wobbly wrote:Hmmm interesting. There already is an iconic coastal wilderness walk through Croajingolong. If it's anything like the Grampians Peaks trail walk I guess they will be closing it for at least 5 years whilst they remove the wilderness aspect.
wobbly wrote:Hmmm interesting. There already is an iconic coastal wilderness walk through Croajingolong. If it's anything like the Grampians Peaks trail walk I guess they will be closing it for at least 5 years whilst they remove the wilderness aspect.
hairyfoots wrote:I guess I better get out and check more of the Victorian section before it becomes less wild (though I think it already seemed a bit less wild).
hairyfoots wrote:I wonder what they're going to do exactly.
JulianS wrote:Indeed... I wish I knew more about how this process worked. Who comes up with this stuff? Is it a commercial operator who finds someone in government to champion the idea? Do they then drive the design of it? Based on other similar developments (e.g. Ben Boyd), it feels like by the time it reaches public consultation, that is just a box-ticking exercise... they already know what they're going to do...
Heremeahappy1 wrote:Pcv, what the? Your post made me cringe and did not contribute to the discussion. Could you try again to articulate your position?
The Overland has become its own victim: too popular, too famous, too crowded, too tidy, too engineered.
Xplora wrote:Perhaps an alternate view. Maybe we should sacrifice some small sections of wilderness (and lets face it, this is inevitable in time) to those less purist who don't want dirty shoes or to sleep on the ground and stop telling everyone how good the rest of the wilderness is. We kill it for ourselves. Don't blame boffins in tall buildings thinking about how to make money or bring in more tourists.
paidal_chalne_vala wrote:The so called gatekeeper argument is bollocks. If it is mega hard to to reach somewhere then it will stay wild. That is a good thing.
"Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone ?. They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."
Joni Mitchell.
JulianS wrote:I think we're agreed on quite a bit, but not sure I'm connecting the dots of the various points you're making here... take this Croajingolong proposal as an example. It is the only section of relatively wild coast left in the state. Everything else is already sacrificed. The Great Ocean Walk is already 'built' & established, surely that is enough to appease those seeking a "sanitised" coastal walking experience. A few hours drive from Croajingolong, there is another great walk (Light to Light in Ben Boyd NP) that will also soon be decked out/hutted/guided (ie ruined).
I'm not big on posting trip reports or photos, and (like many around these parts) hesitate to talk up my favourite spots for fear of crowding. However, even if I did, I doubt it would have much impact given the effort required to access them (this degree of effort obviously being critical to their having kept relatively wild in the first place). So I still do blame "boffins in tall buildings", since they're the ones who facilitate the massive reduction in effort required to access what were previously wild places. I don't think these boffins are responding to demand (ie the masses frothing over someone elses' Insta shots). I think their thinking is more along the lines of "build it and they will come...". Perhaps it's a bit of both...
PS - yes, I'm aware of inherent hypocrisy/entitlement in some of my statements - it's ok for me, but not for others, etc etc... I don't think we need to get sidetracked by that argument. The key point is that there should still be relatively wild places where only small numbers of people should be allowed (to minimise impact). In many cases, there is a convenient correlation with small numbers willing to put in the extra effort to get there... (until a boffin decides there is an opportunity being missed...)
Apologies Xplora if I misunderstood your post.
Xplora wrote:JulianS wrote: Many wild places are being trashed because of the sheer numbers of people who can access them now. I see many posts and reports and read them more like the writer is only interest in the 'look at me' factor and then someone else has to do it.
Xplora wrote:"If it is mega hard to to reach somewhere then it will stay wild. That is a good thing."
Anyone else like to tell him how wrong this statement is? It may not happen in my lifetime or yours but wild places are increasing easier to get to. History is a great tool.
Baeng72 wrote:Xplora wrote:"If it is mega hard to to reach somewhere then it will stay wild. That is a good thing."
Anyone else like to tell him how wrong this statement is? It may not happen in my lifetime or yours but wild places are increasing easier to get to. History is a great tool.
There's a grain of truth in what Pcv says, while it's hard to get to something, it will remain remote.
But we keep chipping away at the edges, new roads, cities, aiports, and soon what was a long way from anywhere isn't far away at all. It's not that hard to get to most places on the surface of the Earth that aren't in a war zone if you have the money (COVID notwithstanding).
Drew wrote:Or might it be worth walking this summer?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests