural place, and resulting incremental
and de facto privatization/monopolization of what is a free and natural area ,which has by law been set aside for conservation ,for all generations to come , is very concerning.

It is a place which generations of people have found serenity , an escape from the world of development , money and greed as well as a source of physical and mental health and wellbeing all year round ,
regardless of their ability to pay.

This matter will not go unnoticed or without large protests from the majority of the public who will be excluded by this DMP if it goes ahead .

By trying to rush this DMP through before The summer/Christmas /New year holidays commence,
it suggests that those who have a vested interest in the DMP being enacted , have something that they wish to hide from correct and proper public scrutiny and informed critical appraisal.

I urge you as The relevant Minister to extend the date for final submissions to this DMP until the end of February 2017.

Yours Faithfully

Name and Address supplied.

[Lophophaps]

PCV, well done. If we all say end of February it may have some effect. My Minister email will go on Monday. It's important to say similar things but never to copy from others's emails. Write with passion - we are being ripped off! You have a presence on the ski.com forum. If you have not already done so, perhaps suggest there that everyone on ski.com write to the Minister seeking an extension on the grounds you cite. To expect an accurate detailed response to imaginative figures not backed up by mid-December is foolish. I rather like your "These figures need to be expanded and verified with cold hard evidence to be useful." The ski.com comments are close to those here.

[paidal_chalne_vala]

Yes, I am PCV here & " Mr.T. on snow shoes " on the SKI DOT COM forum. I am trying to get some of them to see that if green season becomes user pays in the back country then white season is next !.

[Lophophaps]

Yes, I am PCV here & " Mr.T. on snow shoes " on the SKI DOT COM forum. I am trying to get some of them to see that if green season becomes user pays in the back country then white season is next !.

I guessed Mr T was you. That's a good point about white season fees. With the Razorback a one kilometre exclusion zone, this is off-limits for remote camping and XCD people are frozen out. The process is incremental. First a track, then a demountable lodge, then non-demountable. Helicopter supplies food and the like, then it's used for customer access. ditto 4WD access to Tawonga Huts via the Fainters Fire Track. Next stage is a vehicular circuit from there ending up at Bogong Jack and Bogog Village. Can't happen? Who would have thought that PV would endorse helicopters and drones on Razorback? Who would have thought that PV would endorse no camping on the AAWT? Local PV staff may well have different views on this.

All the while white and green season trad users are being pushed out due to false data being used to make bad decisions. So it's not just user pays, it's trad users are no longer allowed, and those that camp on a node (I'd rather camp next to a creek) pay for something they do not want that has no rational basis in economics, the environment or ethics.

Some areas need infrastructure and regulation, like The Prom, OLT and Milford. Others like Feathertop and the Bogong High Plains do not. I seek the freedom of the hills, not bureaucracy, which I have just been informed is defined as "excessively complicated administrative procedure". Also unwanted.

I was angry about Lake Peddar. I was angry about the Franklin Dam. I wanted an Alpine National Park, and expected it to have a nature focus, maintained so that it lasts forever. Bob Brown, Warren Bonython, Marie Byles, Peter Dombrovskis, Myles and Milo Dunphy, Maisie Fawcett, Geoff Mosley, Olegas Truchanas and many others fought long and hard for the environment. Their values are mine, and I'm angry now on their behalf.

[paidal_chalne_vala]

Hear hear!! LOPS. It is pitch forks and torches time for sure!! .

[Xplora]

I only have a copy of the Draft Greater Alpine NP Management plan but the Falls to Hotham walk must fall into line with that. Reading the GANPMP has led me to a number of issues where the Falls to Hotham plan contravenes (possibly) the other plan. It has to align with the GANPMP so maybe people can search for conflicts which may stop the development.

[paidal_chalne_vala]

I am preparing to type up a submission in time for Dec. 19th 2016 because it seems by design that the vested interests will try to ram rod this through asap.

[north-north-west]

Someone on ski dot com has said that having a helipad built on the top and the bottom of the Diamantina spur makes heli ski trips from the two major ski resorts instantly possible and the bush walking plan could be just a Trojan horse for the real scheme..

This would not at all surprise me. Hotham resort have tried to expand into the NP before by other means. This could easily be another, sneakier attempt.

[Lophophaps]

This would not at all surprise me. Hotham resort have tried to expand into the NP before by other means. This could easily be another, sneakier attempt.

Yes, and the gondola up Bungalow Spur, and skidoos on the Bogong High Plains. This morning I'm emailing
The Hon Lily D'Ambrosio, Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change
Level 17, 8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne, VIC 3002
lily.d'ambrosio@parliament.vic.gov.au

Brad Battin
Shadow Minister for Environment
brad.battin@parliament.vic.gov.au
and PV about the matter. I'm asking the Minister for more time, until 28 February. Mr Battin's attention is drawn to the matter and the shaky economics. PV gets 2700 words of questions that need to be answered, 48 points on six pages. It is impossible to respond to the DMP until these questions are answered. If there are no answers there's a few other things I can do, and there will be unhappiness at PV and the Minister's office. This would have been avoided if the DMP met accepted standards. As the DMP falls well short, I see no other option.

As mentioned above, some time ago Parks Victoria advised "An environmental risk assessment is also being completed as part of the development of the master plan ... The final risk assessment will be made available to the public when the draft master plan is released." I've asked for a copy of this.

[Xplora]

The more I read this plan the more I see the hidden agenda of the resorts. The walk is only a vessel designed to deliver greater control for them on NP legally. Once they have permission to service the accommodation with helicopters then the walk will have no impotence. As I write my submission it has become quite obvious the focus is and never has been on any walk of an iconic nature. The focus is on the servicing of the walk and the options available to walkers. Essentially all of it, apart from the steep down and steep up, can be done as a day trip based at the resorts. Hotham does Feathertop and Falls Creek does the BHP and yet no significant conviction from them to date to provide the services at the resorts even though visitor numbers to their tourist 'hubs' are growing. A while back, when I did not live on the back door of BHP I used to drive there to walk and take a number of people with me. I tried to book accommodation on the mountain before and after the walk to no avail. We stayed below and spent money on accommodation and food. Nothing much has changed. Now we are supposed to believe they have commitment to this plan. The plan is smoke and mirrors designed to fool politicians into releasing funds and once the resorts have permission to build and service all year round then the walk will be cast aside.

[paidal_chalne_vala]

Yes, Xplora , I think that is the real agenda. Sneaky ,disingenuous and expensive, is it not?.

[Chev]

As mentioned above, some time ago Parks Victoria advised "An environmental risk assessment is also being completed as part of the development of the master plan ... The final risk assessment will be made available to the public when the draft master plan is released." I've asked for a copy of this.

I emailed PV last Tuesday regarding the environmental risk assessment and am still waiting for a reply. This slow response is totally unreasonable in the context of such a short consultation period. Further grounds for extension.

[paidal_chalne_vala]

To.
brad.battin@parliament.vic.gov.au,tim.mccurdy@parliament.vic.gov.au,
bill.tilley@parliament.vic.gov.au ,
tim.bull@parliament.vic.gov.au,

Sender:
Name and address supplied
5th Dec. 2016
                               REGARDING THE FALLS CREEK TO   HOTHAM
ALPINE CROSSING WALKING ROUTE DEVELOPMENT
RE:DRAFT  MASTER PLAN.(DMP)
See this web link for access to   the document in question.
http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/assets ... P-2016.pdf
Dear   Sir
 I am deeply concerned about the new Master Draft Plan. The closing
date for submissions is Dec. 19th 2016.
 The Public Meeting   about this issue is on 12th Dec. 2016
There  is  far  too  much  information  contained in this  Draft
Master Plan to  properly  assess  its merits  and  flaws  in any
comprehensive way   by  Dec.19th 2016.
An Information  evening  set for  Dec. 12th 2016  which  is a week
before the  deadline , gives those who are  concerned about this
matter  insufficient  time to  consider  the  ramifications  of this
document.
There are  massive  errors  in the  Draft  Master  Plan  notably  the
projected   or  expected   number of visitors who will pay  to use
this scheme.
The number of visitors to this part of the Alpine Nat.   Park  (that
covers  the  Bogong  High Plains, The Razorback  and Mt. Feathertop  )
, that currently  use  this area for  bushwalking  & self-guided low
environmental impact   recreation as stated in the  DMP  is  also
incorrect.
These figures need to be expanded and verified with cold hard evidence
to be useful.
Due to the  above  factors, if  the  DMP  is implemented  , then
there is a  very  high chance  that  millions  of  dollars  will be
wasted. Parks  Victoria  is already  struggling on a  slim  budget,
to  maintain what it is  already entrusted with   and  that which it
is responsible  for  to  manage and  maintain  .
The idea  of  having to pay    a  high  fee to  camp , hike  and/or
horse ride  in this  area  if private  operators are  permitted  to go
ahead with  the development  of a natural  place, and  resulting
incremental  and  de facto  privatization/monopolization  of what  is
a free and natural area  ,which has by  law been  set aside for
conservation  ,for  all generations to  come ,   is  very concerning.

It  is a place which  generations  of  people  have found  serenity  ,
an escape  from the world of  development , money  and  greed as well
as a source of physical  and  mental  health and  wellbeing  all year
 round ,  regardless of  their ability to  pay.
 This matter  will not  go unnoticed  or  without large  protests
from  the  majority of the  public   who will be  excluded  by this
DMP if  it  goes ahead .
By  trying to rush this DMP  through  before The  summer/Christmas
/New year  holidays commence,   it  suggests  that those who have a
vested  interest  in the DMP being enacted   , have something that
they wish to  hide from correct  and  proper  public  scrutiny  and
informed critical  appraisal.
 There  has been  no  environmental impact  survey  study carried  out
 yet  in relation to this   issue  and if it  has  it has not been
publicly  published in  any  shape or form  or  gazette  for  public
scrutiny.
 It  would  seem   that  the ALP having  removed  Alpine cattle
grazing  have  fallen into  cahoots  with the  two  big ski resorts
and  are planning  a  de facto annexation  of  their  own backyards
by   increased development  and commercialization.
 This  whole  DMP could indeed  be  a  Trojan  horse for the
annexation   of the  area  for  white  season   usage since the  green
 season  model  in the DMP  is very  shaky and suspect .
Much of  what  is  contained  in the DMP  is  contrary  to present
laws  regarding  conservation and  usage of  National  Parks.

The two major  ski  resorts  are  basically  closed  in  Green  season
 and so  any  claim that they  make  that  such  a  modification  of
public  accessibility  to  the  adjacent  National  park  is  in  aid
of  bringing  more summer  visitors   to  the  Falls  Creek and Mt.
Hotham   resorts  rings false  on  any  quick   examination of the
facts.


I  urge  you as a  representative  of  the people  of  Victoria  to
call for an extension of  the  date for  final  submissions  to this
DMP   until the end of February  2017.

Yours Faithfully

Name and address supplied

[Earwig]

PV's website says submissions close on January 27th.