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
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.
bobcrusader wrote:It's a bit like: would you climb Uluru?
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?
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
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
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.
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.
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
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'?
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.
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 . . .
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!
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
Return to Bushwalking Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests