norts wrote:Well there is a 4th , leave it as wilderness for future generations
dazintaz wrote:Im a big fan of Bob Browns but this time he's lost touch. I can't understand why we can't turn the incredible South Coast track in to a safer, more pleasurable experience by building huts.Its absurd. Numbers will be capped, whats the problem? Paying? What are people really scared of?
geoskid wrote:dazintaz wrote:Im a big fan of Bob Browns but this time he's lost touch. I can't understand why we can't turn the incredible South Coast track in to a safer, more pleasurable experience by building huts.Its absurd. Numbers will be capped, whats the problem? Paying? What are people really scared of?
Have you got a link to what he has actually said , that you are not happy about, regarding a particular proposal.
Regardless, whatever Bob has said should be irrelevant to one making their own mind up.
Nuts wrote:What is safer than 'due diligence' or more pleasurable than a night in a tent? I'm with Bob.
Surely a squillion can be made at either end. With the mysterious (incredible) wilderness left as a challenge?
(or at least as a change.. which is a good as a bonus holiday! !!)
MrWalker wrote:There are basically three things we can do with areas that are not suitable for agriculture, cities, etc
Mining. This often only takes up a small area, but usually destroys that area and can cause pollution that spreads much wider.
Forestry. This requires more area, but can maintain biodiversity if done over a long enough period and can provide roads to waterfalls, picnic areas, lookouts, etc that would otherwise be inaccessible.
Tourism. This may involve more people and infrastructure, but gets more people out into these areas, providing more public support to preserve them.
If your response is none of the above, by keeping all wilderness as wilderness and no development in parks, then don't expect to have any new national parks and don't expect to keep the ones we have. If we don't support a reasonable level of tourism in remote areas, then you can be certain we will get mining or forestry instead.
dazintaz wrote: The South Coast is the longest most popular multi day walk in Tasmania.
dazintaz wrote:The ludicrous and hypocritical views by most nay sayers in this state prohibit growth and reason Tasmania languishes last in Australia. Thanks to the likes of David Walsh who had the vision to build his dream i applaud him, because left to Joe Public in Tasmania, nothing gets done.
MrWalker wrote:Tourism. This may involve more people and infrastructure, but gets more people out into these areas, providing more public support to preserve them.
tastrax wrote:You can also keep up with some of the other submissions here
http://cg.tas.gov.au/home/investment_at ... m_projects
dazintaz wrote:Absolute nonsense. So, by your anti development sentiment none of you have used a hut at Frenchmans, Overland track or 3 capes? Are these places ruined, no longer a pristine wilderness experience? Cmon. The South Coast is the longest most popular multi day walk in Tasmania, makes perfect sense to hut it.
pazzar wrote:dazintaz wrote:Absolute nonsense. So, by your anti development sentiment none of you have used a hut at Frenchmans, Overland track or 3 capes? Are these places ruined, no longer a pristine wilderness experience? Cmon. The South Coast is the longest most popular multi day walk in Tasmania, makes perfect sense to hut it.
Have you been to Frenchmans lately? The development of the track has left the area swamped by walkers and is struggling to cope with the numbers. There are more platforms being built, plus a hut being replaced to help cope with the numbers. I think this seriously detracts from the wilderness values of the area.
And the South Coast is definitely not the most popular walk, and for good reason - it is a challenging walk. Keep it that way. I was on the track in the peak of last summer, plus a few days hanging around Melaleuca, and at most we found into 2 or 3 parties starting each day, hardly huge numbers. Give us some hard evidence and we might change our minds.
tastrax wrote:You missed the fourth and fifth options - make all walkers pay for repair of damage (real costs not token Park Fees), restrict use to levels that do not cause damage (and let the wilderness survive)
tastrax wrote:You missed the fourth and fifth options - make all walkers pay for repair of damage (real costs not token Park Fees), restrict use to levels that do not cause damage (and let the wilderness survive)
geoskid wrote:Personally, I would like you to write an essay length view of your thoughts( here) on NP, WHA conception, usage, and the future of same.
dazintaz wrote:Absolute nonsense. So, by your anti development sentiment none of you have used a hut at Frenchmans, Overland track or 3 capes? Are these places ruined, no longer a pristine wilderness experience?
Nuts wrote:Meh, don't sell yourself short Traxy, anything more than a quip or link is a 'rant' to some occasional hoverers. It's kind of morbidly amusing, this space, our imperfections. Even for the sober.
How many are there?dazintaz wrote:Im a big fan of Bob Browns...
Wouldn't be out of place in this forum at all thentastrax wrote: It would end up being a long winded incomprehensible rant
Users browsing this forum: Facebook [bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 2 guests