Scottyk wrote:
I think it is bad news for Tassie bushwalkers
DanShell wrote:.... of opening up areas that are otherwise inaccessible for the world to enjoy.
....
Scottyk wrote:I really think this will be the thin end of the wedge.
GPSGuided wrote:Scottyk wrote:I really think this will be the thin end of the wedge.
Of course it'll be! Once one sees money making opportunity, there'll be a flood of others until the place is ruined. That's the nature of the money world. So the question is, how did the government get elected? What's the will of the Tasmanians?
stepbystep wrote:One thing that really sh*ts me is talk of "will of the people", "what do Tasmanians really want", "government mandate". It's all utter bollocks. The job of government is to look after the long term interests of the state and it's people. My dogs would vote to eat all the food in the fridge right now if I let them, but what would they eat tomorrow, if in fact they didn't explode today???
gayet wrote:HI
I understand where you are coming from but the problem with opening up areas is that they are no longer wilderness, nor are they safe from further spreading degradation. Opening up otherwise inaccessible areas removes most of the protection for those areas. Keep the development in areas that already have some infrastructure for the "drive to a lookout and take a photo" types. Improve information regarding access to less remote areas, perhaps provide larger carparks with camping sites nearby. Those that want to walk in for a few days and then back can do so but don't start littering the remote routes with tourist facilities. The people most interested in those areas are interested because of their remoteness and difficulty in access and being away from the chattering hordes.
Scottyk wrote:Dan Shell, we really aren't talking about access for your average joe, these resort will likely be helicopter in style exclusive fly fishing lodges. Not for the everyday Tasmanian
Turfa wrote:Yes, that was my question...if Tasmania is to develop a larger tourism industry (and it does need to do something to generate more economic activity), how do you think it should be done ? Given that there will need to be more people, doing more activities, in more places (and not just low impact, low $ bushwalking). What do you think should be done & where ?
GPSGuided wrote:Turfa wrote:. Sad is, a good portion of the society only wants money to their own pocket - Wallet politics.
stepbystep wrote:One thing that really sh*ts me is talk of "will of the people", "what do Tasmanians really want", "government mandate". It's all utter bollocks.
DanShell wrote:We can develop the economy through tourism without destroying the environment.
GPSGuided wrote:DanShell wrote:We can develop the economy through tourism without destroying the environment.
I really think this kind of statement is an oxymoron (not directed at you). Develop tourism would equal abnormal human and industrial penetration and will always have an effect on the environment. "Destruction" really is a relative term. At the end of the day, it really is a case of compromises, between the level of "destruction" we tolerate and the potential economic gains. It's a continuous spectrum.
DanShell wrote:I agree, and that is the balance we must find.
stepbystep wrote:One thing that really sh*ts me is talk of "will of the people", "what do Tasmanians really want", "government mandate". It's all utter bollocks. The job of government is to look after the long term interests of the state and it's people. My dogs would vote to eat all the food in the fridge right now if I let them, but what would they eat tomorrow, if in fact they didn't explode today???
There is SO MUCH potential to tastefully develop on the fringes of the WHA and other areas. The Tarkine being an absolute prime example. A group of us recently camped at Lake Rosebery for 3 nights, wonderful spot, horrible/no facilities. Each day we did great day trips in the area, spent money at the Tullah pub and store...I could camp there for a month and do something different everyday. I could name hundreds of sites/roads/communities that with some improvements and attractions would help areas develop. Long term.
I would like to see far better access to some key locations for people with disabilities and the aged. That does not mean 'opening up' new areas, just improving access to some.
The government does not have the bravery and foresight to do the grassroots community work that can build sustainable local businesses. Instead it's all about exclusivity of access to corporate donors. Be they miners, forestry contractors or tourism goliaths.
We ALREADY have amazing access to our wild places, unlike anywhere I know. I'm really afraid of what little Will and his cronies will come up with.
headwerkn wrote:Case in point - Dan Hackett's Wilderness Huts at Lake Ina (http://riverfly.com.au/western-lakes-tasmania-huts/)... Alas, the cost of a few days out there is a bit rich for my wallet (for now anyway), but from all reports it's well worth the $$$ for those who've parted with their money.
headwerkn wrote:
I think it is all too easy for 'people like us' to forget that not everyone has the fitness, knees, backs or spare time to do multi-day bushwalks everywhere. That doesn't mean we need wheelchair compatible paths and shuttle buses to everywhere, but just because someone is less able doesn't mean they're less entitled to enjoy a taste of our great wilderness areas.
Cheers, Ben.
headwerkn wrote:Case in point - Dan Hackett's Wilderness Huts at Lake Ina (http://riverfly.com.au/western-lakes-tasmania-huts/). Dan had to pass a-million-and-one environmental regulations to get permission to set up these non-permanent shelters, as well as cop a lot of uninformed nonsense from the fly fishing community.... waste from the toilet is choppered out regularly, visitor numbers are strictly regulated, etc. Alas, the cost of a few days out there is a bit rich for my wallet (for now anyway)...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests