walkinTas wrote::)
The idea of conservation is not to lock up areas for people to visit, or look at, or experience, or enjoy. All of that is a side benefit (for humans that is). We have these areas to protect them, and to protect the plants and animals that live there. We do it in the hope that 100 years or more from now, we will still have pristine wilderness.
Nuts wrote:
Use it or loose it I say! Though in this case there is lots to be done to manage existing tracks before creating another.
Too right. Wan't the original Lake Pedder in a National Park, which was then redefined to exclude Lake Pedder in order to allow the new dam to be built?Nuts wrote:That sounds more the 'ideal' of conservation... History tells a different story, when the chips are down it is economics that win out (and are always going to be lurking- why allow mining companies continued access to exploration licences over national parks)..
For what walkers see, the impact along the Overland Track appears obvious but if you fly around out there its footprint is lost within such vast an area. For those that work there or pay to go through 'the reserve' their impact Overall is likely reduced over staying at home, sitting in a chair with a light on at night. To me, the money generated and the dozens of young (and not so young) people employed is significant.
Use it or loose it I say! Though in this case there is lots to be done to manage existing tracks before creating another.
There's always New River to Federation....Son of a Beach wrote:It would be good to have some areas left for people who want to find their way without any track, though.
tasadam wrote:There's always New River to Federation....Son of a Beach wrote:It would be good to have some areas left for people who want to find their way without any track, though.![]()
Seriously tho, there are a lot of places I'd like to go, and no track exists. Some have been done before, eg Melaleuca to Feders... That would be interesting.
ILUVSWTAS wrote:No-one in their right mind (or anyone with knowledge of the area) would attempt a trip up the New river.
tasadam wrote:There's always New River to Federation....Son of a Beach wrote:It would be good to have some areas left for people who want to find their way without any track, though.![]()
Seriously tho, there are a lot of places I'd like to go, and no track exists. Some have been done before, eg Melaleuca to Feders... That would be interesting.
Nuts wrote:C'mon ILSW, i'll give you a bunch of free bagging points if you nutters climb fedders that way![]()
ILUVSWTAS wrote:Even if you had the power to issue free points Nuts you'd have to be more than just a little "Nuts"to attempt it.
Nuts wrote:ILUVSWTAS wrote:Even if you had the power to issue free points Nuts you'd have to be more than just a little "Nuts"to attempt it.
Good point..... Hey, maybe though I could sponser you with bandaids and betadine? ()
Nothing wrong with ideals! I was answering greyim's "Why have these areas if they cannot be experienced and enjoyed?" Simply, there are higher reasons than just having them for our benefit.Nuts wrote:That sounds more the 'ideal' of conservation... History tells a different story, when the chips are down, economics win out...
And the longer we keep our wilderness wild, the more pressure there will be to use it. Actually, when you read about threatened species and threatened eco-systems, bushwalking is not see as a big problem. The major problems are things like "native vegetation clearance; pests, weeds and diseases; degradation of water systems; inappropriate use of fire; bycatch and illegal harvesting and inappropriate grazing regimes". Sometimes bushwalkers are blamed for spreading weeds and diseases, and careless camping can introduce fire into very sensitive eco-systems that don't have a natural resistance to fire.Nuts wrote:Use it or loose it I say! Though in this case there is lots to be done to manage existing tracks before creating another.
Nuts wrote:Tourism income waxes and wanes. Unlike commodity pricing there is no base. It fits well in a balanced economy but there is no product of any real substance. People don't need to travel.
The lows of a desperate economy could be devastating for wilderness on a broader scale than just the west coast. The notion of a like for like swap is ridiculous, apparently a summation not seen through rosey glasses.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests