Amendments to KNP PoM - Commercial wilderness tours

[Xplora]

Amendments to the KNP Plan of Management have been proposed and are out for comment. The amendments will allow commercial tours in Wilderness areas. You can read and comment on the proposed changes here https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topi ... -amendment

[Lophophaps]

Point 2 of the draft amendment says:
"Our response to your submission will be based on the merits of the ideas and issues you raise, rather than the quantity of submissions making similar points. For this reason, a submission that clearly explains the matters it raises will be the most effective way to influence the finalisation of the plan amendment."
This means that filling out pro formas or saying that you agree with the submission of an entity will not carry much weight.

The amendment says that commercial parties are limited to eight people. Should this apply to other parties? I've seen parties of 10-15 people. I've also seen two commercial parties from the same company camping at the same spot at the same time. Should there be a limit to the number of parties? Should there be constraints on where they can stay? A party of eight will fill most huts. Too many people tends to compromise a wilderness experience.

[Nuts]

Done, sigh. Thanks for the heads up!

Not opposed to self contained wilderness tourism at all.. but there is a lot of evidence for where this leads. And very little evidence for the quality of 'support' or 'appreciation' it builds.
Greed wins, wilderness looses.

[Xplora]

I thought I would give people some time to read the draft before commenting. There is a thread on ski.com discussing the same thing so if you are keen you can catch up here. https://www.ski.com.au/xf/threads/comme ... eas.92328/
Commercial tours in the 9 declared Wilderness areas of KNP are strictly prohibited under the current management plan but it seems some companies have been running tours with permits that have been allocated by NPWS. These permits should not have been issued. Recently someone started to look closer at it and there was some public discussion. Coincidently, not long after, NPWS then sent an email to all commercial operators requesting they stop all activity in Wilderness areas. They were also told of the upcoming draft amendments that would make certain activities legal.

The proposed amendments allow for a range of activities to move into Wilderness areas and includes commercial horse and mountain bike riding tours. So you can have a horse tour of 8 people and take them up Hannels spur. The start of Hannels is very close to the Geehi horse camps already in use by commercial operators. We are now talking about 5 tonne (with horse, rider and gear) of hard hooves all in a line. Horse riding is the only activity that is currently permitted in a declared Wilderness area but it is restricted to Pinch River up to the Tin Mines/Cascades area. It is basically a road and they have to camp at the designated areas. There is no provision in the amendments to control where horses go or camp. If you have ever walked up from the Pinch you will know that Hannels is not out of the question for horses.

It seems to me NPWS has made a huge mistake by allowing a select few to operate in Wilderness areas and that mistake was discovered. Now it is all about fixing the mistake. The reasoning for this amendment is hollow. 50% of the park is available for commercial tours and people can get a suitable experience there. It goes against the NPWS definition of Wilderness areas. NPWS are risking significant damage to sensitive areas and it seems this amendment has been rushed and poorly thought through. The plan was last amended in late August so it fits that this amendment is specifically designed to fix a problem.

I find it hard to believe nobody in the permit office knew Wilderness areas of KNP were off limits to commercial activity but it could simply be incompetence. Now it looks very much like a coverup.

With regard to group numbers, some school or TAFE groups use Wilderness areas but also have to get a permit. They are allowed larger numbers. Hannels spur is restricted to 8 already. Putting restrictions of 8 onto school groups would be problematic. This amendment does not deal with independent large groups that are not commercial.

[Nuts]

Interesting discussion, on the whole. The existing regulation and proposed changes you outline seem clear, and I can relate to zapruda's concerns. I'm with the concept of exclusion zones, and ideally they should apply to all large groups. Limiting private use is difficult, excluding commercial operators is easy. The role of P&W care-takers seems equally clear. It's great to hear of responsible operators and their guides, yet they don't need access everywhere to be as effective.. for those that think there's a net benefit from wilderness tourism above just expecting more (access, facilities, commercial advantage etc).

[Xplora]

Just reading deeper into the current plan and it seems all horse riding is prohibited on designated walking tracks. Hannels spur should be safe.

[Nuts]

Any concern is good concern. But with a re-imagining of the concept of wilderness and it's use, what limits are reliable? If commercial tours are allowed, is the type and extent ever going to be set in stone?

Personally, I'd rather see P&W offer these tours, if they do actually believe in the positive benefit to sustaining wilderness values (their role).

Followed a FB conversation from a ski forum on this. Sadly, once again, the members concerned are heavily outnumbered by those who seem to think commercial tours are ok, either faceless likes or a mix of the usual suspect virtues.. that people not confident or able to visit remote wilderness deserve enabling / that to question this is elitist.

What on earth are They all thinking? I just don't get it. Do so many see a personal role for themselves in wilderness tourism? Is it that simple? Or an anti-greenie horde, even amongst park users? Or is there such a complete ignorance of evidence as to what happens when you let tourism take hold? Can we not preserve a thing that can't translate to an obvious profit? If we can, then what? if not a place, called 'wilderness'?

How on earth can a business progress in this space? It will never end at a small group of people taken for a walk. Horses, bikes, helicopters, exclusive accommodation, all barely held back.

I really don't see any opposing ideal. Wilderness set aside with expectations of minimal impact v's wilderness exploited because its inevitable... ie. what use is it if not 'used'.

etc etc