Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing

[paidal_chalne_vala]

Yes you are right.I shall take my med.s and try to be sensible about all of this . I was just getting a bit worked up about the incremental privatization of Nat. parks that excludes the existing users.

[Lophophaps]

I'm getting very angry about what is the end of our way of life. Page 59 says that "Dispersed camping will be prohibited within 500 metres of the trail." Page 100 says that "Independent walkers who are prepared to follow a set itinerary are allocated a share, subject to availability." Diamantina looks like glamping, with helicopter support. Pollution due to no toilets, like the OLT. Extra cost for all involved, PV being required to enforce rules they most probably do not like. PV and BW at loggerheads. Not good at all.

[neilmny]

500 metres what a joke. This calls for mass civil disobedience.

[north-north-west]

What does it mean for people wanting to do a day walk from Diamantina Hut to Feathertop and back, via the Razorback? That's possibly the most popular daywalk in the Bogongs, but are they going to try to limit numbers? In fact, is that part of how they got their supposed visitor numbers for the crossing?
What about the Bon Accord/Bungalow circuit? No more camping at Fed Hut or pretty well anywhere on the Razorback, including High Knob.

[Lophophaps]

I've just crunched some numbers. If it costs $22.4 million to build and it lasts for 20 years (a guess, nothing more) then there is a straight line depreciation of $1.12 million a year, or $11.2 million over 10 years. If there are 17,000 nights a year in 2017 (highly unlikely) then at $31.50/night per site of two people there will be an initial income of about $270,000 in 2016. If visitation rises to 60,500 in 2026 then income will be $953,000. The total income for the 10 year period is about $6 million, half the depreciation.

So income will not pay for infrastructure let alone PV staff costs.

Spend $22.4 million to attract more people that will severely displace trad walkers who cannot camp in places where they have for generations, employ about 80 people, with maybe another $10 million required in or over 20 years to replace or maintain infrastructure, with glamping in a conservation zone and helicopters, polluted water, PV staff required to be unpopular … interesting. This is an expensive job creation scheme.

Once word gets around that it is possible to camp away from the wretched platforms then people will do so. No need to book or pay. It's interesting that government agencies are not subject to Australian Consumer Law, so if you book a platform and another tent is on it then tough, no remedies.

And no matter which way you cut it, Diamantina is a steep long spur for only the experienced hardy or the foolish. I wonder if those used to the OLT, Routeburn et al will manage.

[paidal_chalne_vala]

I went down the Diamantina spur in Jan. 2016. That was just wrong !!!! ha ha ha ha. I might go up it next summer just to say I have done it . Once would be enough!!. Prospective user pays newbies would wonder if they have picked the right cushy walking holiday when faced with the D. spur.
There would have to be a L O T of work done to it to make it glamper friendly. It would be changed forever and a wild and challenging place would be lost forever.

[Xplora]

What does it mean for people wanting to do a day walk from Diamantina Hut to Feathertop and back, via the Razorback? That's possibly the most popular daywalk in the Bogongs, but are they going to try to limit numbers? In fact, is that part of how they got their supposed visitor numbers for the crossing?
What about the Bon Accord/Bungalow circuit? No more camping at Fed Hut or pretty well anywhere on the Razorback, including High Knob.

They are saying people can still do the traditional walking and camping but will be subject to permit to restrict numbers. You have to book and pay subject to availability and the preference goes to tour operators. I would say they would get an allocation and there will be other numbers left for self guided walkers. Falls Creek used to charge people for XC skiing on the groomed tracks and those who did not want to use them still had to pay to cross the barrier. People refused to pay and they could do nothing so in the end they stopped charging. I would suggest this would be the way to go. The only way for them to take action is if they know your name or they have you arrested. The second option is highly unlikely and the first will only happen if you give them your details. Just do not get into a car near them. It could be a problem for me as many know me already but those who do would not bother me and are not in favour of this proposal.

The numbers are not sustainable and it cannot pay for itself but they are looking at it to draw people into the area for the add on experience and money it brings to local towns and business. The inflated figures they have for that suggests over-confidence in the model.

[neilmny]

I went down the Diamantina spur in Jan. 2016. That was just wrong !!!! ha ha ha ha. I might go up it next summer just to say I have done it . Once would be enough!!. Prospective user pays newbies would wonder if they have picked the right cushy walking holiday when faced with the D. spur.
There would have to be a L O T of work done to it to make it glamper friendly. It would be changed forever and a wild and challenging place would be lost forever.

Until it is covered in snow.

[Lophophaps]

They are saying people can still do the traditional walking and camping but will be subject to permit to restrict numbers. You have to book and pay subject to availability and the preference goes to tour operators. I would say they would get an allocation and there will be other numbers left for self guided walkers.

The numbers are not sustainable and it cannot pay for itself but they are looking at it to draw people into the area for the add on experience and money it brings to local towns and business. The inflated figures they have for that suggests over-confidence in the model.

This is defacto privatisation and regimentation of BW. Certainly there needs to be a permit system in places like Wilson Prom, the OLT, Milford and Routeburn. However, despite some Bogong High Plains plaices and Federation Hut being crowded at times, we manage. Big flat areas such as Cleve Cole, Cope Hut, Tawonga Huts and the like are fine. Razorback, Diamantina Spur and Federation are narrow; putting platforms there makes it much worse. The lack of effective remedies if a platform is double booked or occupied is unfortunate. If there's a PV staffer on site then this means a dwelling, more cost. The staffer would be like Wile E. Coyote, keeping tabs on Razorback, Diamantina Spur, Federation Hut and perhaps more. I strongly suspect that PV ground staff don't want to do this sort of thing. I wonder if local PV staff like the proposed walk and privatisation.

[paidal_chalne_vala]

I doubt the on the ground staff in P.V. liked the platforms near Dibbins and Cope huts. I have never once seen a ranger enforcing any rules regarding those platforms and nobody I know uses them !!!.The Alpine Nat. Park is a large place and other management issues are more pressing.Rangers are not tax collectors and by law they are not permitted to act as such. They are not police men/women either.

[Drew]

I just had a look through the draft. It really is nonsense, full of contradictions. How can they say that accommodation siting will "avoid ecologically sensitive areas" and "have a light footprint" and then seriously propose putting in buildings at the top of Diamantina Spur?! And having helicopters buzzing all over the place to service the *&%$#! accommodation?!?! That really enhances the wilderness experience...

And those numbers are ridiculously fanciful. Imagine 65500 "walker nights"! If this was spread out evenly across the 9 non-winter months (which it wouldn't be of course) that's 238 odd people on the walk every single night! If we're more realistic and assume that it's more like a 7 month season (without thinking about fire danger days in summer) then it's 312 people every night. So much for a quiet time in nature.

And really, how many people are going to pay large amounts for this? You could fly to Tassie from Melbourne quicker than driving to Hotham. As much as I love the Vic alps, they just aren't as spectacular as a lot of the other places that people could choose for a paid walking holiday.

It sounds like they've really already decided that they're going to do this, but I'll try to be there at the meeting to show my opposition. Is it worth starting a Change.org petition about this? It could be hard to not come across as NIMBYs who don't want to share their mountains, but if done well it might be helpful.

[Lophophaps]

Drew, I'd wait until the end of this week to give people a chance to sort out the main issues. Most have been identified above. A suggestion has been made that the walk go via Dibbins. This means that the last night is at Hotham, with a foray over Razorback, Feathertop and Bungalow Spur for those so inclined. No steep hard Diamantina Spur. No need to break the Razorback conservation zone. Less cost. Safer. No helicopters servicing glamping. Dibbins may have to be sacrificed to save Feathertop.

This is not NIMBY - it ecourages more people to do an easier walk than Diamantina Spur. The point has not reached PV that DS is a tough climb and that bumbly walkers used to the OLT or Routeburn could well come to grief. If there's an adverse incident it may change some minds. I met a McGregor and Coxall staffer on Friday and stressed this point, also did this in an email. I lack their planning expertise, but like many I know the place, hard-won experience in sunlight and storm over decades.

Does anyone have observed numbers on the western high plains, Blairs Hut and DS? I've not seen many people at all, even at Easter. Saying 17,000 walker nights on the current route is silly. How many start from Falls Creek bound for Feathertop by going up Heathy Spur? This crazy start is to make the name Falls-HH valid. Draft one had the walk starting near Wallaces Hut, and PV said that this was Falls Creek. The logical way is Falls-Pretty Valley, but this misses the essential Cope Platforms.

How many people go High Plains-Blaires-DS-Federation and then go to Hotham? I've been to all these places summer and winter for decades and have never done the trip as described. Last time it was Paling Spur, Mt Jim, Westons, Blairs, up Diamantina (I lived, but it was a close call), and down Bungalow. I spent about $4.00, expensive ice cream.

It's critical to find solid evidence to disprove the numbers, and to offer a better option. Advice regarding this would be valued.

[paidal_chalne_vala]

Yes, launch a petition on line. Be sure to word it well and maybe show it to some cooler heads on this forum first.

It cannot be NIMBY ism if it excludes all those who can afford to visit the place before the development but not after this scheme is implemented.
"Regular Mums and dads" as the Lib Labs call them and their kids who want a camping /walking holiday 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 are not getting that incidental input from visitors who went to Tidal River for a week every year or so.
I sent this letter to Phillip Ingamells at the VNPA today.
I hope he helps oppose this crazy scheme because Joni Mitchell was and is still right : " don't it always seem to go that you don't what you've got till it's gone, they paved paradise and putting up a parking lot".
Hi Phil
I will be making a submission as private citizen in reply to the draft plan to the Falls to Hotham scheme.
Some of my thoughts include:
The two resorts have their name as the start to ending points.That is no coincidence.
It seems Mt. Bogong isn't included in the new route.That is far more scenic and challenging than most of the planned route so the scheme isn't about the best scenery the region has to offer . It is about getting cashed up people to come to both resorts in green season.
Regular hikers don't spend much money on a mountain top so the scheme is not about including people like you and I. It is more about excluding us by making it user pays..
There is no environmental impact survey study , the figures cooked up for the predicted patronage are fanciful and all those who do not pay approx. $500 per day will not be allowed to hike or camp along the intended route unless they book and pay.
Now at The Prom that book and pay scheme was introduced to manage the numbers who already use the park to minimize damage that people do to the environment . However apart from a few busy long weekends at Fed. hut that number of visitors are not already there in the area slated for this scheme esp. The Dimantina spur .That is for fit and self sufficient people. Building a mini tourist resort at the top of it won't make the ascent any easier. It will have to have a helipad built and the structures will have to be maintained via a helicopter.
The Diamantina spur is very challenging to walk up or down. Even if the track is heavily modified the gradient cannot be made easier. It is just plain tough and taking cashed up newbies up there will have its risks.

They seem to think ‘build it and they will come’. The depreciation of infrastructure through erosion , and damage caused by fire, storms, ice , wind etc . and ongoing maintenance necessary means that the whole scheme will not break even and will disfigure areas that are relatively undeveloped.
Long haul Hikers using the AAWT cannot predict when they will arrive at the soon to be quasi privatized areas of the AAWT .
It all aims to sell off the high country to the highest bidder. Now that the cows have gone the Govt. have set about making an incremental privatization of select areas of the ANP to build a luxury glamping resort for the top end of town who own the Falls / Hotham resorts. Resorts that print money during the white season and are not satisfied with having just that . They want their own back yards annexed by incremental commercialization.
This is all in a water catchment area. Glampers will want a real toilet every 15 kms. That will be hard to keep 60 M. away from water sources and very costly to maintain by helicopter in addition to the existing infrastructure that must be serviced.
P.V. staff are not tax collectors or police so enforcing these pay or go away rules will be very tricky. I doubt the rangers/PV staff want to be part of this scheme either.
I do hope the VNPA does all it can to stop this plan. Our parks are for conservation and low impact recreation, not for expensive and exclusive developments and commercial interests making incremental privatization of the nation's Alpine environment.
The Bogong High Plains : ka ching ! Sold to the highest bidder!!

[Lophophaps]

PCV, I hope Phil replies. I would like to know the VNPA position on this matter. We need to be sure of the facts and main points before starting a petition. It's also a question of tactics. Should we target the local MPs who are being fed questionable advice, senior PV management, the Minister? You have raised a good aspect: put the price up and people stay away. I've seen another report that says the same thing. In effect, people are being priced out and are staying away.

I rather like your "They want their own back yards annexed by incremental commercialization."

[paidal_chalne_vala]

Edited.
There is a petition going round on about this on change. org but I must say I did not word it or have anything to do with starting it. It is not my action.
You know that when I calm down and maintain a focus that I can use languages effectively. That petition is not indicative of my linguistic and debating capacities , nor my capacity to prosecute an argument when harnessed correctly in that regard.

[Xplora]

Tim Bull has told me nothing negative has been heard by them until I sent an email. He has suggested you contact the members in the area with comment. It may also be good to ask for more time on the submission as it seems to be rushed. It would be good to get comment direct from VNPA and BWA or BW Victoria as these groups hold more clout with politicians. Any direct comment from these groups should be directed to the emails below. All concerned should send an email with their thoughts and feelings. This will create a tidal swell hopefully that will spring the politicians into action. A petition is a good idea as well because they take note if enough sign it. This forum is only very small in comparison to the wider population.

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

[Drew]

Maybe best to wait until after the Dec 12 meeting to launch a petition. Perhaps we could work together on getting the wording right? Important to clearly spell out the environmental concerns, the concerns about lack of due process (rigorous cost benefit analysis and environmental impact statement), the fanciful projected visitor numbers, the inappropriateness of Diamantina Spur, the concerns about privatisation by stealth, and the concerns about excluding those who can't afford to pay.

I also feel that it might be worth suggesting that a better way to increase non-winter visitation and bushwalker spending in the area would probably be to improve summer facilities (accommodation, cafes etc) in the ski resorts and work on developing more day walks. People would spend more money staying in hotels in Hotham and Falls, eating in nice restaurants and cafes, doing walks during the day. This would probably appeal to a larger audience too, while leaving the overnight walks for those who are prepared to be self sufficient.

[Lophophaps]

The petition gives defacto appoval to the DS glamping and a heap of other issues have been missed. I'm attempting to contact the person concerned and have the petition reworded. Governments take more note of crafted letters than online petitions. A long time ago I reviewed the proposal for a downhil resort at Mt Stirling, many submissions! Many pro formas were on Saturdays from lodges - useless. Petitions did not have much clout either. The best submissions were based on science or came from the heart. The best submission was from a girl who wrote by hand what she loved about Mt Stirling. This is what we need to do with FHAC. Show PV the flaws in the reasoning, economics, and that we really love the place.

My apologies to PVC. I thought he had started the petition but he was just reporting it, which is fair enough.

[Xplora]

I also feel that it might be worth suggesting that a better way to increase non-winter visitation and bushwalker spending in the area would probably be to improve summer facilities (accommodation, cafes etc) in the ski resorts and work on developing more day walks. People would spend more money staying in hotels in Hotham and Falls, eating in nice restaurants and cafes, doing walks during the day. This would probably appeal to a larger audience too, while leaving the overnight walks for those who are prepared to be self sufficient.

Both resorts have shown very little interest in previous years and have actively fought against summer development. You will find a few accommodation places open in Falls and maybe 2 cafes. Lucky to get a cafe in Hotham open unless it is a long weekend. The current MTB attraction at Falls has taken many years to get off the ground and met with considerable opposition. It only runs on the weekends as well. If you build it they will come?? Not so. Mountain bike hire was offered many years ago at Falls and it flopped. There is a general feeling within the community that nothing outside of the ski season matters. They cannot see a return. The resort management board is clearly trying to convince them otherwise but even with the increased traffic since the road was sealed and some heavy advertising, people do not want to open in summer. 3 cafes are regular but not always open. Maybe 3 lodges as well. Nobody stays because nothing is open. Perhaps they should offer grass skiing. It is easy to make armchair judgments though when you do not have to put your capital at risk but the resorts could do more during summer and if they did then it would grow.

[Drew]

I hadn't seen PCV's post about the existing petition. Yes, it could certainly be better worded. Let us know how you go with the petition author Lophophaps. It would be best to not have multiple petitions, so if that one could be improved it would be great.

I take your point about the usefulness of petitions Lophophaps, especially in this age of "slacktivism/clicktivism". But still, I think online petitions do give the opportunity to get a large number of people to voice their concerns about an issue. A big petition combined with well written letters and strong arguments on economic and environmental grounds could be helpful.

[Chev]

In the 'What we heard' document (which summarises earlier consultations), they say: 'The final environmental risk assessment will be made available to the public when the draft master plan is released.'

Has anyone seen this? It's not on the PV website alongside the draft master plan.

http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/685035/FHAC_Consultation_Feedback.pdf

[Lophophaps]

Chev, thanks, I cannot recall seeing that document. Therisk assessment quote is on page 3, just above the heading "How will private sector...". Maybe we should start asking for this assessment.

Chnage org has got back to me. They say:
"As an open platform, anyone can use Change.org -- no matter who they are, where they live, and what they believe. All Change.org petitions have been created by people in the community, so you will see a wide range of perspectives, including views you’ll disagree with, or find offensive.

"The most effective way to respond to a petition you don’t like is to start a counter-petition and mobilize others to see your perspective, rather than asking Change.org to remove it. We see petitions on opposing sides of one issue all the time -- that robust debate is one of the many great things about being an open platform."

Oh, dear. I agree with the Change.Org OP. It's just that the words are not good, could be clearer, and could include more. For example, challenge the 17,000 walker nights figure (it's rubbish); protest about the DS glamping; suggest another route; note that DS is a hard climb, and maybe more.

I've sent a response to CO asking that the person who started the petition contact me. It seems that CO don't really care. The CO petition was started by Shauna-Marie Wilson of Sydney. Does anyone know her? Edit: I have her email, just sent something.

Note that the gentle track to go from the West Kiewa valley to the current DS ridge in the plan a year ago seems has gone. I reckon PV realised that this would be a very costly build. See the 2015 Preliminary Master Plan A3 (I think) document and pages 11 and 30 of the 2016 Draft Master Plan.

At every turn there's holes in the PV and McGregor Coxall plan.

[paidal_chalne_vala]

I have e mailed the petition author and asked that input from others including some forum members here be permitted in assisting with rewording the petition.
I know Shauna Marie Wilson. I have walked with her in the VNPA . I have emailed her and passed her e mail address onto the moderator of this forum.
She is a low income person who finds solace in trekking the BHP .
Verily she is the sort of person who will be excluded from the BHP if this plan goes ahead.

[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.

An upated list was posted a few minutes ago.

[neilmny]

"Dispersed camping will be prohibited within 500 metres of the trail."

This is a 1 kilometre wide exclusion zone for the entire trail not camping nodes as they call them. It used to be 100 metre radius from the camping platforms only.
Free camping at places like Tawonga Huts would no longer be permitted.

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

Interesting, walking season 8 months approx. around 240 days that would be around 250 starters per day. Hope they don't all want to start at the same time of day.

I'm not up with dealing with bureaucracies and I am probably not alone in this so would appreciate a leg up on how and where to respond to this manure through a channel that will actually be taken notice of please.
(Please note - terms like manure although tempting will not be used my submission)

[Lophophaps]

Neil, the first step is to identify the points of contention, so expand and correct the list I started an hour ago. By Friday you will see a response. There are other actions happening, just need to get co-ordinated. For now, think about a submission.

The main points are
* Current and future visitation figures are far too high;
* Implementation costs are very high, like $80,000 for a platform. See the top of tab 9 http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/1944 ... ig-things/
* The economic return is quite poor, 0.7:1 by one estimate, spend a dollar, get back 70 cents;
* The walk is ill-suited for people that want an easier option;
* Diamantina Spur is risky for these people;
* Glamping on Diamantina Spur breaches the PV zoning and Alpine Shire Planning Scheme;
* Current bushwalkers will be driven away (see below); and
* A less expensive. easier, safer route that would attract more people is possible, Dibbins and Swindlers.

Stress these points, write with passion but objectively.

I just found another good extract.
Page 87 "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 DMP expects us to go away. Oh, dear. In effect, those that have less to spend on flash valley accommodation and wineries will be displaced by richer people who are in funds.

Big picture. If:
* Brexit spreads;
* Trump implements his odd ideas;
* China continues to go downhill (less demand for Australian minerals and resources, masses of empty dwellings, workers going from cities back to the farms, air and water pollution causing havoc);
* Refugees from sub-Sahara Africa and the Middle East swamp Europe; and
* Australian governments of all persuasions continue to make poor decisions
then be ready for GFC #2. (I'm ready, cashed up, ready to buy undervalued companies.) If so, would you rather spend $3000 on an expensive trip or pay off the mortgage? In any case, the OLT. Milford, Routeburn and others are better for less cost.

Backpackers add more to the economy than wealthy people, but this may change with the new tax. Similarly, current bushwalkers add to the economy in a slow steady way, unaffected much by economics. PV wants to ditch half of the slow steady income in favour of flash brochures and poor marketing that describe walking 2000 metres above sea level. Oops.

[eggs]

This is a rather long thread now, so I don't know if this has been mentioned.
I just did a loop through a lot of this area.
Looking at the planned map - it seems that the new alignment from Jaithmathang to the Westons Hut track is revisiting much of an old pad along that spur out to Jaithmathang.
And with respect to Diamantina - the alignment suggests they will be bypassing the initial very steep section to meet the existing trail further up the ridge.

Why did they not use Swindlers?
To me - It seems apparent they wanted to pick up Feathertop and still end at Diamantina Hut.
If Swindlers was used as the alternative - and they still needed to visit Feathertop, they would need to end the hike at Harrietville.
This may extend their timeframe for the walk by a day.

[north-north-west]

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.

There was once a track along that route, mainly horse track I think. It was easy to follow the first time I did Niggerhead, and much of it was still there - albeit fainter (see what I did there) - in 2013.

Fact is, this damn track and its rules and regulation close off a significant proportion of the BHP to ordinary people. Remember the catchcry of the we-want-luxury-accommodation-in-National-Parks mob: "I thought National parks were supposed to be for everyone?" Well, they won't be if this proposal goes ahead.

[Lophophaps]

There's a route from near where the track from Pretty Valley (aka Fainter Fire Track) turns NW to Tawonga Huts over the ridge to the saddle SW of Mt Jaithmathang. Upgrading this is simple, does not need much more than poles to get back to the existing TH-333 pole line. Then forget about the new alignment. Page 33 says "Utilise existing trails where possible". Why not do this? The DMP is a contradiction.

The map on page 48 shows a new track from the Diamantina River to the bottom of Diamantina Spur. This is quite clear.

Swindlers is better suited to the target market, easier, safer, more sheltered and less expensive. Stay at Hotham and then bus back or have a long final day Razorback-Feathertop-Bungalow. This is another day, but it would be much better than the slog up Diamantina Spur. It would be an exciting finish.

[Xplora]

Track upgrade and new tracks will cost $7M. That is half what it cost to upgrade and seal the Omeo Highway. This is a matter of manufacturing the image to people that it is an iconic walk. Iconic trail head markers will cost $82000 each to construct and install and there will be 4 of them. Much of the walk can be done from the resort or surrounding towns as day trips. Casual walkers and day trippers are already doing it and numbers have increased since the road was sealed. The considerable over estimation of current numbers through walking the current track is only to persuade those who control the government purse that it is a good investment in the state. Nobody will be able to explain how they arrived at a figure of more than 4000 people each year. I think most would be day walkers or the numbers come from Bright visitor centre. High Country tourist numbers includes Rutherglen and other flat lands well away from the mountains. I would have thought the discerning soft tourist has already worked out they can pay and stay in the towns to get their comfort and do the walks each day. Why drag yourself up a huge mountain when you can drive? The admission in the plan is that without Feathertop it would not be iconic. In fact if you press them they would call the rest of it unimpressive by the standards of other walks they are trying to compete with. I love the area but it is certainly not the best Victoria can offer. Falls Creek resort has done very little to offer services to date and Hotham nothing. I think it better to see what they can do in the way of marketing their resorts for summer activities and if interest is shown in a through walk with comfort then revisit the idea. Tour operators have links on the Falls web page but they cannot fill a booking for the walk. BHP is not a sows ear but it is no silk purse either.