Closed areas, tracks and the like, No go zones.

Bushwalking topics that are not location specific.
Forum rules
The place for bushwalking topics that are not location specific.

Closed areas, tracks and the like, No go zones.

Postby Luc-Porter » Wed 20 Sep, 2017 6:13 pm

Hi all.
Was wondering what the general consensus was in regard to sharing information about areas of "No Go"
For example, I live in the Blue Mountains, places like Orphan rock and Rennie's tunnel are both off limits or deemed closed by the powers that be.
I've done both, although deemed dangerous, I figure, as an adult, I make my own decision on what I deem an acceptable risk.
I'm willing to cop a fine for my desire to explore as I see fit. There are some fantastic places to see in the "Grand area" ( or so I've been told, wink wink ) and I'm willing to explore abandoned mine audits and the like.
I'd like to think everyone is responsible for their own actions, pack in, pack out, tread light, take only photos goes without saying.
So, my personal opinion is, share the knowledge. However I want to make it clear, that the knowledge shared is used at own risk.
What are your thoughts?
Luc-Porter
Nothofagus gunnii
Nothofagus gunnii
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue 05 Sep, 2017 7:33 pm
Region: New South Wales
Gender: Male

Re: Closed areas, tracks and the like, No go zones.

Postby Turfa » Wed 20 Sep, 2017 7:13 pm

Personally, I think the responsible thing to do is heed any access restrictions.
If an area is closed because it is sensitive...leave it alone
If it is closed because it is dangerous, stay out because the last thing I want to do is put rescuers at risk if anything goes wrong
User avatar
Turfa
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Mon 18 Jan, 2010 2:06 pm
Region: Australia

Re: Closed areas, tracks and the like, No go zones.

Postby Mark F » Wed 20 Sep, 2017 7:22 pm

Personally, while I have explored several/many such places over the years, providing public knowledge of them with details that allow others to replicate your exploits without having to make much effort or to consider the risks etc is I believe inappropriate and loads you with a certain moral responsibility if anything goes wrong for those that follow the information you provide. I think the current generation many of whom seem to demand gps tracks and YouTube footage of ones adventures has lost the ability to explore and understand the meaning of private and personal experiences.

Really no different to providing information about untracked routes. Public communication not appropriate but selective private communication MAY or MAY NOT be appropriate. This is not to say that you shouldn't do your own exploration of such locations.
"Perfection is attained not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to remove".
User avatar
Mark F
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 2332
Joined: Mon 19 Sep, 2011 8:14 pm
Region: Australian Capital Territory
Gender: Male

Re: Closed areas, tracks and the like, No go zones.

Postby ribuck » Thu 21 Sep, 2017 2:57 am

Turfa wrote:If an area is closed because it is sensitive...leave it alone
If it is closed because it is dangerous, stay out because the last thing I want to do is put rescuers at risk if anything goes wrong

Yes for sure in those cases Turfa, but sometimes an area is closed because of bureaucracy, or is closed for a danger that can be mitigated.

Luc-Porter wrote:For example, I live in the Blue Mountains, places like Orphan rock and Rennie's tunnel are both off limits or deemed closed by the powers that be.

Those are excellent and illustrative examples. I didn't know that Rennie's tunnel was officially off-limits, but I have done it some years ago. I won't do it again, because there are sections with loose rock in the roof and I can see that if one rock is dislodged many others may fall.

I have been up Orphan Rock many times, as have lots of old-timers. After all, in the 1960s the ladders to the top were signposted and promoted as an attraction. Back then, there weren't such high trees around it, and people would wave back-and-forth between the top of Orphan Rock and the Revolving Restaurant. Come to think of it, Orphan Rock may even be on Scenic World's land rather than within the National Park. Anyway, the route was gated off because of concerns about the stability of the rock, or at least that was the story at the time. The rock is narrower in the middle than it is at the top, and there's a wind-blown hole through it too. The concern was supposedly that if too many people were on top they might topple it. Obviously I haven't done an engineering analysis, but I will say this: in a strong wind, the wind loading on Orphan Rock far exceeds the gravity loading from a few people on top of it. So I would put this in the category of a danger that can be mitigated, simply by not climbing it during a gale.

My personal philosophy is that I would not want to see factual information suppressed. So, for example, I am happy that both Orphan Rock and Rennie's Tunnel are mapped on OpenStreetMap. And if someone expresses an interest in these places, I will try to provide useful information about the level of risk so that they can make a more informed decision.

Incidentally, a few years ago I was riding the Skyway when the operator spotted a couple sunbathing atop Orphan Rock. She called on her radio for someone to be sent to accost them. I suppose by the time the Skyway closes for the day it's a bit cold for sunbathing :)
User avatar
ribuck
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1883
Joined: Wed 15 May, 2013 3:47 am
Region: Other Country
Gender: Male

Re: Closed areas, tracks and the like, No go zones.

Postby bobcrusader » Fri 22 Sep, 2017 12:43 pm

Let me open another Pandora's box then... Native Title. Expect about 66% of Australia (granted, mostly outback and not great walking) to be 'locked up' in the next couple of years as the outstanding claims are approved. The Land Council can issue permits (but often don't) and also don't represent all tribes resulting in confusion, not knowing who to contact and/or multiple permits needed. I've heard of situations where one is paid for and granted, then a different one refused! Apart from the remote communities, the vast majority of the Native Title area is unpopulated. I think Australia has enough great walks to avoid needing to venture onto Native Title without permission, but hypothetically, what if Freycinet or Cradle got 'locked up'? It's a bit like: would you climb Uluru?
bobcrusader
Atherosperma moschatum
Atherosperma moschatum
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat 09 Sep, 2017 11:30 am
Region: Victoria
Gender: Male

Re: Closed areas, tracks and the like, No go zones.

Postby whitefang » Fri 22 Sep, 2017 1:28 pm

bobcrusader wrote:It's a bit like: would you climb Uluru?


No. Unless you have permission from any landowner don't go on their land. It doesn't matter if it's the traditional owners or private landowners.
User avatar
whitefang
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 387
Joined: Wed 09 Apr, 2014 11:36 am
Location: Adelaide Hills
Region: South Australia
Gender: Male

Re: Closed areas, tracks and the like, No go zones.

Postby slparker » Fri 22 Sep, 2017 1:45 pm

bobcrusader wrote:Let me open another Pandora's box then... Native Title. Expect about 66% of Australia (granted, mostly outback and not great walking) to be 'locked up' in the next couple of years as the outstanding claims are approved. The Land Council can issue permits (but often don't) and also don't represent all tribes resulting in confusion, not knowing who to contact and/or multiple permits needed. I've heard of situations where one is paid for and granted, then a different one refused! Apart from the remote communities, the vast majority of the Native Title area is unpopulated. I think Australia has enough great walks to avoid needing to venture onto Native Title without permission, but hypothetically, what if Freycinet or Cradle got 'locked up'? It's a bit like: would you climb Uluru?


You are scaremongering. That is not how Native Title works. How many areas are there in Australia where you are not permitted to enter at all unless you are Indigenous? How many native title claims have led to non-Indigenous people not being permitted at all to enter Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land?

The use of Freycinet and Cradle is a red herring. Native Title can only be made on land with certain criteria to satisfy, one of which is demonstrable, continuous cultural connection to the land in question. In Tasmania,no Native Title Claims have been successful even though the Tasmanian government has handed back land to Tasmanian Aboriginal people.

if Native Title claims are successful in the future,in Tasmania, it is likely to be coastal or island regions where cultural practices (i.e. abalone harvesting) are still practiced, cultural significant sites are present (i.e. premighana) or continuity of occupation and connection could be established.

BTW, you can climb Uluru, it is just very disrespectful to do so.
slparker
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1404
Joined: Fri 25 Apr, 2008 10:59 pm

Re: Closed areas, tracks and the like, No go zones.

Postby rcaffin » Fri 22 Sep, 2017 9:07 pm

sharing information about areas of "No Go"
Sharing in private with someone you trust - sure.
Public dissemination of the information? No.
Apart from anything else, having to run major S&R in some of those areas to find a bunch of idiots is bad for the environment and politically hazardous.

would you climb Uluru?
To whom does Ayers Rock belong? To all of Australia, or to a small private group who recently managed to claim it for their own?

Cheers
Roger
User avatar
rcaffin
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1223
Joined: Thu 17 Jul, 2008 3:46 pm

Re: Closed areas, tracks and the like, No go zones.

Postby davidf » Fri 22 Sep, 2017 9:18 pm

The Sydney catchment bans are *&^%$#!. Happy to break the law, You cannot legally go down the Kowmung to to the Coxes. I have had a pig have go at me down that way in a packraft.
davidf
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Thu 24 Jan, 2013 12:17 pm
Region: New South Wales

Re: Closed areas, tracks and the like, No go zones.

Postby DaveNoble » Sat 23 Sep, 2017 12:00 am

Orphan Rock is in Blue Mts National Park according to the map, and there is no sign indicating it is off limits.

As far as I understand, we still live in a monarchy and that means ALL land is vested to the crown. Yes - that means private land too.
DaveNoble
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1031
Joined: Sun 03 Feb, 2008 3:56 pm

Re: Closed areas, tracks and the like, No go zones.

Postby Nuts » Sat 23 Sep, 2017 1:48 pm

rcaffin wrote:would you climb Uluru?
To whom does Ayers Rock belong? To all of Australia, or to a small private group who recently managed to claim it for their own?

Cheers
Roger


Uluru never really belonged to anyone.. but in these terms, yes, a group did manage to claim title, through the exclusion of other Australians. Not excluded from their 'right' to climb stuff but from their traditional home turf and moreso, their spiritual centre. It lasted something like 25yrs..
User avatar
Nuts
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 8632
Joined: Sat 05 Apr, 2008 12:22 pm
Region: Tasmania

Re: Closed areas, tracks and the like, No go zones.

Postby peregrinator » Sat 23 Sep, 2017 2:00 pm

rcaffin wrote: . . .
[i]would you climb Uluru?

To whom does Ayers Rock belong? To all of Australia, or to a small private group who recently managed to claim it for their own?

Cheers
Roger


Fifty or sixty thousand years ago is hardly “recent”. Quite a long time between then and 1788 when a “small private group” arrived without an invitation, and claimed two-thirds of a continent (all land to the east of longitude 135 degrees E) as their own.

Whether this is relevant to “would you climb Uluru?”, I’m not entirely sure. It is however an historical fact which is best not ignored.
peregrinator
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Fri 15 Apr, 2011 2:50 pm
Region: Victoria

Re: Closed areas, tracks and the like, No go zones.

Postby slparker » Sun 24 Sep, 2017 7:56 pm

It's not the odd council, government or Indigenous plot of land that is locked up that is the biggest issue, it is freehold land.

Many bush tracks and fire trails in my home state, Tassy, that were once public access are now gated and locked and where I live now, Victoria, much of the walking country in my vicinity is locked up by farmers. Even enforcing your right to access fire trails can bring a snarly response if it goes through farmer joes property.

It doesn't have to be this way. In the U.K. There is a large network of public access tracks so if you wanted to, you could walk from north to south largely on walking tracks through private properties. In Sweden you can walk, and in fact camp, anywhere that's not close to a farmhouse.

In nsw there is a proposal to sell the stock routes that allow a walker to traverse the western half of the state, if they so wish. We are a country that does not value the pedestrian or public paths.
slparker
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1404
Joined: Fri 25 Apr, 2008 10:59 pm

Re: Closed areas, tracks and the like, No go zones.

Postby puredingo » Sun 24 Sep, 2017 8:07 pm

My absolute pet hate slparker. I've already been shouted down on this forum when explaining my attitude/approach to such situations so I won't bother repeating. Berated but not altered mind you.
puredingo
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Mon 13 Feb, 2012 6:54 am
Region: New South Wales

Re: Closed areas, tracks and the like, No go zones.

Postby Montaine » Thu 28 Sep, 2017 7:19 pm

slparker wrote:It's not the odd council, government or Indigenous plot of land that is locked up that is the biggest issue, it is freehold land.


Really agree with this, particularly in Tassie. Going by the sternness and frequency of 'no trespassing' signs in some places, I get it that some people [*]really[*] don't want other people on their land, and I would seriously be fearing for my life if I found myself wandering onto private property by mistake sometimes.

Way more of an issue than exclusive native title, rare as that is.
Montaine
Nothofagus gunnii
Nothofagus gunnii
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue 12 Jul, 2016 9:56 pm
Region: Tasmania
Gender: Male

Re: Closed areas, tracks and the like, No go zones.

Postby ribuck » Fri 29 Sep, 2017 2:37 am

Montaine wrote:Going by the sternness and frequency of 'no trespassing' signs in some places, I get it that some people [*]really[*] don't want other people on their land, and I would seriously be fearing for my life if I found myself wandering onto private property by mistake sometimes.

I headed out from Mt Victoria station, past Bushranger Cave, down into the valley, and along some rough vehicle tracks. Suddenly I came across a locked gate, copiously festooned with barbed wire and signs threatening that some very bad things would happen to trespassers. But the signs were on the OTHER side of the gate. I had inadvertently entered the private property through the unfenced bush end. I saw a guy living in a trailer who looked as if he had gone feral, and decided to make a rapid exit.
User avatar
ribuck
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1883
Joined: Wed 15 May, 2013 3:47 am
Region: Other Country
Gender: Male

Re: Closed areas, tracks and the like, No go zones.

Postby Wollemi » Fri 29 Sep, 2017 7:52 pm

Turfa wrote:If it is closed because it is dangerous, stay out because the last thing I want to do is put rescuers at risk if anything goes wrong


This month, a friend severely sprained knee ligaments while ski-touring near the base of Mt Twynam, within sight of the lights of Guthega. Less than three hours later, he was medivac'd out to Canberra Hospital.
Some may say he was rescued after a thing (turning while skiing with a full pack on) went wrong. Many have said all rescuers are at risk when effecting a rescue - a short winch (<10m) was employed to get my companion into the helicopter.

Should back-country be closed be closed to skiing because it is, as I observed, 'dangerous'?
Live everyday as if it were your last... one day you will be right.
Wollemi
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue 24 Jul, 2012 10:32 am
Location: lower Blue Mts
Region: New South Wales
Gender: Male

Re: Closed areas, tracks and the like, No go zones.

Postby rcaffin » Sat 30 Sep, 2017 7:52 pm

Should back-country be closed be closed to skiing because it is, as I observed, 'dangerous'?
Well, of course it should be closed.
After all, if you are not paying high fees to the Thredbo or Perisher licencees, you obviously should not be out there. You are being dangerously anti-capitalist.

Cheers
Roger
User avatar
rcaffin
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1223
Joined: Thu 17 Jul, 2008 3:46 pm

Re: Closed areas, tracks and the like, No go zones.

Postby Xplora » Sun 01 Oct, 2017 6:32 am

Wollemi wrote:
Turfa wrote:If it is closed because it is dangerous, stay out because the last thing I want to do is put rescuers at risk if anything goes wrong


This month, a friend severely sprained knee ligaments while ski-touring near the base of Mt Twynam, within sight of the lights of Guthega. Less than three hours later, he was medivac'd out to Canberra Hospital.
Some may say he was rescued after a thing (turning while skiing with a full pack on) went wrong. Many have said all rescuers are at risk when effecting a rescue - a short winch (<10m) was employed to get my companion into the helicopter.

Should back-country be closed be closed to skiing because it is, as I observed, 'dangerous'?


I think you have taken Turfa's quote out of context and to an extreme not intended. Perhaps the term dangerous was intended to suggest something like a mine, unstable cave, cliff or the like but to take it to mean any adventurous activity is skewing the debate and not really relevant.
slparker wrote:It's not the odd council, government or Indigenous plot of land that is locked up that is the biggest issue, it is freehold land.

Many bush tracks and fire trails in my home state, Tassy, that were once public access are now gated and locked and where I live now, Victoria, much of the walking country in my vicinity is locked up by farmers. Even enforcing your right to access fire trails can bring a snarly response if it goes through farmer joes property.

It doesn't have to be this way. In the U.K. There is a large network of public access tracks so if you wanted to, you could walk from north to south largely on walking tracks through private properties. In Sweden you can walk, and in fact camp, anywhere that's not close to a farmhouse.

In nsw there is a proposal to sell the stock routes that allow a walker to traverse the western half of the state, if they so wish. We are a country that does not value the pedestrian or public paths.


In Victoria and also NSW, access is available on all streams and rivers and within a chain of the watercourse. In Victoria the law states that a fence to or across the river must have a stile or gate for people. A considerable lack of respect for private land has caused some people to close access for walkers and other land owners are concerned of the legal implications. The old track to Claustral canyon may fallen foul to these. Many roads near me go through private property to access National Park and signs seem not to work all the time with gates left open for stock to wander through. People in their little city block protect their fully fenced fortress from intruders but then complain when they cannot access a place in the bush they believe they are entitled to get to via someone else's private property. It would be like me jumping your front fence then, walking through your back yard and then jumping your back fence to access a reserve instead of taking a longer way around or not going at all.

On our block there is a road to the river. It is our road, put in and maintained by us but some people feel they have a right to use it to go fishing without asking. Not so. Public access is provided by way of a public road and once on the watercourse they are on green space and can move freely. It means they have further to walk. We have had people driving around the property at night and when confronted I was asked what my problem was, they were just going for a drive. We have people walking on with guns to poach deer and some at night with spotlights. Once I found a family sitting in one of our paddocks right in the middle of our horses. When asked what they were doing he told me the kids don't get to experience this sort of thing in Melbourne. Fair enough but what if the began offering food to the horses and the horses bit a kids finger or one horse pushed another away and a kid was trampled? I mentioned he could have stood at the fence and they would have come over but apparently the horses did come over but walked away. As a land owner, how do you suggest I differentiate those who are good from those who are not? Perhaps a sign 'Only careful, responsible people can trespass on this private property'.

Now bushwalkers are special and all land owners should be able to tell the difference between them and some other lout. They will not take legal action against the owner of a property they trespass on if injured traversing it. They will not leave rubbish behind or trails of blue foam from their sleeping mat caught up on branches. I guess what I am leading to is people should consider the point of view of the person owning the property as they may have good reason for restricting or preventing access and don't think that just because you are in the wide open spaces you have any more right to trespass than in the suburbs.
Xplora
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sat 01 Aug, 2015 7:24 am
Region: Victoria
Gender: Male

Re: Closed areas, tracks and the like, No go zones.

Postby peregrinator » Sun 01 Oct, 2017 10:01 am

Xplora wrote: . . . In Victoria and also NSW, access is available on all streams and rivers and within a chain of the watercourse. In Victoria the law states that a fence to or across the river must have a stile or gate for people . . .

. . . On our block there is a road to the river. It is our road, put in and maintained by us but some people feel they have a right to use it to go fishing without asking. Not so. Public access is provided by way of a public road . . .


I agree with all of your other points but I'm puzzled about how to resolve this rather contradictory matter. People who are unfamiliar with a location may have difficulty in differentiating between public and private roads because of an absence of signs. Very tricky in situations where a map shows what appears to be a public road but a fence or gate exists which suggests otherwise.

Note that I'm not arguing that this gives irresponsible people the right to barge in wherever they fancy!
peregrinator
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Fri 15 Apr, 2011 2:50 pm
Region: Victoria

Re: Closed areas, tracks and the like, No go zones.

Postby Xplora » Sun 01 Oct, 2017 4:53 pm

peregrinator wrote:I agree with all of your other points but I'm puzzled about how to resolve this rather contradictory matter. People who are unfamiliar with a location may have difficulty in differentiating between public and private roads because of an absence of signs. Very tricky in situations where a map shows what appears to be a public road but a fence or gate exists which suggests otherwise.

Note that I'm not arguing that this gives irresponsible people the right to barge in wherever they fancy!


I am not sure if there needs to be any resolve of this matter. I doubt all will agree here and those who don't will just do what they please regardless. We treat each trespasser on their individual merits and attitude is very important but it is very clear our property is not public property or access. I do agree there are times this can be less than clear and I know some old maps, google earth and gps data is not good in regional areas. If you rely on this information without further checking then you could be embarrassed. If in doubt, err on the side of caution or make an effort to find a local. There are some tracks which are in dispute and usually the argument is with the land owner and some government authority. Not good to make yourself a test case. Some land owners may not want you to see what they are growing or doing and it would be ill advised to question that. Best to walk away with a very polite sorry.

Recently some motorbikes road through our neighbours property as there is an old road on a map but when they realised it was no longer used they turned around and when approached they were clearly very nice and apologetic. I was able to suggest some good rides for them on public land. A car that drove through the back of our place and up to the house one night, turned around when he saw the house but then continued his excursion with no intention of leaving. Different attitude from him so it was handled differently. Usually signs go up when the problem gets out of hand and by then all are considered the same.

We are approached from time to time by people requesting access to the property for fishing or hunting. Even those who are polite are refused. From experience these people will tell their friends who then come and ask and in turn tell others. Eventually people just stop asking and think it is a given right. We shoot on the property so it is best to know if people are around. Recently a neighbour chanced upon 3 who had jumped the locked gate to camp down by the river. We had been out deer stalking and although we are careful enough to identify our target, it does not sit well with me that others may be wandering around without my knowledge.

The laws of trespass are similar for each state but you should check first for the one you are in. Basically if you have a legal right to be on private property then there is no problem and you can also access the property to speak with the owner or occupier but when you are asked to leave you must do so immediately or action can be taken against you and as much reasonable force as necessary can be used to remove you from the property. This does not mean the owner can threaten you with a weapon if you have not done the same first but it does mean they can use physical force if you refuse to leave. I don't think that is a good situation for people to put themselves into.

Tread carefully if you knowingly trespass. Personally I think it is rude.
Xplora
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sat 01 Aug, 2015 7:24 am
Region: Victoria
Gender: Male

Re: Closed areas, tracks and the like, No go zones.

Postby rcaffin » Mon 02 Oct, 2017 6:56 pm

We had been out deer stalking and although we are careful enough to identify our target, it does not sit well with me that others may be wandering around without my knowledge.
Ah yes, tricky stuff.
At the risk of being seen as excessively aggro, can I suggest a couple of rounds more or less straight up in the air from out of sight, THEN you walk up to them and casually mention that they are on PP and you are deer hunting?
As the landowner, you would be entirely legal.

Cheers
Roger
User avatar
rcaffin
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1223
Joined: Thu 17 Jul, 2008 3:46 pm

Re: Closed areas, tracks and the like, No go zones.

Postby Luc-Porter » Mon 02 Oct, 2017 8:07 pm

Hi all.
Was good to see some various views on the original question.
It had nothing to do with Native Title or private property.
However was very interesting to have the thread hijacked and follow what was said.
I was asking initially about areas deemed dangerous, and thoughts about sharing information. Deemed risky and the like.
Personally, if I see a sign saying " closed to public " I can't help myself, I've go to see why.
Luc-Porter
Nothofagus gunnii
Nothofagus gunnii
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue 05 Sep, 2017 7:33 pm
Region: New South Wales
Gender: Male

Re: Closed areas, tracks and the like, No go zones.

Postby Xplora » Tue 03 Oct, 2017 5:28 am

rcaffin wrote: We had been out deer stalking and although we are careful enough to identify our target, it does not sit well with me that others may be wandering around without my knowledge.
Ah yes, tricky stuff.
At the risk of being seen as excessively aggro, can I suggest a couple of rounds more or less straight up in the air from out of sight, THEN you walk up to them and casually mention that they are on PP and you are deer hunting?
As the landowner, you would be entirely legal.

Cheers
Roger

The trouble is more when you can't see people or do not know they are there. High powered rounds could pass through bush if you miss a shot. You would be extremely unlucky to get hit by one but it could happen. Deer are more often in the bushy areas and I can't see who is on the tracks on the other side. I would not be in favour of letting off any warning rounds regardless although my neighbour used to do it when he saw fishermen. I think that just gets people agitated and maybe they have a gun as well. I came across a deer hunter walking out of the national park near our place and I approached him to let him know he was poaching. Knowing how intimidating guns can be he, without mention, put his firearm on the ground while we spoke. I thought his actions were very considerate and his attitude from there was polite. It is far better to start with nice and work your way up to whatever is needed.

As to the OP, I felt you were talking about public land and just left the debate alone. The private property issue is a little different but given access to some areas is through it then it is interesting what people would do if that right of way is challenged or the owner stops it.

While in a NT national park I inadvertently walked past a sign in a cave, thinking it was describing the rock art and thought I would read it later. It was a sign to say not to go any further. Around the bend I found cave paintings of men in space suits with helmets, gloves and boots. They were not the usual wadjina type. I am not saying were it is. Maybe keeping these things out of the public arena is better.
Xplora
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sat 01 Aug, 2015 7:24 am
Region: Victoria
Gender: Male


Return to Bushwalking Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ribuck and 37 guests