Bushwalk Australia

Very disappointed to see how far the Overland track is being exploited in the name of commercialism. The latitude Parks Tas is giving to commercial operators,in particular the helicopters flying up and down Cradle Valley laden with tourists concerns me. After climbing Barn Bluff, I counted no less than four, flying north up the valley. After talking to a ranger I was informed they were not supposed to flying that far south, but obviously some fat cat has decided otherwise. The real clincher was sitting at Kia Ora having dinner only to see one flying directly overhead heading north.I almost choked on my freez-dri. After following a continuous trail of used tissues and cigarette butts, I was very dismayed at how much things have deteriorated, all in only three years since my last visit. After talking to rangers, I got the impression they don't care. "Oh well so long as they stay at 300 metres there is nothing we can do." I am posting this in the hope that like minded people will let Parks know that things need to change. This place is not for rich lazy retirees to treat it like Disneyland. It needs to be preserved, not destroyed by commercialism. I know Gustav Weindorfer proclaimed it was for all people to enjoy, but there is a limit. Please. I don't want to see a chairlift up Cradle Mtn.

Sorry zorro but I think I am missing your point. What is the harm with helicopters flying tourists around and showing them the beautiful sights? Not everyone has the time or ability to walk the OT and this is one way those people get to see such a beautiful part of the world. I would be more concerned about the walkers who are dropping tissues and cigarette butts.

Spend a day sitting in Milford Sound enjoying the serenity Micky B and you will understand zorro's concern.

wander wrote:Spend a day sitting in Milford Sound enjoying the serenity Micky B and you will understand zorro's concern.

So NP's should only be enjoyed by walkers?

I did the helicopter trip. Fantastic.

Helicopters also drop the gas, waste pods, supplies for the trail builders and take injured walkers out, I saw a couple fly over but they were up fairly high and caused no annoyance.

It's a nice place, some people will want to see it from what they would consider to be the best angle and if you can do it in half an hour people will do it.

The cigarette buts and *&%$#! tissues.......grrrrrrr
The helicopters while noisy and annoying sure beat 4WD's ripping the place apart carrying commercial traffic.

Those planes that used to fly into the old Lake Peddar beach must have been really infuriating to everyone who was there.
Or was that part of the attraction of the place, that you could see it without having to walk for days?
My personal feeling is that anything that allows more people to see these areas will help preserve them, particularly when they don't wreck the environment on the way.

Mr Walker, Hiking Noob, walkerchris77 and MickeyB you don't get it. These places are special BECAUSE people can't access it easily. That's ok. Mt Ossa doesn't give a *&%$#! these people don't see it. Neither should you. Keep it special for *&^%$# sake!

stepbystep wrote:Mr Walker, Hiking Noob, walkerchris77 and MickeyB you don't get it. These places are special BECAUSE people can't access it easily. That's ok. Mt Ossa doesn't give a *&%$#! these people don't see it. Neither should you. Keep it special for *&^%$# sake!

People seeing it from the air doesn't change how special it is, they are looking not accessing, if they start landing it sure does and that would be the beginnings of disaster. Worry more about the cigarette and tissue droppers

stepbystep wrote:Mr Walker, Hiking Noob, walkerchris77 and MickeyB you don't get it. These places are special BECAUSE people can't access it easily. That's ok. Mt Ossa doesn't give a *&%$#! these people don't see it. Neither should you. Keep it special for *&^%$# sake!

Perhaps a tad blunt stepbystep, but I definitely agree with your opinion. I'm a little surprised to see support for this type of flight on this board.

There is a trend in our world toward thinking that everyone must be able to access/see/do/ exactly the same things as everyone else. This is looking like some sort of misguided, out of control egalitarianism.

The issue of low level flights over remote areas is not the same as making the more settled places in our society easier to negotiate for those with diminished physical capabilities.

Neil, none of us like litter, but the presence of litter doesn't negate the undesirability of the flights - two problems - both needing to be stopped.

stry wrote:There is a trend in our world toward thinking that everyone must be able to access/see/do/ exactly the same things as everyone else. This is looking like some sort of misguided, out of control egalitarianism.

My wife is approaching 70 and has a hip injury and cannot walk more than about 10km on bush tracks. I think you are and SBS are saying that there are some places she should NEVER be allowed to see, even from the air.
We don't really expect wheelchair access on every walk, but when someone does find a way to allow less fit or less able to people to see some of these areas, there is no need to whack them around the ears for allowing such access.

Tissues and cigarette butts being dropping is something I have seen before I don't understand the thinking behind it. It is plain and simple littering in the worst possible place, not that any place is better really.

As for giving access to those that are unable to see these places because of various reasons, it is possibly taking away the whole essence if the choppers are flying low. I think perhaps sometimes in life we must accept that we are unable to see some things in our lifetime.
Id like to experience the top of Everest, but I can't. I accept that.

DanShell wrote:Id like to experience the top of Everest, but I can't. I accept that.

But you can do a scenic flight past it. And it's a great thing to do

horsecat wrote:

DanShell wrote:Id like to experience the top of Everest, but I can't. I accept that.

But you can do a scenic flight past it. And it's a great thing to do

I can't afford it

Yes Mr Walker I'm saying she shouldn't. Her time has passed as will mine one day. Helicopters buzzing wilderness areas does detract from the experiences of those on the ground. Sorry, but it does!

Currently there are proposals to land canyoning parties on, or near the OLT and increase the number of private huts in there by twofold, doubling the flights at least. In the SW there are proposals for seaplane landings on Lake Judd and more for Bathurst Harbour, helicopters landing on the Frankland Range and Gallagher Plateau, and on and on it goes. I accept I won't see most of the beautiful sights the world has to offer so must the well heeled and those with mobility issues. There is a greater good!

The current joyflight over Cradle is bad enough.

I think a lot of you people are missing the point. If you have a bad hip, are too old, can't carry a pack etc, go to Mt. Field, Lake St. Clair or a caravan park.
Cradle Mt. is a gazetted World Heritage Wilderness area. Does that mean nothing to you? I can only assume you have not been hiking very long because you don't seem to have the ethics most dedicated bushwalkers do. I first hiked the Overland Track 30 odd years ago, have been back several times and I can not begin to describe how much different it was. Certainly a lot quieter and more isolated. As with everything, when you start increasing visitors, you increase impact. Look at the day trippers now around Cradle Mtn. Maybe some people should stay in their Winebago.

zorro wrote:I can only assume you have not been hiking very long because you don't seem to have the ethics most dedicated bushwalkers do.

So, because I have done a scenic flight (not around the Overland) I now have no ethics? Thant's an interesting statement to make mate...

zorro wrote:I first hiked the Overland Track 30 odd years ago, have been back several times and I can not begin to describe how much different it was. Certainly a lot quieter and more isolated. As with everything, when you start increasing visitors, you increase impact.

By hiking the Overland 'several times' aren't you also adding to this now lack of quiet and isolation?

zorro wrote:Maybe some people should stay in their Winebago

Why? I thought it was supposed to be a good thing to get people to appreciate nature...

zorro wrote:If you have a bad hip, are too old, can't carry a pack etc, go to Mt. Field, Lake St. Clair or a caravan park.Cradle Mt. is a gazetted World Heritage Wilderness area

BTW, St Clair is in the World Heritage area

One per hour or so on a nice day. I notice every one of them. Been trying to capture just how this feels but my edc camera and microphone just wont cut it. I'd like one of those eagle-cams but haven't been able to find an eagle..

So, anyway, I'd expect most of the rangers care zorro, some of them spend a great deal of time out there and very likely feel the impact of these changes beyond what would be imagined, more intimately than the most experienced park visitors.

The push for additional flights will be ongoing, they have to make money while the sun shines. As a business, who would blame them. So naturally they want to land, add value, gain an exclusive advantage. They want to get closer, lower, who wouldn't.. but who would blame them. They'll want more, it's intuitive and expected. This is why park management decisions need to be made by park managers, driven primarily by conservation, unencumbered by the need to consider finaciers, mates, their careers... It's also the same reasoning to not consider projects on merit, the concept of commercial access really has to be considered 'all or nothing'. The precedent means as much as the immediate effect. Pollies should get their votes elsewhere, they are not really needed in parks or welcome imo.

The desire to want these people to look after our wilderness, for me, has nothing to do with limited access for the less physically able (which, in reality, when it comes to the OLT= a small percentage of these fifo 'nature' lovers). We are in dire straits if people need to be flown around mountaintops to appreciate and support wilderness. I don't believe this anyway, disabled, well-healed, the lazy or just time poor, they aren't by default also right-voting rednecks ripe for epiphany.

I'm stunned by the elitist walker attitudes here. Where does the idea come from that wilderness areas are for any group in particular.
It could be said that people viewing wilderness areas from the air don't want to see people down there trampling the wilderness.
What are the current rules for flying over/in National Parks etc.

That's not me, just as happy to deride everyone equally .. it seems defending the concept of wilderness against developers always meets this auto- 'attack on the less able'. Again- for me, i suspect others, the last thing that comes to mind..

afaik, there aren't area 'restrictions' on overflights .

geoskid wrote:I'm stunned by the elitist walker attitudes here. Where does the idea come from that wilderness areas are for any group in particular.
It could be said that people viewing wilderness areas from the air don't want to see people down there trampling the wilderness.

Amen. "Elitist" is the perfect description.

Sure, put flight time and altitude restrictions, and limit the number per day.

But ban people who can't walk it? Give me a break. My three year old has more maturity than that.

Perhaps people flying over who want to see the isolation and untarnished landscape don't want to look down at gouged walking tracks, camping platforms, disgusting toilets and huts.

Tell me SBS, have you carried out your own waste on the OT, the SCT etc etc, or did you allow it to be helicoptered out?

The infrastructure is there to minimise impact, this has always been the brief.
Helicopters are needed for management purposes, the timing is usually done outside the main walking season, coordinated with work projects for building materials. The park service flights are part of this burden, primarily to minimise impact.
Parks would be fine without walkers too

Elitist my bottom. The sense of entitlement people seem to have is astounding.

There will potentially be thousands of flights a year over and into these areas should the proposals be approved, and a once serene place become quite the opposite. A series of maintenance flights is very different to joyflights. There are plenty of opportunities to see wild places and get a taste without pulverising the goose that laid the golden egg.

Anyhoo, chestbeat all you like, make your assumptions and call me whatever you choose. I got work to do

stepbystep wrote:Elitist my bottom. The sense of entitlement people seem to have is astounding.

Exactly. Got it in one. Your deluded sense of entitlement just because you can walk and others can't/choose not to, is astounding.

Since you didn't answer my question, I will assume your waste was choppered out of the park. Thanks for ruining my experience by not carrying your waste

Ummmm, may I attempt to put a different perspective on the 'elitist' argument?

I'm deaf. I can no longer hear waterfalls or birdsong or the wind in the trees when I go bush. So what gives all you elitist people with good hearing the right to hear these things when so many of us can't? What gives you elitist visually capable people the right to see the views from your cute little air-conditioned chopper when a blind person can't?
May I suggest it's the same thing that gives me the right to walk into the wilderness carrying all my own equipment and enjoy the solitude and the lack of human impact, when a wheelchair bound person can't? ie: simple physical capacity.
We are all of us, at varying points of our lives, constrained by our lack of the physical or financial ability to do various things. That does not mean others (or the wilderness) have to suffer to let us have what we want. I want to see the Himalayas. I never will because I don't have the money. I can live with that, the same way I can live knowing I'll never hear music or a magpie dawn chorus again. Maybe it's time for those who lack other physical capacities to accept that there are limits on what they can see and do, simply because what is involved in that seeing and doing has too great a price.

'Elitist' my sweet *&%$#!. It's about the same thing the huts were built for, the same thing the track upgrades are for - protecting the environment. And if that means limiting access - even visual access - then that is sometimes what we have to do.
How do you think the noise and exhaust from choppers and planes impact on wildlife? How much erosion at the water's edge is caused by floatplane landings? How much impact is caused by all the infrastructure and extra transport requirements for equipment and fuel?

geoskid wrote:What are the current rules for flying over/in National Parks etc.

The current Wilderness World Heritage Area Management Plan has "Fly Neighbourly Advice" covering aircraft operating in the WHA. There's further info here http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/file.aspx?id=6528 and a map, including designated "sensitive areas", here http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/file.aspx?id=7090

This might be getting reviewed at the moment, I'm not sure. One of the original considerations was the maintenance of "natural quiet" ... and that's something that's pretty rare in our world!

cheers

Peter

north-north-west wrote:
How do you think the noise and exhaust from choppers and planes impact on wildlife? How much erosion at the water's edge is caused by floatplane landings? How much impact is caused by all the infrastructure and extra transport requirements for equipment and fuel?

You're kidding, aren't you?

People who walk the Overland track fly on aircraft and drive by car/bus to get there. We aren't talking about floatplane landings, we are talking about scenic flights in the Cradle Mountain/OT area.

I think the exhaust has zero impact on wildlife, unless the exhaust from your car or bus or ferry ride is uniquely different. The noise - well probably lots less impact on the wildlife than hikers. Currawongs breaking into bags for food, possums who forage every night around hut water tanks for food - how are they any less affected?

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for impact minimisation, and the lack of, well, people, is what makes these places so much more special than others. But to think hikers with constructed boardwalks, and toilets, and huts, and camping platforms, and rangers are less detrimental to that environment than a helicopter which flies overhead - is absurd.

Yes it's to be valued. Yes it's to be fiercely protected. But no, it's not for the exclusivity of people who choose to walk. Walkers do just as much damage, if not more.

Thanks whynotwalk, I'll have a read.

north-north-west wrote:Ummmm, may I attempt to put a different perspective on the 'elitist' argument?

I'm deaf. I can no longer hear waterfalls or birdsong or the wind in the trees when I go bush. So what gives all you elitist people with good hearing the right to hear these things when so many of us can't? What gives you elitist visually capable people the right to see the views from your cute little air-conditioned chopper when a blind person can't?
May I suggest ....

You can but it's not.
It would perhaps be similar if a hearing person tried to suggest that the only way to experience wilderness was to hear it, or if a sighted person was to suggest that the only way to experience wilderness was to see it.
Similarly with walkers suggesting that the only infrastructure allowed is that which limits their impact.