Develop the South Coast Track walk

[Nuts]

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.

Ha ha - thanks Nuts. If I get bored one rainy day I may just pen something for everyone's amusement

I'd read every word. Twice if necessary, and do my best to comprehend. If that wasn't possible, i'd probably ask specifics, or, at the least, value the effort.
(Having been fortunate, I guess, with those pre-instagram formative years)

[weetbix456]

Part of me likes to think there could be a middle ground on this. Eg. fix up the track where it's heavily degraded, maybe do something about the loos at the campsites (ie. something more than hession around a couple of star pickets), but leave private huts out of it. I know that's not what's being proposed, and since (from a superficial look) any sort of upgrade seems to be tied to the ability to run private hut operations, it's probably a pipe dream. I'm sure I'll get flamed by some who would prefer to leave it as it is (I personally don't mind the mud!) but like it or not the SCT is a major drawcard - I've come across people overseas who talk about it - and at the very least it should be a reasonable standard along its length. I think the track can be improved without degrading wilderness value too much, but the additional numbers that would logically follow would need to be managed.

So, more a rant than a value add... It just $#|!s me that governments only seem to care about track conditions when private $$$ are on the table. At a high level having a separate set of infrastructure within a wilderness area for people prepared to pay more is galling enough on its own, but the suggestion that everyone else needs to rely on the existence of private huts to have a decent track to walk on seems out of whack.

THIS is everything I wanted to say without knowing how Exactly my thoughts. Thank you.

[TentPeg]

Adding private huts to the SCT seems like a really good option to me. It creates a new way for people to enjoy our wonderful World Heritage Area. Certainly those people coming from other places in the world would appreciate the hutted option and the associated guided experience.

No doubt once they have this set up and going they would be looking at the same for the Port Davey Track.

And then its a simple step to join the dots with a new trail from St Clair down to Scotts Peak and we will have an amazing journey available from Penguin to Cockle Creek. Now that would be something special rivalling, in its own way, the challenges of other long distance walks throughout the world. A hutted experience for some and a tented experience for others. Seems like a win all the way around in my humble opinion.

[north-north-west]

Adding private huts to the SCT seems like a really good option to me. It creates a new way for people to enjoy our wonderful World Heritage Area. Certainly those people coming from other places in the world would appreciate the hutted option and the associated guided experience.

No doubt once they have this set up and going they would be looking at the same for the Port Davey Track.

And then its a simple step to join the dots with a new trail from St Clair down to Scotts Peak and we will have an amazing journey available from Penguin to Cockle Creek. Now that would be something special rivalling, in its own way, the challenges of other long distance walks throughout the world. A hutted experience for some and a tented experience for others. Seems like a win all the way around in my humble opinion.

And the millions of dollars to pay for the construction, upgrade and maintenance of tracks would cone from. . . ?

And the odds that the pressure on those areas from all the extra visitors would be ameliorated by another booking/permit system so even more of the state is off limits to those of us on limited budgets . . . ?

[TentPeg]

And the millions of dollars to pay for the construction, upgrade and maintenance of tracks would cone from. . . ?

Ah yes - the almighty dollar. Spending dollars is an algorithm of the dollars coming in. The Three Capes exercise has shown that little old Tassie can invest $14m and bring in unprecedented numbers of people from all around the world to share in our delight of our surroundings. Parks continues to do a fantastic job of prioritising its limited resources and with increased visitor numbers will come increased expenditure. Ideally the expenditure will outstrip the negatives of the demand - but we will see. I am optimistic that the development will be sympathetic and if that is the case the allure of the experience will remain and the value will be seen by those visiting and those servicing their needs.

And the odds that the pressure on those areas from all the extra visitors would be ameliorated by another booking/permit system so even more of the state is off limits to those of us on limited budgets . . . ?

The proposal for the South Coast Track doesn't impact on the non-paying capacity of the Track. If their huts have composting facilities and their numbers are limited to the capacity of the facilities then the impact on the environment is limited to the annual removal of the remaining waste. On the other hand - the continued upgrading of the Track infrastructure necessary because of the increased use of the Track by non-paying walkers may - at some time - end up with a need for some booking and or permit system. That will also be an algorithm of the numbers of those people and the capacity to fund the increased infrastructure. I suppose we only have to look at the Frenchmans walk now that money has been spent on infrastructure there which invites more people to visit to see that the conundrum we have is one of how to deal with our "success" in terms of getting more people out there appreciating our Heritage Area held on behalf of the World.

I've just come back from five days in the St Clair area. I didn't have to pay to access the area. I had a choice to use huts if I had wished. As I understand there isn't any area that I can't access because of the Overland Track permit system. I can't use the whole of the Track, as such, under certain conditions but that is not something that would stop me if my planning is done properly so I don't see that a small 1m wide ribbon being unavailable to me is saying that it is off limits to me because I have a limited budget.

It seems to me that we are now in a world where more and more people want to access our bush through a mixture of ever-reducing weight penalties associated with long distance walking and ever-increasing availability of time for those people wanting to access the areas. That is highly unlikely to change in the short term so we can either embrace that concept - or be scared of it. I'm an embracer.

Those people spending time and money walking the Overland Track now are like the back-packers of the Seventies - they will come back one day and want to do more. The question for us is whether we want to embrace that now or not. To me - the state of the track that I walk on is not what I want to be remembering in years to come - what I want to remember is the splendour and majesty of the country that I have been able to experience as I walk that track. Perhaps we need to lift our focus from concentrating on where we have to put our feet and spend more time on enjoying the experience.

[Nuts]

Surely our obligation to the world, for our wilderness heritage, is to do whatever possible to save it, without miners and loggers, then, it appears, from ourselves?
I'm thoroughly positive for holding onto the ideal of benevolence, we don't need to develop every last corner. The only thing holding back a big hug for properly maintained tracks, hardened campsites and efficient dunnies is now those who would take advantage (of a dodgy mandate and the best intentions of conservative management). Not part of any wholistic long-term management, just a blinkered land grab.

There were four private huts on the Overland Track. Then five. Now, it appears, ten. A similar footprint for a public hut would accommodate many more, yet some think there's more here than making profit? 'Eco' tourism to everyone that matters, paying customers. No more places for us plebs? No less places? Make no mistake, there's nothing positive in capitulating other than diminished WHA Wilderness, diminished commitment to communal access, even (or maybe most importantly) chipping away at the ideal.

[Mechanic-AL]

[quote="Walk_fat boy_walk"]Part of me likes to think there could be a middle ground on this. Eg. fix up the track where it's heavily degraded, maybe do something about the loos at the campsites (ie. something more than hession around a couple of star pickets), but leave private huts out of it.

I doubt too many who have walked the SCT lately would argue that it's due for a bit more TLC. But is the addition of huts going to make things better or worse ? I have just completed the South West Cape Circuit and a few things suprised me. First was the relatively small number of people heading west of Cox's Bight. After turning right at Cox's Bluff we didnt see another soul for 8 days and the walker registration books confirmed the low numbers. The second thing was the general condition of the track as far as Wilsons Bight. It was way better than I had expected. None of the big boggy blowouts of the SCT. And apart from the ubiquitous fishing boat crap the campsites were very clean and tidy and didnt look like they had been flogged to death. When we returned to Melaleuca I was quite amazed to look at the number of parties that had started out on the SCT in the time we had been walking.

What concerns me the most in any development of the SCT is the snowball effect. Private huts and better conditions attract more numbers and the place gets loved to death. So more people start venturing westwards and soon the track to Wilsons Bight is a bogfest. More people heading down to the cape results in more people venturing over the range and up the west side so a track is required to guide people through the untracked areas, then what about some huts...........and so on it goes. This isn't just a decision about weather the SCT should be upgraded. IT is about the impact on the entire region. I'd be happy to see the SCT get a good face wash but it doesn't need the full botox treatment.

[Geevesy]

Part of me likes to think there could be a middle ground on this. Eg. fix up the track where it's heavily degraded, maybe do something about the loos at the campsites (ie. something more than hession around a couple of star pickets), but leave private huts out of it.

I walked the SCT about a month ago now and was pretty impressed with the works that have taken place since I walked it last (2006). Decent toilets with metal buildings are now at the main campsites and substantial track hardening is underway (Buoy Creek-Red Point Hills is just about done, South Cape Range is underway but a massive job).

We also passed (and managed to avoid) a party of 10 or so that was an organised tour. So I guess what would be the preference? Do people want to share each campsite with organised tours (of which numbers will increase), or dedicate huts ala OT that keeps the large tour away from the main walking public at night. On the other hand, would those camping tours relocate anyway? Probably not

[Nuts]

Or.. ala OT,

The camping tours fund group tent platforms on already degraded sites at the fringe of the main public camping areas but at a reasonable distance. Minimising the need for further clearing.

At 30-40% occupancy this provides an alternate for other, public access groups, schools, clubs etc. while, in the case of commercial tours, excluded from any future public hut use yet continuing to pay a premium (above public walkers), funds other public amenities.

While offering the cheapest form of community support possible, no cream from exclusive rights or locations.

Within striking distance of the toilets, minimising the need for more and associated service.

They support or give piece of mind to novice walkers, especially in the shoulder season, with help and advice or emergency comms and they provide excess cheesecake.

What's not to love : (

Nevertheless.. I'd rather see no commercial ingress than private huts 'as well'.

[Mechanic-AL]

I wouldn't say the tent platforms at Waterfall Valley were on the fringe or on an already degraded site.
And I was told in no uncertain terms that I wasn't permitted to use them which kinda makes them exclusive in my books.
The tour group that did use them seemed to have mood swings between using platforms or staying in the public huts for the duration of their walk.

[Lophophaps]

Surely our obligation to the world, for our wilderness heritage, is to do whatever possible to save it, without miners and loggers, then, it appears, from ourselves?

There were four private huts on the Overland Track. Then five. Now, it appears, ten. A similar footprint for a public hut would accommodate many more, yet some think there's more here than making profit? 'Eco' tourism to everyone that matters, paying customers. No more places for us plebs? No less places? Make no mistake, there's nothing positive in capitulating other than diminished WHA Wilderness, diminished commitment to communal access, even (or maybe most importantly) chipping away at the ideal.

Agree about the obligations. Broadly speaking, the purpose of national parks and the like is conservation. Everything else is secondary. Could you please give a quick description of how and why the OLT private huts are breeding?

[Nuts]

A licence to breed, i'm not aware when, i'm not entirely sure where, the location of the sixth/11th? hut could be part of the Lk Rodway proposal or somewhere new? hopefully not PV as well. From the project brief:

Description of proposal
Due to current high demand and anticipated further demand for commercial guided tours on the Overland Track and other high end multi day walking experiences within Tasmania, TWC propose a second hut‐based guided walk along the Overland Track. The six huts along the Overland Track will be carefully sited, and have external finishes designed to minimise visibility from surrounding peaks and tracks within the National Park. The design of the new huts will be the epitome of cutting edge sustainable, environmentally and socially responsible design. The design will minimise site disturbance whilst maximising foreground connectedness.

I think the reason is clear. As follows prudent business growth, they are making lots of money and want to make more?

I wouldn't say the tent platforms at Waterfall Valley were on the fringe or on an already degraded site.
And I was told in no uncertain terms that I wasn't permitted to use them which kinda makes them exclusive in my books.
The tour group that did use them seemed to have mood swings between using platforms or staying in the public huts for the duration of their walk.

It's unfortunate that you had a negative experience Mechanic-AL, it really is, i'd encourage you/anyone to share it with the management staff.

The group platform at WFV is indeed a former group campsite AL, or from the days before permits, the one commonly used (there was no formal division). There were a sprawl of sites back up the creek above the falls and the current site concentrates camping at the lower end of them (under the platforms was a tangle of roots and bare ground that we would juggle tents around between or over). This division would be easier to implement on SCT sites as the campsites generally spawl further, on more stable ground.

The platforms are exclusive, to groups, to try and make the experience better for everyone else. Last news on sharing these platforms was that other groups were to be using them. Clubs, schools and that, between commercial group use (that are restricted too and fund them). As you may expect there are some issues with pre-booking, perhaps the situation has changed? There was, at one stage, some confusion among the resident hut wardens as to who to let use them and who was booked to arrive, with groups booked in and arriving late to find a friendly hut warden had let someone spread out up there, the only place tour groups should really be.. Wouldn't hurt to have their use explained/made clearer for everyone involved, especially at WFV given the lack of other public platforms.

I doubt whether any of the common tour groups would be swapping between huts and campsites. On occasion you may see them taking an end at Pelion for cooking if there are very few on the track. Occasionally cooking in Bert Nichols in the outer room. Bad form anywhere else, and not really necessary anywhere, with the rare exception of individual members with genuine reason. Maybe a new operator or community group*?

* and i'm not sure whether school/club groups are actually restricted to the group sites, they may be allowed random hut use.

[dazintaz]

We need to remind ourselves just how much has changed in the last 30 years (tourists and people walking multi days). Tasmania is blipping on the earths radar as a natural haven for lovers of the wilderness, so we must be prepared for lots more change, and people, lots and lots of them.

[Mechanic-AL]

I find it rather sad that we the human race have become so conditioned to changing things to suit our own needs that the notion of simply leaving somethings the way they are is unacceptable.
While I have been pondering the issue of huts on the SCT it occurred to me that the definitive answer as to whether we should or whether we shouldnt must surely lie in the reasons why we declare places to be World Heritage Areas in the first place. How smart am I. I was sure I had found an ally. WRONG. I have to confess I had all these fantastic notions about why places had been declared of World Heritage value but in truth I didn't have a clue. When I actually got down to the nuts and bolts of it I was dismayed to realize just how toothless the whole declaration of WHA's really is. My ally in declaring the SCT a hut free zone turned out to be a bunch of senile old codgers on the other side of the globe with *&^%$#! stains on the front of their suits !! Under the heading " Implications of Listing as a World Heritage Site " the first consideration was to increased tourist visation, employment opportunities and increased income for local communities. Not a word about the future health of the globe or setting aside untouched areas for the benfit of future generations

I agree Daz. We should be prepared for lots and lots more people but I think it would be a critical mistake to start using visitor numbers to govern how much infrastructure should be allowed. Keeping a limit on the number of people on the track is going to result in a far more unique experience in years to come than putting a roof over people heads ever will.

[Mark F]

" Implications of Listing as a World Heritage Site " the first consideration was to increased tourist visation, employment opportunities and increased income for local communities. Not a word about the future health of the globe or setting aside untouched areas for the benefit of future generations

In Australia our World Heritage sites are almost all natural areas, not areas of cultural significance as in Europe. For cultural sites the stated benefits, visitation, employment and income, are significant and generally welcomed and WH status means there is access to funds to repair and maintain the site and often controls over access that limit damage. For natural sites the fact that they are recognised as WH means that there will be greater pressure from increased visitation as they become known from a global perspective. WH status in Australia means oversight of State Governments by the Commonwealth (somewhat dependent on exant electoral outcomes) and is often used to defend these areas from highly damaging development - remember the Don Hazell road proposals, not to mention forestry.

Would you rather have an area recognised as WH or not?

[north-north-west]

I agree Daz. We should be prepared for lots and lots more people but I think it would be a critical mistake to start using visitor numbers to govern how much infrastructure should be allowed. Keeping a limit on the number of people on the track is going to result in a far more unique experience in years to come than putting a roof over people heads ever will.

Right on.

[Nuts]

We need to remind ourselves just how much has changed in the last 30 years (tourists and people walking multi days). Tasmania is blipping on the earths radar as a natural haven for lovers of the wilderness, so we must be prepared for lots more change, and people, lots and lots of them.

Not here, i'm reminded of it constantly. Along with these big visible public projects has been a systemic disruption of the camping based tours as well, setting the partnership back years with open-slather policy, seems like anyone and everyone is jumping on board i'm sure everyone already guessed this.. right, but the pressure is on camping tour companies to expand growth to lesser-well-known tracks, and I suspect, as has happened, the hut gannets will follow. That's for another discussion however.

While change is inevitable, we have set boundaries as a buffer against... change. Call them what we like, WHA's, look to the NP act for allies, the most disinterested person I know finds it an odd situation to be 'building hotels in parks'. There is vast scope for growth that doesn't include the need for private huts. Goodness me, we skip public huts and go straight to the end game. Who does that? What first world country wouldn't or won't wish for their time over and the unique situation we have here in Tasmania (not by mistake or lack of external pressure either, the existing estate has taken generations of care).

[Nuts]

https://www.wilderness.org.au/articles/ ... wilderness

The Tasmanian Government has finalised the Management Plan, complete with weakened protections for wilderness character, counter to both decisions of the committee and multiple Government assurances.

[weetbix456]

I tear up

[north-north-west]

Time for another blockade.

[Nuts]

My thoughts immediately expand to other areas, from which precedents are taken and to which precedents will apply.
Private developments should happen nowhere within our parks. Or indeed places we hope to include in the parks estate. Simple.

There are other ways to implement change, make money and progress, if we just can't help it.

Yet it's such an insidious dilemma, has potential, as we see, to divide even ground-in conservationists.
Is it just a few huts or the start of a final fail on behalf of humanity

I've not studied this management plan, and am always behind the news, so don't have enough to be sure of the facts.
Let's not let that stand in the way of expressing cynicism, here when 'caps' get a mention:

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasma ... afb215dc4b

[dazintaz]

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.

Did you walk the overland track in the 1970's before they demolished cirque hut? I recall up to 25 tents pitched around the hut. No matter what happens one thing is certain, we need to come up with some fresh ideas. Keep evolving.

[Mark F]

From memory Cirque Hut was particularly poorly sited.

As far as the SCT go there is the historical precedent that there were originally a series of provisioned three side shelters built along its length

[Nuts]

This project has nothing to do with alleviating pressure on public campsites or funding any aspect of the public infrastructure. If anything, it's easy enough to imagine that they will have an interest in those sites getting rougher and more crowded?

[bhogan]

I couldn't read the whole thread but I did read most of it. The South Coast Track was the first walk I ever did. I had no experience but I did have great quality gear and a sensible attitude of what I may be likely to expect. I massively enjoyed the SCT when
I did it in 2011 and I was lucky with great weather. South West Tasmania is awesome and when it comes to building huts, I look at New Zealand. They have maximised every opportunity for the tourism dollar and from what I experienced walking the Dusky track it was awesome (with or without huts), the challenge and scenery was the same. Huts are great, for those (including me) that are lazy (tired, late to camp, or whatever) but so what? Tasmania has so many opportunities to promote itself and invest in bushwalking, extreme fun (Mark Webber Challenge) and so on .... Two key points ... 1) More is merrier 2) Money fixes problems.

[Son of a Beach]

Two key points ... 1) More is merrier 2) Money fixes problems.

I'm not sure what you mean by "more is merrier", but for me, the last thing I want to see when I go bush is people. The fewer the better, and preferably none at all.

I'm not a believer in the idea that it is the money that fixes problems. Although there is no doubt that money can be used to implement solutions to some problems, I'm not convinced that it's a universal principle that can be applied to all situations.

[South_Aussie_Hiker]

I wonder how all those people who vehemently oppose more people on the SCT formed their love of the wilderness in the first place? Sitting outside a locked national park gate?

Future generations can't be expected to appreciate and protect something they've never been allowed to see and experience.

Public walkers on the OLT degrade the track just as much as private walkers. As long as the environmental issues are identified and managed - the more people we can champion for the cause of WHA, the better.

[Son of a Beach]

I wonder how all those people who vehemently oppose more people on the SCT...

Can you please point out (quote, perhaps) the specific posts that you are referring to where people are vehemently opposing more people on the SCT? It would help us understand which people, posts or arguments you're specifically referring to.

If you were referring to my post (just above yours), I was debating the idea that "more is merrier" when bushwalking in general. Not specificially, referring to how many people I reckon should be walking the SCT. Ie, it is my understanding that when people go bushwalking most of them have a hope and expectation that they will be away from crowds, therefore the idea that "more is merrier" when bushwalking just sounded a bit odd to me, and therefore an unusual basis for an argument in favour of more development. It was not my intent that my comment should be taken as an argument for or against more development (or people) on the SCT. However, I can see how my post could easily be interpreted that way.

[South_Aussie_Hiker]

Hi Son of a Beach.

It wasn't directed at you whatsoever

And Bob Brown would be the first that comes to mind.

[Nuts]

Bob didn't oppose more people on the SCT. His group, and The Wilderness Society, oppose the placing private huts in the park (and later the manipulation of management planning to facilitate doing so): http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-20/d ... an/8367442

It's possible to increase the numbers many-fold without allowing private huts.
Private developers contribution to numbers (and participants support for a positive parks future), is very likely neither here nor there. The developers may, in fact, be expected to lobby on the side of restricted public walker numbers (booking systems).