WoJ Plan feedback to PWS

[Nuts]

Apologies for my part, here's the ABC podcast fwiw.. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-11/b ... ection=tas

[greyim]

Well it's good that PWS is looking ahead, because this area is getting alot more use, and much more so in the years ahead.

[stepbystep]

...here's the ABC podcast fwiw.. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-11/b ... ection=tas

See, you can agree with some southerners, no?

Apologies to Chris if my words offended I'm not sure if opinion gets confused with personal attack(by some). I like nuts, he's like the crazy uncle that visits at christmas

And thanks tastrax for once again making some sense, I'll give my opinion I hope others do to.

[Chris]

Apologies for my part

Apologies to Chris if my words offended I'm not sure if opinion gets confused with personal attack(by some). I like nuts, he's like the crazy uncle that visits at christmas

I've read much worse! It's just that over the years during which I've been following this forum I have noticed a trend towards less than friendly posts. I thoroughly enjoy a good argument, and have been accused of being less than polite at times, but it's much easier for others to misunderstand possibly friendly banter when the only communication is via text. There have been comments elsewhere about this being a reason for the disappearance of some previously regular contributors, and though I am still an avid reader here, I prefer to keep out of the more controversial topics.
Rant over!

[walkinTas]

...here's the ABC podcast fwiw.. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-11/b ... ection=tas

I must be missing something! Can someone please point me to the spot where PWS said they were going to "charge" people to walk in WoJ, or introduce a "user pay system" with charges that could be construed likely to lead to Tasmanians being "priced out of national park". I only see a discussion of a walker registration system for groups of 7+, which will be replaced by a "web-based booking system for camping". What am I missing?

Management Approach 5:- Introduce a booking system for all overnight visitors (Consider in the medium term).

PROS: Simple system for end users if web-based , opportunity to deliver education messages via the web, helps target national and international users. Equitably targets all user groups. Could be used as a mechanism to reduce or spread visitation over a wider time period (eg daily or weekly quotas), perhaps reducing or eliminating the need for additional infrastructure.
CONS: Significant establishment and ongoing costs to maintain. May require a more complex system than (for example) the Overland Track departures - based system. Multiple entrances to the Walls of Jerusalem area may make this a complicated system to develop and enforce. May be seen as an onerous imposition on some users.

Note, that MA 5 does not target day walkers at all (all overnight visitors). Nothing about how much would be charged either - if anything! Granted, It is likely there might be a charge because it would be expensive to implement, still, talk of a 'user pay system pricing Tasmanians out of the park' is just speculation, at best, and scaremongering at worst. And the issues is a bit of a red herring.

I agree with the CONS listed for MA 5. I strongly disagree that a booking system would "perhaps reducing or eliminating the need for additional infrastructure". In the current WoJ experience, without new infrastructure, a booking system would be very hard to implement and hard to police. The OLT is different. It has a main starting point and a main ending point with staff on-site, making it a little easier to (appear to) manage access. It has one predominant pathway and regular, establish points along that pathway where walkers congregate. Meaning, it is a bit easier to manage.

At present, the WoJ is not as straight forward as the OLT. There is no established infrastructure at the starting and finishing points. A booking system would be likely to target walkers who start and finish at Lake Rowallan, and who camp at Wild Dog Creek or at Dixon Kingdom, but better infrastructure would be required.

In the plan MA 2 and MA 3, which are designated "adopted", are all about improving and increasing that infrastructure with additional hardened camping at Dixon Kingdom and Lake Adelaide and additional hardened tracks. And about limiting options outside the improved infrastructure. So it would seem that the proposal is to build the infrastructure that would establish a single, hardened path likely to be used by most visitors, with managed, hardened camping areas - and therefore an infrastructure that can be more readily controlled. To discourage or forbid certain practices outside that infrastructure. And then, ultimately, to manage how many people use the new infrastructure - or at least how many people could use it during peak periods. Note MA 5 is medium term - i.e. after the infrastructure work has been completed. Meaning that the immediate plan is to put the new infrastructure in place. I am disappointed that established bushwalking clubs seem willing to champion the push for more infrastructure (above podcast) - especially when the infrastructure will inevitably lead to their worse fears being realised.

CONS:- Any infrastructure detracts for the wilderness experience. Additional infrastructure would be undesirable for that reason. Even if the new infrastructure is outside the central walls area, it will still dominate the walkers experience of the overall walk. PROS:- Hardening tracks and limiting the number of walkers might lessen walker impact.

Summarising the priority issues in the plan, Priority conservation issues (1) maintenance of sensitive natural values (2) exclusion of fire (3) maintenance of high water quality. Priority visitor management issues (1) crowding, (2) stabilising campsite and track impacts, (3) toilet capacity. The constant push to add infrastructure to iconic walks is a real concern. The more it is done, the more the wilderness experience will vanish from these areas and the more people will seek out other areas. Infrastructure alone dose not address the priority conservations issues. Rather than immediately adopting a pathway to more and more-intrusive infrastructure, why not try a range of other measures that have less visual impact on the area. A scaled up MA 1 & MA 4 if you like - status quo with some additions. For example - track ranger presence, imposing penalties on walkers who disregard laws and regulations especially those who light fires, education campaigns, and 'large group' and 'commercial' group management. Infrastructure should be low key and unobtrusive - e.g track maintenance and strategically placing toilets to be unobtrusive but available. Together these suggestions address the "priority issues" and allow the use of the "adaptive management cycle", but have less intrusive infrastructure as the starting point.

[Son of a Beach]

If my memory is correct (which it may not be), the Overland Track booking system was supposed to remain free of charge when initially introduced. They said that it was purely to limit the impact of walkers by limiting the numbers and not for fund raising.

I think the concept of locals being pushed out of their parks by tourists is due to a complicated set of factors. It is not being done by parks, or any one organisation in particular. However, it is the natural result of several factors. The government is trying to promote Tasmania as an eco-tourist destination and is therefore encouraging more tourists to visit. As a result, there are more people visiting sensitive national parks such as WOJ. In response, PWS have to do something to limit the impact. Limiting the numbers is one of the things they're considering doing. This then, limits the opportunities for anybody (including locals) to visit the parks.

So one arm of the government is trying to bring in tourists from elsewhere to visit our parks, while the other arm of government is trying to limit the number of people accessing the parks. This results in less opportunities for locals (and others) to access the parks. Without the government trying to bring in tourists from outside, the problem may not exist (this is debatable, of course) and therefore it is the locals who feel the brunt of being "pushed out" of our parks.

I'm not trying to suggest that any of this is right or wrong, but merely trying to clarify what I think is the issue for some people who feel that locals are being pushed out of their local parks.

A similar viewpoint can be applied to fees. Without the government bringing in all the extra tourists, the impact wouldn't be as much, and extra fees wouldn't be necessary.

Of course all this theory is based on the concept that numbers would not be increasing as much if government (or other tourist ventures) did not promote Tasmania as a wilderness destination for tourists. I've no idea if this is accurate or not.

[Hallu]

Honestly if you're from Europe, you've only heard of Tasmania by name. I could ask all my European friends and they'd think Tassie is exactly like Australia : hot, arid, with nice beaches. When you tell them it's actually more similar to New Zealand, they're surprised. So if the government is promoting it as a mountain wilderness destination it's only in mainland Australia, maybe in NZ as well. In Europe we see touristic promotion for emerging European countries (currently it's Croatia, Romania or Montenegro), sometimes some on the US, Canada, or Africa, sometimes some paradise islands somewhere, and when Australia is presented, it's mostly Sydney, Melbourne, the GBR, and Uluru. Maybe it's because Tasmanian climate isn't anything new for a European (it's fairly similar to Scotland) and yet if you want to see Aussie wildlife it's probably the best place you can go to. Maybe if it was promoted as a wildlife/foodie/beach destination it would work better. Because if you present it as wilderness, why not go to NZ instead ?

[doogs]

Tasmanian climate isn't anything new for a European (it's fairly similar to Scotland).

Lol, the weather can't have been that bad when you visited Tasmania Hallu! I don't have time to find climate figure but please let me be testament that the climate in Tasmania is much warmer and much drier than Scotland, I would compare it to Southern France/Northern Spain. So please don't try and put any prospective tourists off.
I do agree with you on the wildlife aspect of Tasmania, I moved to Australia from Scotland 13 years ago and lived in NSW for 3 years and thought the wildlife was amazing and then I moved to Tasmania and the regularity with which I saw native wildlife blew me away. This could definitely be a big drawcard for for the state to attract overseas tourists, which at the moment seems solely focused around the Tasmanian devil. The last walk on the central plateau I did from Lake MacKenzie I reckon I saw 200 wallabies, a few possums and a wombat that early morning/day (I also saw a wild dog!). So the WOJ could definitely be promoted for wildlife walks. JUST DON'T FEED THEM!!
As it is there are increasing numbers visiting the WOJ, I do blame this forum somewhat for this as each time someone is asking where to go next in Tasmania after doing the OLT the WOJ is probably the top response given!!! This has let to the need for better management strategies for the area need to be put in place as it is a fragile and unique environment. I personally feel this proposal is one way which can increase numbers of visitors, boost the local economy and all the while protect the area from the ever increasing visitor numbers. I can only see value in extending the number of quality tracks in the state as we are lacking in the leisure tourism market to other similarly positioned ares/countries.

[Son of a Beach]

I still reckon we should just ban tourists from entering the state at all. That would solve the problem.

[stepbystep]

I still reckon we should just ban tourists from entering the state at all. That would solve the problem.

"Nothing to see here"

Pretty sure that's been the governments policy to tourism for a long time anyway

[Hallu]

Tasmanian climate isn't anything new for a European (it's fairly similar to Scotland).

Lol, the weather can't have been that bad when you visited Tasmania Hallu! I don't have time to find climate figure but please let me be testament that the climate in Tasmania is much warmer and much drier than Scotland, I would compare it to Southern France/Northern Spain.

Depends if you're talking of Eastern Tassie or Western Tassie. I was obviously comparing Scotland to Western Tassie. And since I am from Southern France and visited Spain, I can tell you that even Eastern Tassie is much wetter and cooler than Souther France/Spain. If you compare Marseille and Launceston, you get about 35% more rain in Launceston, and average temperatures are 3 to 4° lower. You can find cities where it rains as much as in Tassie, but temperatures are always higher. Tassie temperature are actually closer to the ones in Paris or London.

[doogs]

Not that this is really contributing to the discussion at large but if you check Marseille has a very similar rainfall to the Freycinet National Park which has a similar year round temperature to Bordeaux. I you take the weather data from A Coruna in Northern Spain. It has a similar, if not marginally, lower temperature to Launceston. The temperature for Queenstown is marginally lower than that of A Coruna, and yes the rainfall is nearly double!!

[Hallu]

I am from Bordeaux, lived there for 27 years. It's a particular town in Southern France, because it has high rainfall, yet hot and dry summer (4° higher than Freycinet). Freycinet is similar overall because the climate is milder year round. But Bordeaux can have freezing temperatures in winter, and in summer a week of temperatures above 30° is fairly common. We had temperature over 40° there, which never happened in Freycinet. It's also a debate in France to classify it as "Southern France". A Coruña is also peculiar, it's battered by the Atlantic, and is much colder than the rest of Spain. There is not point arguing with specific cities, especially if you choose ones that doesn't represent the climate tendency of the region, but it is clear that in average Spain and Southern France are quite a lot hotter than Eastern Tasmania.

[Nuts]

Trying to run a business (and everyday personal life), i can still find time for a few minutes on here, even sticking my neck out on occasion...
People with the ability to interpret policy and give insight that would alleviate assumptions visit here.
I go back to my initial suggestion, i'd say more, it should be expected that they formally contribute.

Is a general permit system in fact part of the progression, rather than some vague addendum for future use?
Have associated fees been discussed?
Have concessions for local walkers been seriously considered as an option?
Is there a net increase in visitor numbers, two parks combined?
What is the percentage increase in locals visiting The Walls?
Back in the dark ages there was (at least) a track ranger assigned to the area... what happened?
Have such permit restrictions been discussed for other areas?

[doogs]

I am from Bordeaux, lived there for 27 years. It's a particular town in Southern France, because it has high rainfall, yet hot and dry summer (4° higher than Freycinet). Freycinet is similar overall because the climate is milder year round. But Bordeaux can have freezing temperatures in winter, and in summer a week of temperatures above 30° is fairly common. We had temperature over 40° there, which never happened in Freycinet. It's also a debate in France to classify it as "Southern France". A Coruña is also peculiar, it's battered by the Atlantic, and is much colder than the rest of Spain. There is not point arguing with specific cities, especially if you choose ones that doesn't represent the climate tendency of the region, but it is clear that in average Spain and Southern France are quite a lot hotter than Eastern Tasmania.

I haven't chosen specific cities, I chose ones which are close to the Atlantic for a fair comparison as the weather in Tasmania is mainly controlled by the ocean.
Anyway I reckon with the adiabatic lapse rate the climate of the Walls of Jerusalem would be similar to Paris, can we agree on that?

[Ent]

Well for better or worse I put in my submission. We have a basic issue of a belief, or fact, that there are a growing number of walkers and their feet are doing damage. Oh and some of these feet are ours. Closing off and restricting other areas is resulting in people heading to the next "pristine" area so the arguments will be never ending as a "new" area comes under pressure unless a state wide cohesive approach is sought.

We have seen self censorship of walks and attempted forced censorship but the likes of Chapman and the Abels plus peak bagging points prove that this does not work. The better the infrastructure the more likely the number of feet and a percentage of these feet will explorer further is my opinion.

It is hard to convey that thirty years ago the Walls were considered very remote suitable only for the best prepared. Increase infrastructure, plus advertising is turning the area into a theme park.

The same has happened to the South Coast Track, Western and Eastern Arthurs, Frenchmans Cap etc. The Walls proximity to the OLT is the major reason why numbers are increasing.

Solutions? Frankly hardening the tracks will only encourage more people. As the OLT has proved fees and restrictions grow so claims of scare mongering is rather scare mongering itself.

Regards.

[Hallu]

I am from Bordeaux, lived there for 27 years. It's a particular town in Southern France, because it has high rainfall, yet hot and dry summer (4° higher than Freycinet). Freycinet is similar overall because the climate is milder year round. But Bordeaux can have freezing temperatures in winter, and in summer a week of temperatures above 30° is fairly common. We had temperature over 40° there, which never happened in Freycinet. It's also a debate in France to classify it as "Southern France". A Coruña is also peculiar, it's battered by the Atlantic, and is much colder than the rest of Spain. There is not point arguing with specific cities, especially if you choose ones that doesn't represent the climate tendency of the region, but it is clear that in average Spain and Southern France are quite a lot hotter than Eastern Tasmania.

I haven't chosen specific cities, I chose ones which are close to the Atlantic for a fair comparison as the weather in Tasmania is mainly controlled by the ocean.

Well that simply isn't Southern France or the general climate of Spain. It's Western France and the North-West corner of Spain. So you could say that Tassie weather resembles Western France or that corner of Spain, but that's all.

Anyway I reckon with the adiabatic lapse rate the climate of the Walls of Jerusalem would be similar to Paris, can we agree on that?

Well, no. I can't find data for the Walls specifically, but in nearby Mole Creek, it rains twice as much in Paris, and in nearby Cradle it's three times as much. And the Walls are in altitude, while Paris isn't, summers are way hotter in Paris. It seems most people have a misconception on London or Paris climates, it doesn't rain that much (about 600 mm a year, the same as Hobart or Melbourne, and twice as less as Sydney) and summer are quite hot (hotter than Hobart).

[doogs]

I am from Bordeaux, lived there for 27 years. It's a particular town in Southern France

Well that simply isn't Southern France
You lived there make you mind up

Anyway I reckon with the adiabatic lapse rate the climate of the Walls of Jerusalem would be similar to Paris, can we agree on that?

Well, no. I can't find data for the Walls specifically, but in nearby Mole Creek, it rains twice as much in Paris, and in nearby Cradle it's three times as much. And the Walls are in altitude, while Paris isn't, summers are way hotter in Paris. It seems most people have a misconception on London or Paris climates, it doesn't rain that much (about 600 mm a year, the same as Hobart or Melbourne, and twice as less as Sydney) and summer are quite hot (hotter than Hobart).

To be honest there's no point comparing the climate of a country area with a city as the high albedo rate in the city artificial raises the temperature by a couple of degrees.

[Hallu]

Well you're the one who did the comparison lol, not me...

[stepbystep]

The Walls is much nicer than Paris no matter what the temperature

[Hallu]

lol you may have thought that'd provoke a debate but I actually agree.

[stepbystep]

lol you may have thought that'd provoke a debate but I actually agree.

There's no argument is there, unlike a permit/registering system for The Walls.

[walkinTas]

I think the concept of locals being pushed out of their parks by tourists is due to a complicated set of factors. ...Without the government trying to bring in tourists from outside, the problem may not exist (this is debatable, of course) and therefore it is the locals who feel the brunt of being "pushed out" of our parks.

I just don't see this Nik - but maybe it is just me. I feel I am able to access any of the parks in Tasmania any time I wish. I have never had a single issue accessing a park including the Cradle Mt Lake St. Claire NP. I have never walked the OLT top to bottom as a single walk, and probably never will, the concept has no real appeal to me, but the only bit of the track I haven't seen is Windy Hill to Narcissus. So the OLT booking system has never concerned me. I come and go for the area without being restricted - in fact I have never been approached or questioned by anyone about why I am there or where I am walking too. As a local I don't currently feel "push out" of that park or any other park in Tasmania. Obviously that's not how everyone feels though. Seems to be a number of folk who feel they are being denied access or "pushed out" of the parks.

Given that folk feel that way, I am a bit surprised at the apparent willingness to see the WoJ become another board-walk. If access is a concern, then I don't see how hardening the WoJ and creating a loop track with will "improve" access. But I am willing to listen. The management plan actually calls for closing down some of the side tracks and updating maps to discourage the use of some routes in and around the Walls. As I explained above, I think hardening the Walls is a logical first step towards controlled access to the area - if that is the aim or desire. And it would seem that long term the aim is to restrict access in the peak season for overnight campers.

From what I can see most folk support the proposed management plan. The two arguments that are running through the thread seem to be logically contradictory - 'we want the Walls hardened - but - we don't want access restricted'. Hopefully someone can explain it all and help me make sense of the dichotomy.

[Son of a Beach]

I think you're very lucky wT. I have done the OT many times, and always enjoy it. However, it is now impossible for me to do it during season - I just cannot afford that huge fee. Even when doing just part of the track without paying a fee, I find it overcrowded. Thankfully I know the area well enough to avoid most of the crowds most of the time.

I have frequently been approached by rangers and wardens on the OT when I don't have an OT pass while doing shorter sections of that track. Again, I think you've been lucky if you never have. Not a big deal, though, they're generally very good about it. However, some of the other walkers are downright obnoxious if you attempt to walk in the other direction at all.

As you say, we can access any park any time. But we cannot access any walk any time. And even when we do access the park, we do not get the remote walking we used to get. We now get crowds of people in some of them.

The apparent contradiction actually makes perfect sense when you think about it for two reasons. Firstly, because they're probably coming from two groups of people with different opinions. But secondly, even if coming from the same people...

Most people would prefer a wilderness experience without crowds of people and without track hardening. However, we do have crowds of people, and therefore most people recognise that track hardening is a necessary evil.

Again, people don't want access restricted, but they concede that it is a necessary evil.

I think that many of us are torn between the ideal that we'd like to have (no increased ease of access, no crowds, remote wilderness, no hardened tracks), and the necessity of the reality that we now have (many more people, less remote, hardened tracks). No surprise that these should appear to be contradictory.

I sure don't want my access to going for a walk in "my back yard" to be controlled and restricted, and I don't want the track to look like a highway. But I don't know how else the situation should be managed, apart from my tongue in cheek suggestion that we should just ban tourists from Tasmania altogether and then leave the park as it is - un-"improved".

[doogs]

Quite ironic really- the only place that I have been asked to see my parks pass is The Walls of Jerusalem!!

[walkinTas]

As you say, we can access any park any time. But we cannot access any walk any time.

There is only one walk you can't access at any time - the OT top to bottom. All other walks are open access. However, the WoJ management plan aims to add the Walls to this list in the "medium term". Have I overlooked something?

I have done the OT many times, and always enjoy it. However, it is now impossible for me to do it during season - I just cannot afford that huge fee. ....And even when we do access the park, we do not get the remote walking we used to get. We now get crowds of people in some of them.

I acknowledge that the booking system is an issue for locals who want to walk the OT from start to finish. OT demand is not just some by-product of local government policies. I think you'll find there is a world-wide upsurge in the number of people who are "going bush". I can't quote any hard evidence, but I read regularly about over-crowding on walks in Europe. Even Mt. Everest is crowded. Look at all the gear shops that have sprung up in the last decade or so. Surely Macpac wouldn't be planing to expand their specialist walking equipment manufacturing if there was no market.

I know there will always be people who blame this forum for the increasing numbers, but really, if this forum is responsible for the global trend, then the forums is worth millions and should have a much bigger advertising presence. And if the forum is responsible for increased tourism, then the state government should bottle it.

PWS are acting responsibly when they try to prevent erosion and disease, because preservation should come first in their considerations. Still, I am not convinced that hardening walks and improving facilities will ever reduce the number of walkers going to an area. I think, if the facilities are made too generous then it will more likely change the demographics - walkers looking for a true experience will look elsewhere and the throngs will flock to the faux-wilderness experience. Therefore, IMHO, hardening walks should be the strategy you adopt when all else fails.

So, with regard to the Walls, I ask has all-else been tried? The Management Plan seems to be setting out to deliberately create a different experience at the Walls with a hardened loop track and multiple hardened camping areas. An experience that is less likely to appeal to traditional walkers.

...Most people would prefer a wilderness experience without crowds of people and without track hardening. However, we do have crowds of people, and therefore most people recognise that track hardening is a necessary evil. ...Again, people don't want access restricted, but they concede that it is a necessary evil.

Since the idea here is to discuss the proposed management plan, I would ask (am asking) are we rushing too quickly to concede to the "necessary evil". Who is convinced it is "necessary" and why? Could we not try some of the other measures first (see previous posts) before we are sign-off on a plan that will significantly change the walking experience in this area? There won't be a better opportunity in the future to ask these questions or for everyone to have their say (and silence is normally interpreted as complacency or acceptance).

[Son of a Beach]

wT - I agree with everything in your last post. Spot on.

And for reference, clearly some people think it is a necessary evil. Ie, those people who agree with it (which appears to be some people here as well as some people in PWS).

I don't have a firm opinion one way or the other. I'm merely attempting to understand/clarify some of the other people's posts, so far, and to facilitate further discussion.

[walkinTas]

I was starting to think I was a lone voice crying out in for the wilderness. "Facilitate further discussion" is what my last three posts were all about.

[Hallu]

Yeah to get back to the point, I think the tracks to the Walls and Mt Jerusalem are fine as it is (the rocky ones to the Temple and the Throne are beautifully made I thought), but access to other areas of the park is limited and for the experienced, and could be opened up. The roads are also quite bad and not very well signed. Hardening the track would destroy part of the experience, the duckboard on the wet areas is enough, so I'm guessing they're talking about the steep ascent to the first hut ? It certainly could benefit from some wooden steps in places, but hardening would be pushing it.

[Nuts]

If you read through the new draft inclusions sound more geared towards guided (and other) large groups and expected increase..which probably explains the envisaged need for facility upgrades and track work to offer a loop walk.

If this is the main form of increased traffic then I too am at odds understanding the need for upgrades, moreso the need for a permit as I would have thought those groups are the easiest to control. There is traditionally one big player over at the walls tourism wise.. easy. As for plans for the future expansion, I can say that ours just had pause for thought (so yes the mention of permits does influence decisions.. maybe not what they had in mind..)

It seems from the ABC interview, others iv'e talked too, posts here.. that concerns similar to (some of) what ENT mentions are the sticking point. Namely that people are worried about the precedent set in spreading season/ fees/ areas under permit. It's that last line perhaps.. the concept of a general permit (ie for everyone?) These things (policy/regulation) have a habit of becoming the norm, part of what is accepted, a 'go too' in future planning.. perhaps even after the current managers move on. Far from 'scaremongering' I see these concerns as foresight (with the obvious benefit of hindsight).