I'm in two minds about the arguments presented here. In so many ways I agree that the wilderness should have minimal development, however, I would also remind everyone that tourism to Tasmania has risen from 100 000 people a year five years ago to over 1.2 million a year now (see link below), which generates over $2 billion a year in revenue, and that is expected to double again over the next 5 years. Given the relative 'undiscovered' status of the Tasmanian wilderness, it's inevitable that a reasonable percentage of these visitors will be the overseas "instagram style" of adventurer: seeking new "first of its kind" experiences that they can post about on social media for kudos, and that means they are going to go off-piste. That is, they will very much have the intention of seeking out pristine areas that no-one has experienced before, and will be more than willing to violate any state or federal laws or environmental considerations to get there. So we're going to see a rise in damage to wilderness areas, track crowding, a demand for high quality remote area accommodation and most certainly a rise in remote area rescues.
A decent analogy to this issue would be the French Alps, which in 1970 saw relatively few rescues, and was a region frequented only by experienced climbers who were (again, relatively) few in number. Nowadays, those same alps are absolutely overrun by walkers and tourists, and climbing Mt Blanc is marketed as an 'experience'. I myself walked the Tour du Mont Blanc two years ago in peak season, and encountered well over 1000 fellow walkers on the track over a 8 day period (yes, I was so stunned by the number of people I started counting).
I guess what I am trying to say is that given the money involved, considerations of environmental protection are going to be secondary to the potential for profit the region offers, whether we walkers think that is the right thing or not. It is inevitable the Tasmanian wilderness is going to undergo phenomenal development over the next 50 years.
As such, I'm moving away from the idea that halting wilderness development is a possibility: I don't think when you talk about billions of potential dollars involved that even the collective voice of all Tasmanian bushwalkers will even rate more than an inconvenient whisper of protest. Rather, I'm in favour of controlled development with consultation. That is, a systematic plan to avoid destruction of wilderness ecosystems by consulting with qualified parties (such as bushwalkers) about where and how this inevitable development should occur, and how it can be done with minimal impact to the environment. I'd rather take that path than bang my head against a brick wall trying to tell people that the ecosystems of the areas involved are too fragile for development - everyone knows that already - and if they ignore that fact now, you can be guaranteed they'll ignore it in the future.
Maybe the best chance we have is to develop a stronger political voice (I mean, for God's sake, the hunters and shooters got someone into parliament!) that is concerned only with the environment of Tasmania and has no other agendas.
Anyway, that's my thoughts.
FYI, these are the huts that Daniel Hackett (the fly guide) put up at the Western Lakes for his clients (scroll down the website). Not exactly the huge development people are claiming them to be.
https://riverfly.com.au/#2https://www.tourismtasmania.com.au/news ... or-numbers