Private Property signs on Corang Loop

[davidp]

Just a heads up that Bushwalking NSW is helping with this matter. Hopefully we will have a zoom meeting in late Feb if anyone is interested. It is important that not just the access issue is addressed but also that the natural wilderness values of Goodsell Creek are preserved

[davidp]

Just to keep people up to date. Federation of Bushwalking Clubs has made some initial enquiries which have not proved successful. NPWS seems very uninterested. Just planning a zoom meeting if anyone is interested to help plan the next steps. Please PM me. I note many people are still walking into the lagoon and the track is easy to follow. Also people are visiting Goodsell Lookout on the way in via a now well worn track. . No one seems to be camping at the Lagoon any more however which is probably not a bad thing as it has become a little eroded.

Also if anyone wants to buy a block of land (old pine forest) at Cockpit swamp send me a PM. I have heard of some coming up for sale in July. It would be great if someone "eco" bought it with a view to rehabilitation as it currently looks so ugly. The dead pines are currently being removed.

Also : the Keep Corang Open facebook group is about to reach 200 members - Please tell your friends.

[wildwanderer]

..

[davidp]

it is great to see that the facebook group Keep Corang Open has almost reached 300 members. Is anyone interested in a "Back to Corang Lagoon Weekend"? We could celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of the walking track to Corang Lagoon. Hopefully we will bump into the owner and be able to request a formal meeting to discuss options and concerns.

[davidp]

An Update on the sixty year old access track from Wog Wog to Corang Lagoon and plans for a "Walk to Reclaim the Lagoon".
Momentum is growing to seek resumption of the Goodsell Creek wilderness section of the Budawangs that was sold a couple of years back. The secret purchaser has unfortunately refused to even reply to four letters seeking a compromise access solution that have been delivered via authorities. As a result the campaign is now moving into a new phase to increase public awareness of the issue and to hopefully prevent further subdivision and road encroachment into this wilderness. The aim is to secure public access for all for many generations to come. The KEEP CORANG OPEN facebook group now has almost 500 members

We would like to encourage people to walk in there on a new legal northern route to help save the Goodsell Creek catchment from subdivision. Would someone in your club like to lead a day walk or overnight walk to this location? (Possibly on Mon Jan 2nd 2023 but any date is fine ). We can provide all the details the leader might need. A recent Walk to Reclaim the Lagoon attracted 17 people and proved very popular.

For more info see the face book group Keep Corang Open. Please tell your friends and your club.

[davidp]

Here is some interesting info on wading in a river from NSW DPI website. .
Wading in a river
https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fishing/recr ... ler-access
Wading a River
Section 38 allows anglers to be within the bed of a river or stream. In many areas this allows anglers to wade through whole river reaches quite easily. In some cases the bed of a river may be freehold title however access to these areas for anglers is irrespective of ownership of the river bed . Please note that section 38 does not apply to lakes. In addition to this, many sections of a waterway may be Crown land. In some cases this crown land extends well beyond the bed of a river. These areas of crown land are usually ill defined and often unrecognisable. To find these areas of crown land please contact the nearest NSW Local Crown lands office.

Fishing from the bank
While section 38 offers anglers the right of access for the purpose of fishing, argument often arises with the physical definition of the bed of river. Section 38 of the act clearly states that the bed is that any section which is covered and left bare with the increase of flows other than at times of flood. The definition of where this point is located on a river is often subject to scrutiny. Clearly it is the intent of the legislation to allow access for fishing in some manner other than at times of flood. The Department considers the bed of the river to be that area which is below but within river channel flood level generally this is at the top of each bank and does not extend to areas when the river shifts beyond this point i.e. at times of flood. This area includes most areas of beach or gravel bars or areas considered a waterway defined under the Crown Land Management Act 2016.

[johnf]

NSW Budawangs - Corang Lagoon. The historic 1960 walking track from Wog Wog to Corang Lagoon and Adjacent Twin Falls crosses wilderness crown land that has been sold by the NSW government to a private investor who has subdivided the land and erected keep out fences. A strong campaign to reverse the decision is building. For details see blog on this site Private Property signs on Corang Loop And the fb group Keep Corang Open

Just to update people here that aren't members of the FB Keep Corang Open group.

The owners wrote a letter to the group. They expressed in no uncertain terms they don't want bush walkers traversing their land. It's unfortunate but they do own the property and can exclude people if they wish.
They did go on to say that they were keen to preserve the natural environment and not develop the land.
They also stated they felt a bit intimidated by people approaching them and they mentioned they had repeatably stated people weren't to trespass.

I don't think any good will come of anyone trying to further negotiate access. I suggest to make the access issue known through further representation to National Parks for them to deal with it at a future time when the owners might have a change of heart.

You can still access the area and a longer route can be made by travelling along the north (east) side of Corang river after the private property line is met and then turning west where the NP goes out to Nerriga Rd

[davidp]

To keep everyone in the loop who is not on facebook: Good News the owner has finally contacted the group (after 2 years of complete silence) and although they have refused to open the historic 1960 Corang lagoon walking track they have said they will look after the property which is great. Please give me a few days and I will upload the letter from the owner and a detailed reply.

[davidp]

here is a letter about corang lagoon

[tastrax]

..and for context, here is the letter from the owners of the land

396CragsRoad.pdf

(35.97 KiB) Downloaded 72 times

ADMIN comment -- I appreciate everyone sharing information to help us better understand this complex issue. With this specific PDF, I have chosen to redact names and a specific personal feature. I am not able to be confident about who the author actually is (but have no reason to doubt the authenticity), but there is no way for me to know how factual the statements are. This forum is not the place (nor do we have resources for such investigations) to discuss the accuracy of such claims, nor would we be able to give justice to anyone affected. I think there is value in leaving the letter here since the discussion has been ongoing - but I ask everyone to take care in making assumptions about fellow walkers and landowners. Not everything on the internet is true, nor is it a great place for nuanced discussions.
Let's keep focused on we can walk and how to legally and respectfully improve access to such amazing places.

[Mikeg780]

Having read the (redacted) pdf which appears to be a letter from the landowners it does make me feel a little uncomfortable.

The alledged actions included within it (posters on power poles outside houses believed to be the owners, what appears to be the owners children being approached by adults they don’t know) do look somewhat like possible harassment by whomever it was possibly done by.

Is this really what we do?

I love nature, I love bushwalking and I love the Budawangs. But I don’t support harassment in any form and, Prima Facie, this looks like harassment by some individuals.

Do we on this forum support these alledged actions?

[Warin]

I love nature, I love bushwalking and I love the Budawangs. But I don’t support harassment in any form and, Prima Facie, this looks like harassment by some individuals.

Do we on this forum support these alledged actions?

I don't. Yet there has been at least one statement suggesting such action in this very thread!

-----------------------
A 'Corang loop letter' comment.

I have ‘issues’ with several parts of this letter.
I state one of them here that is reasonable easy to substantiate.
The letter states
Due to the now-closed areas, in order to access much beloved areas along the
river, as well as areas further along the track, walkers have been forced to
circumvent your property line and create new routes. These new routes are
much closer to your cabin and swimming holes, and arguably have a much
greater impact on your privacy and sense of isolation, presumably the opposite
of what you are trying to achieve.

There appear to be no cabins east of Goodsell Creek, the original track is east of Goodsell Creek and any route diversion would be further east. Other ‘routes’ ,e.g. to swimming holes, would be ‘off track’ so not a ‘new route’ and would be best placed on the northern side of the Corang River (within the National Park).

So far from ‘impacting on their privacy’ the new route enhance their privacy by placing the diversion track further from their cabins.
---------------
I could not support that letter in any way.

[wildwalks]

-- ADMIN Comment --
I have spoken with some people involved in this campaign, and I am convinced that they have learned much more than is visible to us in this thread.

The allegations in the letter from the land owner involving children are not actually directed at specific people, and people in the campaign I have spoken to have no knowledge of such behaviour.

Can I encourage us all to accept that the people involved have a better understanding of the impact that has happened than we do?

Clearly, there are issues here that we do not support.

I note that at least one organisation that supported the campaign has simply removed any record of their involvement, rather than acknowledging and learning from it.

Having this information here is not celebrating the mistakes, but acknowledging them.

I would like to acknowledge the bravery of those involved in not fighting to have all this information removed through moderation. Losing this, means we lose the wisdom that comes through seeing such things unfold.

Can we please assume, moving forward with this post, that some of the behaviour mentioned here is clearly not okay? And those involved have shown significant remorse for their part. (I have had the opportunity to hear that, but have not shared it here as I did no think it helpful to open up a slanging match)

If this turns into a slanging match or heaping blame on people (even if not named) then I will need to moderate this thread further, and will probably just remove it because we do not have the resources to manage it. I would prefer to leave this thread up and let people move on with what they have learned.

[Twiggy94]

Reading this it is a little confusing to me and I struggle a bit to understand what the objective of the campaign is?

I understand that this area is private property (and looks like it may have been since the 40’s if the letter is accurate). There looks like there was a telephone conversation some time ago, and it is mentioned earlier in this thread, so there has perhaps been some contact in the past? If so why are we saying there has been silence? Is that what we are saying?

The section of the, what looks to be a response letter to the landholders letter, that is called out above makes me feel uncomfortable as well. I hesitate to call it out here, but it is interpreted by me at least as, maybe, a little threatening.

If the Landowners don’t want a conversation with us, I’m not really clear what levers we have now to get one? and what might that conversation now look like?

If the answer is ‘We just don’t want to talk to you’ what are we going to do? What can we do? Can we ‘force’ a conversation? I can’t really see how, without action that may be felt by some to be some form of harassment?

I also hesitate to put this post up. I don’t really post much myself and I have been contacted for speaking out. It now makes me a little nervous, but I do believe the standard you walk past is the standard you accept, so I would like to have the courage to call this out. I am trying to be polite here and just give an alternate view for consideration.

I do feel, rightly or wrongly, that these questions are in some way valid. I.e. What are the next steps? If the land wasn’t sold correctly by NSW government back when, what does that mean? Are we wanting to force a buyback? Are we wanting now to force someone off their land?

I just can’t see a way forward from here, without unpleasantness. Can’t we just all get along?

[wildwalks]

Thanks Twiggy94

Yeah it is difficult campaign. I have had no involvement so don't know the details. But I would be confident there will be no forced return of the land. The current owners did not even buy it from the government.

Campaigns are almost always run by passionate people. Sometimes that can bubble over. And sometimes we are slow to hear about the negatives

When running a campaign I like to focus on the idea of 'what does good look like' - ie what is an ideal outcome in the short, medium and long-term.

Since the owners are not wanting people walking there now it seems the best medium term focus is to either keep and route on NPWS land informal off track route. Maybe speak with NOWS about best routes to minimize impact and avoid areas with vulnerable vegetation.

Medium to longer term I think it be worth keeping a watch on the property for when it hits the market again. These kind of properties tend to tern over every few decades. Then either lobby for it to be included in NPWS land or pull together a trust to buy and manage it. I am not sure if the actual ecological value of the property and it is one NPWS want included (I imagine yes, but amazed they did not purchase it two years ago)

I like the tread on the forum tracking possible land acquisition issues. I know that the bushwalking NSW and their counterparts do try to lobby for land access points. And groups like the NPA are focused on land acquisitions for environmental reasons. They two will overlap at times. I wonder if rather then focusing just on this parcel of land we start to focus more on what systems do we need in place to deal with all these issues when the pop up.

Matt

[crollsurf]

The owners have made it clear that they do not want people trespassing on their land and that police have been made aware of the issue. If people continue to trespass, things could escalate quickly from now on, with possible police intervention.

Acquiring the land (NPWS or privately) is the only way forward and that doesn't look like it'll happen any time soon.

What has piqued my interest in all of this, is the country just south of the lagoon in the NP. There is Broula and Godspell creeks and a couple of peaks that could offer some attractive alternatives. How you get parks onside to cut a track through that area, I'd have no idea. But it would be worth considering and a lot of fun exploring.

[Warin]

How you get parks onside to cut a track through that area, I'd have no idea. But it would be worth considering and a lot of fun exploring.

Given that Parks are busy clearing existing 'busy' tracks and cannot clear 'less than busy' tracks as yet, I'd say there is not much hope of them cutting new tracks. (See their response to the comments made by 2 over due bush walkers in the Dogs a week or two ago).

They might consider some volunteers doing it, but I'd think they would require some demonstrated expertise by those volunteers... I think that would be the best bet at this time.

[Lophophaps]

In 1984 I went to Morton NP. The last night we camped at The Cascades on the south bank, quite a nice spot. This is one of the maps that we used, 1978 CMW Northern Budawangs. There's no indication about private land. Note how the track finishes short of the road, at Wog Wog Creek.

CMW Northern Budawangs 1978

We camped and walked on what is now private land, the first kilometre on the track going back to the road. The NP entrance did not mention the fact that the track went over private land, and it may have been NP then. The 1990 CMW Northern Budawangs map below shows the track going all the way to the road. The red line is next to Goodsell Creek, which is the obvious boundary for the park. If the creek is adopted as a boundary then the problem is solved, although the land owner may be unhappy and should get fair compensation. The aggro about this aspect would vanish. Regardless, pestering the owners is ill-advised. They did not create the problem.

CMW Northern Budawangs 1990

[wildwalks]

I am unaware of any land ever being compulsorily acquired to be included in a national park, in NSW. It is technically legally possible (in NSW, at least), though it would need to be a very compelling reason in the general public interest.
I see no real compelling reason here; yes, it is a nice walk, but hardly a reason to take the land from the owner(s).
Most land going into NPWS estate is either crownland or people selling land to NPWS -- and is usually for environmental reasons, not recreational.
I do hope this land (or part of it) can be acquired in the future when the owners want to sell it.

[Walk_fat boy_walk]

I am unaware of any land ever being compulsorily acquired to be included in a national park, in NSW. It is technically legally possible (in NSW, at least), though it would need to be a very compelling reason in the general public interest.
I see no real compelling reason here; yes, it is a nice walk, but hardly a reason to take the land from the owner(s).
Most land going into NPWS estate is either crownland or people selling land to NPWS -- and is usually for environmental reasons, not recreational.
I do hope this land (or part of it) can be acquired in the future when the owners want to sell it.

Agree, the conversation about getting access to the private land is largely pointless now I think, although I take your point that there might be an opportunity for acquisition in the long term. As I mentioned in a previous post (and mentioned above by Crollsurf) there is scope to establish a new route that skirts around the private land, eg from Goodsell to Broula as mentioned. I don't even think it would need to be "cut" with NPWS approval, just taped for a while until established - it's pretty open (light scrub at worst) around there and (also as mentioned previously) all that would be "missed" from the old route would be the lagoon and the pretty sad looking campground adjacent, neither of which were particularly noteworthy anyway IMO.

[Warin]

In 1984 I went to Morton NP. The last night we camped at The Cascades on the south bank, quite a nice spot. This is one of the maps that we used, 1978 CMW Northern Budawangs. There's no indication about private land.

Nor is there any indication of the National Park boundary. Much easier to map the physical world than the administrative, and more interesting at least to me. For access though the administrative boundaries are required.

Note how the track finishes short of the road, at Wog Wog Creek.

I do like old maps .. show all sorts of things that are no longer used but may be of 'use'.

---------------
As for 'new routes' ... I do not know of what is being used. I have seen a suggestion of using waterways that legally can be used by fisherman .. I am a bush walker so I do not qualify for that... and I'm not entering an argument on that subject either here of with a land owner.

[Lophophaps]

Admin comment

The access issues thread
https://www.bushwalk.com/forum/viewtopi ... 26&t=40316
now has discussion about other places.

That thread has some discussion about Morton and Budawang NPs. Should the thread you are reading now be changed to include other parts of these parks?

Please take care posting information, and check that it's accurate.

Thank you.

[InLike]

I am unaware of any land ever being compulsorily acquired to be included in a national park, in NSW.

Acquisition wouldn't be required - just an easement. If the lagoon was part of a private farm, and the owners had been using the track for many decades to access their property, I imagine there's not much new neighbours could do to stop that access continuing.

Amazing how some people view private property as some kind of sovereign kingdom

[mholling]

I'm currently putting finishing touches on a new Budawangs trail map. I've put a lot of thought into how best to depict the Corang Lagon area. (And the Nerriga entrance too, with its associated access issues.)

One interesting thing I've noticed during research: people are starting to avoid the lagoon, but are still cutting across the private lot to get to the river. Here's an overlay showing all the GPS tracks I've gathered: