Bookings for Three Capes Track now open

[Lophophaps]

There was an article in The Age on Saturday 5 March
http://www.traveller.com.au/cape-crusad ... ike-gn3ot7
I had no idea that the ... whatever it is called ... is so devoid of character. There's a picture of a boardwalk with a handrail, the latter probably to avoid liability in case someone falls of ... whatever it is. I'm really struggling to call it a track. It's not bushwalking. It's not eco-tourism. I'm happy on the alpine walk to Kosciuszko, stone steps, gravel, and a road. The OLT and other tracks have narrow or wide boardwalks that feel like the bush. Three Capes stuns me. It's not "a walk on the wild side". It's not a big hike, just a few days.

The travel section accepts letters aka emails, 50-100 words, to travellerletters@fairfaxmedia.com.au. Include your name, address and phone number. I suggest that people from Tassie read the article and respond. PWS has made access easier, but the price is high and the charm is gone. Please use your own words. I've never been to Three Capes and will never go.

The really sad part is that they could have got pretty much the same result with less cost. Track treatment where needed, the rest leave as is. rails above the drops. Has PWS or the government lost the plot?

[Nungulba]

Hi Guys! Thanks for the gratuitous advice re. who should/shouldn't have access to these (nominally!) Public Lands. I don't see why freedom should be given to young, elite, super-fit "outdoor gymnasts" to dictate access rules to these areas. Provided that users exercise respect for the areas they intend to walk, it is reasonable for allowances to be made that improve access to an area. Are we forever to be at the mercy of the "tyranny of the minorities" whose catch-cry is "protection" of these "wilderness" areas (assuming that Tasman Peninsula IS a wilderness area - which I think is arguable!) but which may be more a case of "keeping out" the tourists & other "amateurs"!! As I said before, this attitude is Elitist & Exclusivist.

There IS a case to be made for REAL wilderness areas (e.g. large swathes of S-W Tasmania & some Central Plateau parks) to be subject to greater protection; but, for some people here to get their nighties in a knot about an area that has historically attracted millions of tourists is, frankly,

[Nungulba]

As a follow-up to my previous post, friends of this Board may find Campbell Phillips's editorial in the latest edition of Wild magazine of some interest.
Allowing for Phillips's vested interests, his "black armband' approach seems to me slightly hysterical! Rather like some "scientific" predictions on the end of the world?

Perhaps he should take more notice of Nietzsche's remark (which he quotes): "A nihilist is a man who judges... that the world as it ought to be does not exist."

A Realist could add here that IT NEVER DID EXIST!

Food for thought....

[north-north-west]

I ask again, Nungulba - how much access is appropriate and for whom is lack of access permitted?
Wheelchair-bound people can't do the Three Capes. They can't even do the Dove Lake circuit. Is that fair?
Technically, I can no longer walk in to Cape Pillar and camp at Hurricane Heath, because I can't afford to pay $500 to do a walk that's virtually in my backyard. Is that fair?
Why is it 'elitist' and 'exclusivist' that only people who carry their own gear on an overnight walk can access an area, but not that only those who can afford to pay $500 for a few days walking can do so?
Why does the minority with money have priority over the minority who lack it and prefer independence, self-reliance and less of an impact on our already over-stressed environment?

For the record, I am neither all that young, nor particularly fit or strong. I have never been 'super-fit' or a member of any elite group of 'outdoor gymnasts' (or indoor ones, for that matter). But I have done a lot of walking all over the country, and still do a lot of off-track walking in Tassie. There are people in their 70s who still do that type of walking, too.

[Lophophaps]

Technically, I can no longer walk in to Cape Pillar and camp at Hurricane Heath, because I can't afford to pay $500 to do a walk that's virtually in my backyard. Is that fair?

I agree with all the points you have made. The one about the cost had not occurred to me, and is quite valid. Like NNW I've never been super-fit or strong, and am older than NNW. I get by with determination and just plugging away.

I want as many people as possible to visit our wild and beautiful places, but not at the expense of spoiling the places. This is why bushwalkers accept limitations and controls, such as at Wilsons Prom in Victoria. Fact is PWS unnecessarily destroyed the charm of the Three Capes walk.

There's a walk from Charlottes Pass to Kosciuszko that has footpaths, stone tracks, stone steps and broken rocks. Thousands do this walk every year. This is how PWS should have approached the matter. They should have asked what is the the minimum we need to do to prevent deterioration of the track and make it reasonably safe for most people. Milford and Routeburn Tracks in NZ have a lot of people on good tracks that are not nearly as pristine as Three Capes. Most people get by on Milford and Routeburn.

[Nungulba]

My friend, North-North-West, says:

"...how much access is appropriate and for whom is lack of access permitted?
Wheelchair-bound people can't do the Three Capes. They can't even do the Dove Lake circuit. Is that fair?
Technically, I can no longer walk in to Cape Pillar and camp at Hurricane Heath, because I can't afford to pay $500 to do a walk that's virtually in my backyard. Is that fair? "

To answer your first question, I think that access for disabled people (e.g.) needs to be negotiated on a case by case basis. On another level, those who have back problems and/or joint problems should be encouraged to participate as far as possible (if that is their wish); and, with regard to this it is significant that the great improvements to tracks on both the first and second capes will benefit BOTH bushwalker/camper groups (including people with mobility problems) AND the well-heeled tourists. A win/win situation.

I take issue with the statement that "wheelchair-bound people can't do the Three Capes" - in one sense this is obviously true since the third cape (Raoul) is not yet part of the improved access program (and may never be if funding is not available). But, even as things stand, there is no reason why a wheelchair "walker" can't complete the upgraded section of the walk, if they have some assistance. After all, Kurt Fearnly "walked" the Kokoda trail, which is vastly more difficult than the "Two Capes" track.
Rather than stereotyping disabled people we ought to be trying to be more inclusive. As for whether a particular situation is "fair" or not, it might be better to ask whether lack of access is discriminatory or not??? Certainly, it seems very strange just to accept the status quo and not want to consider changing it.

As for your last question, it naturally follows from my previous answer that "discriminatory" practices should be removed if possible (or, at least, minimised). I'm not sure that $500 fees are "discriminatory" as able-bodied people do have other options available - see below. But EXCESSIVE fees is obviously a major concern. Which, I think, is where I came in to this discussion!!!

P.S I am informed by National Parks & Wildlife (by email) that there are some SIX camping spots in the area. So, dear N/N/W, there is nothing to prevent you walking to Cape Pillar, even if Hurricane Heath is off-limits to camping (H.H. never appealed to me much as a camping spot anyway - just a maze of Bauera scrub!)

[north-north-west]

P.S I am informed by National Parks & Wildlife (by email) that there are some SIX camping spots in the area. So, dear N/N/W, there is nothing to prevent you walking to Cape Pillar, even if Hurricane Heath is off-limits to camping (H.H. never appealed to me much as a camping spot anyway - just a maze of Bauera scrub!)

According to public announcements, the only place non-fee-paying walkers are allowed to camp is Wughalee Falls - which is only one small step up from useless as it's barely an hour in from the road. Yes, I can walk in - but I can't camp anywhere near unless I pay their ridiculous fees. I can't access water easily unless I pay their ridiculous fees because the track has been routed away from the previous Lunchtime Creek crossing. I can't use the new track to Arthurs Peak because that's off-limits to non-fee-paying walkers. There is an old rough walking track into Denmans via Stinking Bay. But with the restriction on track use I can't follow that and then continue on the new track to connect with the rebuilt Cape Pillar track - I'd have to do what I did in the past to connect them - scrub bash.

None of this is about protection of the environment (and remember, I went in there a number of times during the construction phase, and have seen what was involved in building this track. The level of damage done in setting up worker campsites and equipment staging points and drop zones is appalling.) which is what any NP service should have as their primary aim. This track is about revenue above all else.

And, frankly, your opinion of Hurricane Heath is irrelevant, not to mention ignorant. There was a brilliant camping area in the shelter of the trees toward the cliffs. If you never saw it, that's your loss.

ps: You reckon only 'super fit elite outdoor gymnasts' being able to walk into certain areas is elitist and exclusivist and then you use Kurt Fearnley as an example of what disabled people can do? Seriously? You honestly don't see the disparity of attitudes there?

[flyfisher]

Good post nnw.

FF

[Walk_fat boy_walk]

My friend, North-North-West, says:

"...how much access is appropriate and for whom is lack of access permitted?
Wheelchair-bound people can't do the Three Capes. They can't even do the Dove Lake circuit. Is that fair?
Technically, I can no longer walk in to Cape Pillar and camp at Hurricane Heath, because I can't afford to pay $500 to do a walk that's virtually in my backyard. Is that fair? "

To answer your first question, I think that access for disabled people (e.g.) needs to be negotiated on a case by case basis. On another level, those who have back problems and/or joint problems should be encouraged to participate as far as possible (if that is their wish); and, with regard to this it is significant that the great improvements to tracks on both the first and second capes will benefit BOTH bushwalker/camper groups (including people with mobility problems) AND the well-heeled tourists. A win/win situation.

I take issue with the statement that "wheelchair-bound people can't do the Three Capes" - in one sense this is obviously true since the third cape (Raoul) is not yet part of the improved access program (and may never be if funding is not available). But, even as things stand, there is no reason why a wheelchair "walker" can't complete the upgraded section of the walk, if they have some assistance. After all, Kurt Fearnly "walked" the Kokoda trail, which is vastly more difficult than the "Two Capes" track.
Rather than stereotyping disabled people we ought to be trying to be more inclusive. As for whether a particular situation is "fair" or not, it might be better to ask whether lack of access is discriminatory or not??? Certainly, it seems very strange just to accept the status quo and not want to consider changing it.

As for your last question, it naturally follows from my previous answer that "discriminatory" practices should be removed if possible (or, at least, minimised). I'm not sure that $500 fees are "discriminatory" as able-bodied people do have other options available - see below. But EXCESSIVE fees is obviously a major concern. Which, I think, is where I came in to this discussion!!!

P.S I am informed by National Parks & Wildlife (by email) that there are some SIX camping spots in the area. So, dear N/N/W, there is nothing to prevent you walking to Cape Pillar, even if Hurricane Heath is off-limits to camping (H.H. never appealed to me much as a camping spot anyway - just a maze of Bauera scrub!)

You, sir....

OT, even if only an area is only open to "super fit elite outdoor gymnasts" (which would rule me out, but I still get out there, go figure...) it is the environmental impact, not the level of access, that should dictate the level of potential development. Like many, I think they've gone too far (the Routeburn/Milford example above was a good one - if they really had to tart it up then that should've been the extent of it). That said, it's done now, so I'll be using it as an opportunity to give the young'un a nice easy intro to overnight walking Might as well see what the fuss is all about. I can afford it (and will pay for it) but share the exasperation of those who can't or would rather not - places like these should remain public and not the preserve of the well-heeled (with whom I guess I'll be rubbing shoulders on the track )

[Hallu]

It's a multi million $ scar in the landscape that you have to pay 500$ to access. I just can't believe people are happy to pay for it.

[GPSGuided]

Actually, perfectly understandable as there's a large market out there for it. The real issue is whether that market should be tapped and how it's tapped.

[RonK]

I just can't believe people are happy to pay for it.

Why not? Plenty are happy to pay a lot more money for the private Overland Track walk. Three Capes is cheap.

[Walk_fat boy_walk]

I just can't believe people are happy to pay for it.

Why not? Plenty are happy to pay a lot more money for the private Overland Track walk. Three Capes is cheap.

I think 'cheap' is relative, but yeh if people are prepared to pay for it then why not? You arguably get more for less on an NZ Great Walk, but that discussion has been had.

My point was that I generally agree that it has been overdeveloped and overpriced accordingly, but there's no undoing that, and might as well enjoy it now (if you can afford it).

[Orion]

...might as well enjoy it now (if you can afford it).

I don't think I could. Enjoy it, that is. I could afford it.

[blossom+]

Well I'm back from the trip and it was brilliant! All our group is keen to do it again when they manage to get the Cape Raoul segment built - a good excuse to go back! Despite all the various complaints, I think they have built something really worthwhile. I believe it will add to Tasmania's economy and desirability as a walking destination. We all thought that it has been well thought out and designed.

And yep, a discount in winter might be worthwhile although I think it'd be a great walk then and the huts would be snug at nights

[Lost]

It is interesting to note as we have some posts from NSW that as last time I was up in NSW(living) Apart from Thredbo and Perisher NSW National parks would not permit any building of structures ie Accommodation and even went as far as trying to remove all the shacks in the Royal National Park(which will be removed once the owners move on) especially on the Coast walk and when the YHA shack/accommodation burnt down at Garie they were not permitted to build another one.

There was much ado/debate about the removal of shacks At Garie, Era and further south in the Royal.

National parks aren't solely there for the benefit of people or a select few companies to make quite a few dollars.

[Lost]

Yes, well it remains to be seen whether "local" Tasmanian patronage will be enough, since Mainlanders (whom I suspect are the main target of this development) will be heading to the Gold Coast for their winter break!!!

P.S. No disrespect to Tasmanians (I was one myself for thirty years, before the arthritis took its inevitable toll) but they just don't have as deep pockets as the tourists. On the bright side, they are also more perceptive: they know a "rip-off" when they see it!

Didn't know there was that many multi day bush walks on the goldie. Numbers on the OT during winter have been increasing steadily over the last few years. All those mainlanders and internationals who just don't have deep pockets I guess.No disrespect intended.

[bohwaz]

Just a message as I just finished the Cape Pillar Circuit as described on the Three Capes track (Fortescue Bay -> Wughalee Falls -> Cape Pillar -> back to camp -> Fortescue Bay). I've never been to the area, just been to Fortescue Bay/Bivouac Bay 3 years ago, but didn't have a tent to do overnight hikes at the time.

The "old cape pillar track" (I don't see why it would be old, I think it was upgraded for about $1 million about 10 or 15 years ago?) as written on Parks map (the one at Fortescue Bay walker registration shelter) going inland was nice but uneventful, but the local rangers seem to find it "overgrown". Well, there's a short section of long cutting grass in the middle, but nothing horrible, it is a well constructed track with boardwalks, planks, bridge and the track had been recently cleared apart from the middle section.

Meeting the Three Capes Track is quite a shock, as I found the previous track quite nice. The new constructed track looked like a path from a public park, meant to ride a bicycle or jog with your dog. Very large (the website says you can walk side by side, well yeah sure, and even pushing a stroller or two side by side), made only of gravel (all brought in by helicopiter? what the hell?) or board walk, it was so far from the "remote, raw and removed from the ordinary" (sic!) advertised on their website that I couldn't believe it would be all the way like this. It was, and even worse.

The track down Wughalee Falls campsite was nicer, steep but OK. The campsite has 8 platforms of different sizes, with at least one platform able to fit two 2-person tents, plus one flat spot near it, so I would say about 10 tents minimum can fit here. It seems that the campsite has been build in haste and the toilet doesn't have a toilet seat. The two small water tanks (100L each I would say) are fed by the toilet roof. Water was yellowish and smelled of eucalyptus but fine to drink. Retakunna creek was flowing a bit, the water was clear but tasted a bit weird (after filtering). Although the PWS website said there would be legions of leeches and mosquitoes waiting for us we saw only 4 leeches some mosquitoes, but nothing unusual for Tasmania as far as I know. For me it was a nice campsite, but not the best choice as it is 900 meters from the Cape Pillar track, and worse 170 meters down, so you have to climb that back up the day after (and back down). Oh and dark and wet, but I love wet rainforests.

The day later, passing the old Bare Knoll campsite (I think?), it was covered with trees and branches cut down, no sign but obviously not allowed to camp here. We followed the "new" track to Munro "hut", and it was quite a horrible view. It just looks like a designer hotel, and it is so huge. Even the toilets are enormous. We visited the place, seemed nice, there is even sun chairs, an outside "kitchen" with sink and water, a wood stove inside (does it get so cold here to need it? don't think so), power points to charge your phone (for a 4 day walk, seriously?), gas stoves, pans and pots and stuff. Outside are the sleeping rooms (4 or 8 beds per room, with mattress), bucket shower and very large ranger quarters. The local ranger seemed happy to be here, was quite nice, and said we could fill our water bottles here if we wanted. I wasn't sure as the sign at Fortescue Bay said that the facilities were reserved for paying clients only. But well it would be stupid to go to the loo in the forest instead of using those 4 stars toilets, complete with paper and soap! Apparently they didn't build the private huts yet, so it will be even bigger after. Well I don't think it could be much worse, as it looks more like a seaside hotel than a bushwalking hut. The ranger tried to convince us that all of "this" was worth the price but well 500 bucks is what gets me going for a month of walking and cycling, so my choice is easy to make.

The walk down to the Blade and Cape Pillar was not really interesting as I grew more and more tired of walking on kilometres of wooden planks. At one point where the new track is bypassing Perdition Ponds you can see on the other side of the hill the boardwalk (with guardrail, you know to save you from falling 50 cm below!) going in the distance, and it is quite a sad view. At this point I didn't know how the track was before so I thought that yeah they did this to avoid further erosion as it was probably a very popular walk, and lots of people walking on this kind of sandy ground can cause quite some damage. But on the way back I took the old track (which is still open, as in no sign, no barrier or pile of wood) and it was very nice and not much eroded, going through a vegetation tunnel down to Perdition Ponds where the campsite seemed to be still open too. You can also take the old track to bypass the Munro hut and go to Lunchtime Creek, it was nice and refreshing, but also quite depressing to see the damage done compared to what the original track was. I felt very much ill to see the place destroyed for tourism, when a National Park should be about conserving the place and trying to let people enjoy it with as less damage as possible. I didn't know the place before but I felt that it should have been much nice before and that it wasn't worth it to come now as it didn't look wild anymore.

On the next day we followed the "old" track down Wughalee Falls (but we didn't manage to find the track shown on my map that seemed to be going to the bottom of the falls, I could only see them from the top) and back up Fortescue Bay. We got a fair number of leeches (another couple walked this way about 2 hours before us and they got even more), there's about a dozen trees on the track but apart from that it was a nice climb, and the we joined the new track, about 1 km before Mt Fortescue. This part was better, as the track was narrower, but they still cut a number of trees and cleared a number of spots, one to build a helipad (there is another near the Blade on Cape Pillar) and others I suppose to receive bags of building supplies from the helipad as it seems that all the stones, rocks and gravel has been brought in (do they clean them before? or should we expect invasive seeds germinating after the work?). And as the track is still fully covered with gravel and a very large number of steps, I guess the helicopters were kept busy. The track had designer benches along the way, some of them quite hideous and placed in weird spots (like this "Sex on the cape" orange coat rack in the middle of Cape Pillar), they have names on them, and if you had paid $500 you would have a story linked to the name in the leaflet they give to you at the start. Why not, but a sign would have been enough. I'm not against benches but so many of them, really?

Up and down Mt Fortescue the track is mostly made of steps. I was so fed up with steps that I didn't felt I could continue down and up Cape Hauy at this point so I just skipped it. The track just looked hideous anyway, and at this point I just wanted to get out and experience wilderness again.

So yeah it was not a good experience and I would not recommend it to anyone. I would definitely not recommend paying $500 to do this walk, when you can basically do the same thing for free (except for the 14 km part south of Cape Pillar), and there's more interesting stuff to do for this price. Even back home in France you can sleep in mountain huts with a complimentary meal for cheaper, and it's in the mountains and the food has to be brought by horse. But even for free I wouldn't recommend it, there's more interesting stuff. The Overland seemed more wild and the scenery is mind blowing most of the way, here it is nice for some short lookouts but you don't see anything much of the way.

The cabins don't look nice, the track looks butchered, the landscape has been bulldozed and finally the feeling of the place is just odd and out of place. I cannot believe how they can market this as "eco" or "environmentally-sensitive". This is everything but sensitive, it is a poor job of protecting nature but a good job of destroying it. I don't even see how it can be a profitable business as the huts will need to be staffed all year long and I don't think there will be much visitors in winter (only a dozen people in huts this time).

Finally I have to say that it seems that PWS has put every effort to hide non-paying walkers from the paying customers with putting us in the dark campsite at the bottom of a 170 meters descent. The campsite is not even on the topo map displayed in the huts…

I will now go and hike Mt Raoul before it its bulldozed too! (the plan seems to be that the track will be "upgraded" like the cape pillar track and build a new track from Cape Raoul to Remarkable Cave and get the boat from there to the start of 3 Capes track)

[north-north-west]

Thanks bohwaz.

[DanShell]

Yep bohaz's post pretty much sums up what we saw down there.
My advice to anyone doing it is to only stay at the camp site one night. Walking in and out of there once is enough!
If I did it again I'd walk in early, hide my pack at the camp ground junction, do cape pillar and then go down to the camp ground.
Walk out via mount fortescue the next day.

[Lophophaps]

Thanks bohwaz.

+1. How depressing. Spectacular scenery, crappy tracks and ambience. Most if not all people on this website value wild places for the remoteness and lack of development. PWS has lost the plot. Maybe that's what we need - a plot to bury the new tracks and huts.

[north-north-west]

Yep bohaz's post pretty much sums up what we saw down there.
My advice to anyone doing it is to only stay at the camp site one night. Walking in and out of there once is enough!
If I did it again I'd walk in early, hide my pack at the camp ground junction, do cape pillar and then go down to the camp ground.
Walk out via mount fortescue the next day.

I'd find a spot to camp away from the new track and a lot further in. I hate low damp forest camps.

[DanShell]

I'd find a spot to camp away from the new track and a lot further in. I hate low damp forest camps.

I hate damp mozzie and leach infested camps too but thats the only spot we are allowed to camp unless of course you break the rules you naughty little rebel you

[Nungulba]

Thanks bohwaz.

+1. How depressing. Spectacular scenery, crappy tracks and ambience. Most if not all people on this website value wild places for the remoteness and lack of development. PWS has lost the plot. Maybe that's what we need - a plot to bury the new tracks and huts.

"Most if not all people on this website value wild places for the remoteness and lack of development". Maybe, but does this mean that public policy has to be always aimed at a particular interest group??? This "them & us" attitude is unhelpful & ultimately self-defeating.

[Nungulba]

Yes, well it remains to be seen whether "local" Tasmanian patronage will be enough, since Mainlanders (whom I suspect are the main target of this development) will be heading to the Gold Coast for their winter break!!!

P.S. No disrespect to Tasmanians (I was one myself for thirty years, before the arthritis took its inevitable toll) but they just don't have as deep pockets as the tourists. On the bright side, they are also more perceptive: they know a "rip-off" when they see it!

Didn't know there was that many multi day bush walks on the goldie. Numbers on the OT during winter have been increasing steadily over the last few years. All those mainlanders and internationals who just don't have deep pockets I guess.No disrespect intended.

Dear "Lost",

It may surprise you to discover that there are a number of "multi-day" walks in the Gold Coast Hinterland ("the Green behind the Gold"). But this has nothing to do with my original point which was that 'mainland tourists' aren't all that keen on Tasmania in the winter! Of course, serious bushwalkers are still attracted to the Overland Track (e.g.) in winter, but they hardly amount to a major influx!!!

As an 'aside' here, it was (I think) "Electric" Eric Reece - a former Premier of Tasmania - who is reported as saying: "Tourists come to Tasmania with a set of clean underwear and a ten dollar note, but don't change either!" Thankfully, the situation is somewhat better now?

[Nungulba]

It is interesting to note as we have some posts from NSW that as last time I was up in NSW(living) Apart from Thredbo and Perisher NSW National parks would not permit any building of structures ie Accommodation and even went as far as trying to remove all the shacks in the Royal National Park(which will be removed once the owners move on) especially on the Coast walk and when the YHA shack/accommodation burnt down at Garie they were not permitted to build another one.

There was much ado/debate about the removal of shacks At Garie, Era and further south in the Royal.

National parks aren't solely there for the benefit of people or a select few companies to make quite a few dollars.

Yes, well I'm a New South Welshman (by birth if not in spirit!) but I am not about to defend the National Parks people (and their actions) here. Perhaps they have good reasons (or perhaps - as sometimes happens in such cases - sheer *&%$#! officiousness rears its ugly head). I can see where problems might arise from a proliferation of private huts in a national park. Unless there is a sense of responsibility and respect for others, things COULD get out of control - as in the case of the YHA hut (but then, it could have been struck by lightning?!)

"National parks aren't solely there for the benefit of people...." Interesting! So, who (or what) is it that "benefits" from National Parks???

[Lophophaps]

Lost said "National parks aren't solely there for the benefit of people or a select few companies to make quite a few dollars." My take on that observation is that national parks exist for several reasons, including preserving the environment. This is why there are reference areas, where very few people are permitted.

The Three Capes development has compromised that objective, is too much for the region, lacks character, has a boring track, and cost too much. There should have been the absolute minimum done to allow more people commensurate with safety and maintaining the place. It's like bush McMansion. To modify Spock from Star Trek, "It's a bushwalk, Jim, but not as we know it."

[Nungulba]

P.S I am informed by National Parks & Wildlife (by email) that there are some SIX camping spots in the area. So, dear N/N/W, there is nothing to prevent you walking to Cape Pillar, even if Hurricane Heath is off-limits to camping (H.H. never appealed to me much as a camping spot anyway - just a maze of Bauera scrub!)

According to public announcements, the only place non-fee-paying walkers are allowed to camp is Wughalee Falls - which is only one small step up from useless as it's barely an hour in from the road. Yes, I can walk in - but I can't camp anywhere near unless I pay their ridiculous fees. I can't access water easily unless I pay their ridiculous fees because the track has been routed away from the previous Lunchtime Creek crossing. I can't use the new track to Arthurs Peak because that's off-limits to non-fee-paying walkers. There is an old rough walking track into Denmans via Stinking Bay. But with the restriction on track use I can't follow that and then continue on the new track to connect with the rebuilt Cape Pillar track - I'd have to do what I did in the past to connect them - scrub bash.

None of this is about protection of the environment (and remember, I went in there a number of times during the construction phase, and have seen what was involved in building this track. The level of damage done in setting up worker campsites and equipment staging points and drop zones is appalling.) which is what any NP service should have as their primary aim. This track is about revenue above all else.

And, frankly, your opinion of Hurricane Heath is irrelevant, not to mention ignorant. There was a brilliant camping area in the shelter of the trees toward the cliffs. If you never saw it, that's your loss.

ps: You reckon only 'super fit elite outdoor gymnasts' being able to walk into certain areas is elitist and exclusivist and then you use Kurt Fearnley as an example of what disabled people can do? Seriously? You honestly don't see the disparity of attitudes there?

Taking your points in order:

1) The crucial change to your opening comment is "the only place NON-FEE-PAYING walkers are allowed to camp is Wughalee Falls." You say that you think the fees are "ridiculous" and I would agree with you if you mean the fees for the "$500-per-head" mob. $500 does seem a lot to pay for camping and access to the water tank! So, I must assume that you refer to some other scale of charges; if so, then I would be interested to hear what they are. Of course, it would be unreasonable (& unrealistic) to expect not to pay ANYTHING for such facilities ~ "user pays" is a common occurrence in many areas of government nowadays. Fortunately, there are still parks in Tasmania where bushwalkers can camp for free (albeit mostly in un-improved sites)

Perhaps, though, the following has some bearing on this point: "It is true that we sometimes pay too much for something that is not worth anything; but it is also true that we may end up knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing!"

2) I sympathize with your being unable to use a number of the new tracks on Pillar. this does restrict access to sections of the Cape, although -as you suggest - it is still possible to scrub bash. Not ideal, but not any different either to how it was back in the 1970s when I walked through there.
It seems you have two options: one is to accept the changes and modify your activities accordingly, OR act as if nothing has happened, and use the old tracks where possible.

3) Whether the changes have irrevocably damaged the whole Cape is something that only time can tell. perhaps some areas can be rehabilitated; perhaps the bush will reclaim them "naturally".

4) Again, I agree with you that my comments on Hurricane Heath are irrelevant (I accept your valuation of the campsite as "brilliant" ~ regretably I shall never see it!) because as you yourself say, Hurricane Heath is now "off limits", so no longer "relevant".

5) I come back to your earlier post in which you asked, "How much access is appropriate and for whom is lack of access permitted?" the answer to this (as I see it) ought to be based on a CHARITABLE view of all users (or potential users). It is not a case of "black-and-white" or "all-or-nothing" - a politicized way of thinking that has regrettably crept into some environmental thinking.

6) Finally, I think you misunderstand my comments on "super fit elite outdoor gymnasts". My only criticism of the super fit is when certain members of that group adopt a dismissive attitude to the LESS fit. Clearly, I have only admiration for people like Kurt Fearnley ~ they are an inspiration to all disabled and mobility-restricted lovers of the outdoors. And, what is more, they are so HUMBLE about it!!!

[Nungulba]

Lost said "National parks aren't solely there for the benefit of people or a select few companies to make quite a few dollars." My take on that observation is that national parks exist for several reasons, including preserving the environment. This is why there are reference areas, where very few people are permitted.

The Three Capes development has compromised that objective, is too much for the region, lacks character, has a boring track, and cost too much. There should have been the absolute minimum done to allow more people commensurate with safety and maintaining the place. It's like bush McMansion. To modify Spock from Star Trek, "It's a bushwalk, Jim, but not as we know it."

If you are arguing for the proposition that no judgment of the value of national parks can be separate from HUMAN interests/needs then I agree. But this, of course, compromises any view that the environment is valuable "for its own sake". So, if the latter is your view I would be interested to hear how you arrived at this judgment (without it being merely an opinion!)

[bohwaz]

I didn't see any sign saying that you should not camp somewhere else than Wughalee Falls, we just went there as there is a toilet and I always prefer to use existing infrastructure (plus first visit so didn't know where other camps were). There is only two odd signs along the new track on Cape Pillar fobidding camping at spots where camping is not possible anyway (one has been cleared and is full of tree stumps, the other has no flat or clear area suitable to pitch a tent). But nothing at Perdition Ponds, or the few tent sites along the old track (one at Lunchtime Creek, about two or three along the track between the Blade and Cape Pillar). The few sheltered campsites at the end of Cape Pillar seemed the best bet if you want to do a there-and-back to Cape Pillar in two days using the inland track, but it would be long and boring days.

Some pictures from the track:

New sign at Fortescue Bay:


New track (including this odd sculpture in the middle of Cape Pillar):


Wughalee Falls campsite:


Old track (closed section) / new track:


One of those odd no camping signs:


Munro hut:


Old track / New track (near Perdition Ponds):


Old track / New track (near Lunchtime Creek):


New helipad on Mt Fortescue:


Cape Hauy track:


Last sculpture before Fortescue Bay, I thought it was a bench but you can't really sit on the rock slabs:


Hope it will give people who didn't have the "chance" to come back here a good idea of how it looks like now. Hopefully with time the track will look less out of place when cut vegetation will grow back?