Tue 09 Nov, 2021 1:53 pm
Tue 09 Nov, 2021 3:14 pm
Tue 09 Nov, 2021 7:56 pm
Fri 12 Nov, 2021 12:37 pm
crollsurf wrote:I'd say they were getting harassed and got tired of it.
Mon 15 Nov, 2021 11:01 am
headwerkn wrote:
The persistent naysaying/bullying from a handful of individuals was annoying/frustrating/disappointing at times, but easily ignored when it became clear their opinions were not of the vast majority of the Tasmanian bushwalking community. Nor those of PWS and the other land authorities we maintain regular communication with.
Cheers, Ben.
Mon 15 Nov, 2021 1:49 pm
Mon 15 Nov, 2021 3:19 pm
Tue 16 Nov, 2021 5:30 am
Tue 16 Nov, 2021 7:32 am
headwerkn wrote: I do find it rather ironic that Bushwalk Australia actually published our Mt Emmett trip in an issue of the magazine. This is, of course, an off track walk. Near Cradle Mountain, no less.
Tue 16 Nov, 2021 9:38 am
Son of a Beach wrote: It was intended strictly for areas that are both off-track AND sensitive. )
Tue 16 Nov, 2021 10:37 am
ILUVSWTAS wrote:What is your interpretation of "depending on the circumstances"? Because the way I read those stats is "clearly" against.
Son of a Beach wrote:Note that the rule (for this site) was NOT intended to be about off-track and/or sensitive areas. It was intended strictly for areas that are both off-track AND sensitive. Ie, on-track and sensitive is fair game and off-track and non-sensitive is fair game (according to the original spirit of the rule, for this site) *snip*
icefest wrote:I like this, though for the activities I do, I would say off-track AND (sensitive OR dangerous).
Though canyoning is a whole different ball game
Tue 16 Nov, 2021 10:40 am
Son of a Beach wrote: It was intended strictly for areas that are both off-track AND sensitive. )
Tue 16 Nov, 2021 11:27 am
Tue 16 Nov, 2021 1:26 pm
Nuts wrote:It's good to see writers try to engage with the park service, their direction in recent years appears to have been a focus on supporting revenue sources rather than much care for conservation, individual walkers, scrappy un-packaged walks. Which also puts their support in perspective.
Nuts wrote:There's no clear reason why bloggers aren't charged and regulated, like any commercial user, apply for a permit.
Nuts wrote:PS, nothing personal
Tue 16 Nov, 2021 2:00 pm
doogs wrote:headwerkn wrote:
The persistent naysaying/bullying from a handful of individuals was annoying/frustrating/disappointing at times, but easily ignored when it became clear their opinions were not of the vast majority of the Tasmanian bushwalking community. Nor those of PWS and the other land authorities we maintain regular communication with.
Cheers, Ben.
Sorry Ben I can't let this statement stand without a reply.
As far as I have read online, noone has an issue with you making bushwalking YouTube films. It is the active promotion of walks in off track walks in sensitive areas that people have had an issue with. In fact, I have seen a lot of pointing towards the rules set out on this forum as suitable guidelines to follow. It's a credit to the way Nik set up is site that these rules are seen as the standard to follow.
I have spoken to Parks and Wildlife employees and they don't like the way you promote sensitive areas. They might have been the select few who don't and none were bureaucratic office staff.
The statement that most bushwalkers agree with your opinion is a complete fallacy (see pic).
A much more accurate statement would be 'some people including some Parks staff like what we do and some people and Parks staff don't. We are deciding what we deem to be sensitive/off track rather than just posting stuff from recognised tracks even if it clearly upsets many within the bushwalking community. '
Wed 17 Nov, 2021 6:24 am
Wed 17 Nov, 2021 6:48 am
ILUVSWTAS wrote:Ummmmmm I'd suggest the majority of the 162 would fall in the 155 category severely outweighing the minority at 43
Wed 17 Nov, 2021 7:24 am
Wed 17 Nov, 2021 7:56 am
headwerkn wrote:Nuts wrote:It's good to see writers try to engage with the park service, their direction in recent years appears to have been a focus on supporting revenue sources rather than much care for conservation, individual walkers, scrappy un-packaged walks. Which also puts their support in perspective.
That's the public perception but I'm not sure it's an entirely fair appraisal. They're trying to manage an enormous asset (greatly expanded since the demise of Forestry Tas) on a meagre, inappropriate budget. From the top down I've not met/talked to anyone in the organisation I felt wasn't wholly, utterly committed to doing their all, but without resources there's only so much you can do. The issue, at least as far as I can gather, isn't successive governments simply failing to provide an adequate annual budget, but failing to recognise how much the state's tourism industry - and thus, economy - the organisation underpins. But this was an argument that was lost on the powers that be 20 years ago (back when I actually some direct involvement in the Dept.).
As nice and easy as it is to just "blame the government" and despair at the state of everything, I do also question why all the supposed advocacy has failed to change the situation? After all, if the government of the day can't see the problem, then isn't the onus on the community to help them join the dots? Whinging about the poor state of things achieves zip. You gotta get your hands dirty and work with those already tasked to manage the system.
Wed 17 Nov, 2021 8:34 am
ILUVSWTAS wrote:Ummmmmm I'd suggest the majority of the 162 would fall in the 155 category severely outweighing the minority at 43
ILUVSWTAS wrote:But if they thought it was ok they'd have selected the minority amount surely?
ILUVSWTAS wrote:Saying SM is here to stay isn't necessarily a good thing. Covid is here to stay. Yes we have to live with it but it doesn't make it ok.
Wed 17 Nov, 2021 9:06 am
headwerkn wrote:Sorry Doogs...
..regular and to this day ongoing conversations will all levels of PWS...
...This kind of - for want of a better term - "self reflection" was ongoing as we questioned what was appropriate to share and what information served a positive purpose. We kept counsel with literally dozens of prominent and senior members of Tasmania's bushwalking community. Again, support was broad and encouraging, often strongly so. If it hadn't been, we would have ceased publishing immediately....
....The badgering and harassment of both Scott and admins of other popular Bushwalking groups of Facebook was quite shameful in my opinion.....
....Contrary to what some might believe, Bender and Xing wasn't an egotistical flight of fancy. A huge amount of planning and thought went into it. We even got a lawyer involved to make sure what we were sharing wouldn't open us up to legal liability (be careful sharing your GPX files, folks).
xing wrote:
I have found a small number of people are antagonistic towards Bender & Xing..... bullying under the guise of "passion" and "conservation". It wasn't either of those, it was just shameful bullying....
Where we chose to share is frankly up to no one but us. What we shared was carefully considered and always already out in the public forum. I have in the past spent countless hours of my time replying politely and respectfully to the handful of people that seemed to enjoy the mini-hate campaign you had going. Oh, and claiming innocence on the whole social media debate thing is wrong. We were made aware by at least two of the admins of social media pages that certain members had in boxed them asking for us to be banned. They sent us the screen shots of the messages including the members names. I find adult men acting in this way and having little inbox tantrums pretty appalling really.
We once again chose the higher road and offered to these social media pages to stop posting or leave the groups - not one single group asked us to do that, in fact they asked us to stay and continue to post. During that same poll we had so many inboxes from lovely strangers to say that they loved our stuff but were too intimidated by those vocal few of you to comment lest they be turned upon. What a sad reflection on you and the others involved in your "passion" to save "Bender & Xing" destroying Tasmania.
...When I immigrated to Australia I was raised to see that sharing knowledge is the highest form of friendship and kindness. Only through education does society grow. Our blog and videos were just that - knowledge sharing. I come from a country where coveting knowledge was used as a control measure and to increase the power of those who had it. Wrap it up in conservation but it's not that - it's a handful of bushwalking elitists that are happy to share among themselves but not the greater community.
Wed 17 Nov, 2021 10:12 am
Wed 17 Nov, 2021 1:44 pm
Wed 17 Nov, 2021 1:54 pm
Thu 02 Dec, 2021 8:05 pm
Thu 02 Dec, 2021 8:58 pm
Scottyk wrote:I think it just didn't end up paying. Making videos that are that polished takes a heap of time, lots of people try it and don't fully appreciate the time that goes into it. The views/subscribers just didn't grow.
Fri 03 Dec, 2021 8:23 am
Fri 03 Dec, 2021 12:03 pm
Fri 03 Dec, 2021 3:43 pm
lefroy wrote:II just hope that for every post here ranting about this that there are three being sent to state MPs etc who are the real problem here. .
Fri 03 Dec, 2021 6:00 pm
© Bushwalk Australia and contributors 2007-2013.