The Abels Volume 1 Reprint going to happen

[tastrax]

I doubt The Abels has anything much to do with the Lake Rhona situation. The opening of the Richea Creek shortcut track by Parks and Wildlife is what has led to significantly higher visitation.

Careful, PWS didn't "open that track". It was created by walkers after access through the Forestry road network was made more accessible and it was seen as a quicker route to the Denisons. I think it was originally all Forestry land until you hit the river.

[farefam]

PWS seem to manage the Richea Creek track (I don't recall seeing Forestry workers upgrading it from an unofficial track but am prepared to be wrong as it was a long time time ago). If memory serves me rightly they (or another government agency) also removed the flying foxes from the Gordon River and Adamsfield crossings on the old Vale of Rasselas track at the same time (the argument was either safety related or financial/maintaince cost related if I remember rightly) which served to encourage usage of the Richea Creek track.

It's not a criticism of PWS (whom I think generally do a great job in spite of being seriously under resourced) but just acknowledging that the upgrading of the track and change to the access management of the area led directly to the increase in visitation (permanently locked gates located considerably further down the Forestry tracks may have deterred a lot of people from using an unauthorised track).

Last edited by farefam on Sat 22 Oct, 2016 3:21 pm, edited 3 times in total.

[Nuts]

Apologies to nnw and Gaye, I had no idea the first edition had been endorsed by P&W (how does one know? maybe i'd forgotten or never taken an interest in the first place) and thought they were railing against the idea of policy constraints rather than supporting the process (which maybe they knew had taken place). Still seems to come back to whatever policy interpretation will be acceptable or popular rather than any line in the sand.

[north-north-west]

I just hope the same level of concern has been applied to the reprint and that consultation has occurred with the land managers and the same track classification requirements have been applied.

Yep. In fact, there was at least one peak in the new edition that has less information about the route than the first edition had.


NB: I was involved in the proof-reading of the new edition, so I've seen a digital version of the whole finished book. In a way that makes me a less than uninterested party.

[tastrax]

Apologies to nnw and Gaye, I had no idea the first edition had been endorsed by P&W (how does one know? maybe i'd forgotten or never taken an interest in the first place) and thought they were railing against the idea of policy constraints rather than supporting the process (which maybe they knew had taken place). Still seems to come back to whatever policy interpretation will be acceptable or popular rather than any line in the sand.

I wouldn't say it was 'endorsed' by Parks but at the time we were very active in talking to authors to get them to tone down details on remote, untracked areas. Bill obliged with those tracks, as did other authors like John Chapman. Parks were still not happy about this type of peak bagging type book and because it still had information on many remote areas it was never stocked in Parks visitor centres. I suspect its always a hard decision for the authors as it only takes one to not comply and the rest will simply walk away if they think they will lose any market share.

As many have stated, the internet now makes these types of policies very hard to maintain but as a guiding principle PWS still does not support publicising off track walking and remote 'tracks and pads' on maps. Yes, people can go there, but they should only do it after they have gained the required experience to manage themselves out there. Its all part of the mighty Recreational Opportunity Spectrum!

[tastrax]

Yep. In fact, there was at least one peak in the new edition that has less information about the route than the first edition had.

NB: I was involved in the proof-reading of the new edition, so I've seen a digital version of the whole finished book. In a way that makes me a less than uninterested party.

Wow - that is great to hear!

[tastrax]

PWS seem to manage the Richea Creek track (I don't recall seeing Forestry workers upgrading it from an unofficial track but am prepared to be wrong as it was a long time time ago). If memory serves me rightly they (or another government agency) also removed the flying foxes from the Gordon River and Adamsfield crossings on the old Vale of Rasselas track at the same time (the argument was either safety related or financial/maintaince cost related if I remember rightly) which served to encourage usage of the Richea Creek track.

It's not a criticism of PWS (whom I think generally do a great job in spite of being seriously under resourced) but just acknowledging that the upgrading of the track and change to the access management of the area led directly to the increase in visitation (permanently locked gates located considerably further down the Forestry tracks may have deterred a lot of people from using an unauthorised track).

There was certainly a collision of events. The flying fox (which may have even been a hydro facility originally) on the other track fell in to disrepair and the access via Forestry occurred at similar times. The area also had 'very low usage' compared to other areas and the track classifications in the area were also lower so new infrastructure was probably outside of the track specifications. Parks have certainly done work on the Richea Creek track in later years as the management area boundaries changed.

I certainly wasn't having a shot at you, but in many ways the way the tracks in the Denisons have evolved over time is really a classic case of 'recreational creep'. I have no doubt if an all weather bridge was installed at Richea Creek there would be another 'wave of walkers' heading into that area demanding increased track maintenance and facilities.

[Nuts]

I wouldn't say it was 'endorsed' by Parks but at the time we were very active in talking to authors to get them to tone down details on remote, untracked areas. Bill obliged with those tracks, as did other authors like John Chapman. Parks were still not happy about this type of peak bagging type book and because it still had information on many remote areas it was never stocked in Parks visitor centres. I suspect its always a hard decision for the authors as it only takes one to not comply and the rest will simply walk away if they think they will lose any market share.

As many have stated, the internet now makes these types of policies very hard to maintain but as a guiding principle PWS still does not support publicising off track walking and remote 'tracks and pads' on maps. Yes, people can go there, but they should only do it after they have gained the required experience to manage themselves out there. Its all part of the mighty Recreational Opportunity Spectrum!

Ok, thanks. 'Endorsed' was a bit tongue in cheek. 'Influenced as best we could' may be a better term then. It is good to know the situation of these things.

I was a bit surprised, long ago, at the support for these volumes from peak baggers. I guess i'd pictured them as hard, independent types. Nature lovers with preserving and defending wilderness values and supporting P&W service efforts foremost in mind.

[Wherever I may roam]

Can anyone provide a status update on the new volume reprint?

[north-north-west]

Last I heard it was due out this month.

[Mountain Rocket]

I heard the same thing. Can't wait to get my hands on a copy, has been a long time coming!

[hutfinder]

I asked in at mountain creek last weekend, and they said due before the end of November.

[Strider]

I received a message from Bill on 12th October that said he expected it to be ready "within the next month". Can't be far away now!

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

[HikingPilot]

From what I understand there are a couple of bookshops in Hobart and Launnie taking orders.

[stepbystep]

I've heard there's a cracking photo on the back cover

[Snowzone]

I've heard there's a cracking photo on the back cover

Ooooo how exciting, I can't wait to see all the photo's as I'm sure there will be many spectacular vista's to drool over. Now working on trying to be patient....

[north-north-west]

I've heard there's a cracking photo on the back cover

[Mountain Rocket]

Word on the st is Map Centre now selling the revised Abels Volume 1!

[tigercat]

It is now on sale!

[gwynfa]

Not sure were to make this comment. However, looking through Vol 2 ( South West page 162) The Needles. I noticed on the latest maps this is now labelled as The Dial with the spot height of 1108m. Then from a closer look at the map I noticed an unnamed summit just south-west of The Dial with an elevation in excess of 1100m. This would suggest that the 1108 spot point is no longer the summit of this Abel?? Maybe I have missed something, or is this a more recent map?? Maybe those that climb the Dial go to the 1100plus pinnacle? Does anyone have the answer or have all the Abel visitors been going to the wrong spot?

[stepbystep]

Exhibit A, B and C.

A: The 25k topo showing The Dials true position and height. The Needles are the unnamed peak at 1108m.
B: On 'The List' topo layer, somehow they have misplaced the Dial. It should be on the opposite side of Stuart Saddle.
C: The Needles from the summit of The Dial. Obviously higher.

Exhibit D would be the gps readings but I'm a bit pressed for time to pull that out!

Attachments

Last edited by stepbystep on Tue 20 Dec, 2016 4:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Azza]

On the second map go south west of the 1108 point marked "The Dial" and you can see a 1110 contour ~ 175m behind.

[Azza]

Dunno but that 1110m contour would kind of make that the summit of the Needles?
If not then how does the 1108 point qualify? The drop between isn't 150m.
The drop to Stuarts saddle isn't 150m.
Not sure how you would classify the 1108 point as the summit and not the 1110 point?
But then maybe the contours aren't that accurate?

[gwynfa]

The Nomenclature Board register has located The Dial at the 1108 spot point. In the Abels Vol2 it explains this point (or does it refer to that section of the range) was an unofficial name ascribed by early bushwalkers. It seems the Board has adopted The Dial to avoid confusion with The Needles near Maydena. However, the highest point (unnamed!) still remains in excess of 1100m, so this could replace the 1108 location.

[north-north-west]

Which clarifies the Abel issue, but not the Peakbaggers list.

[gwynfa]

As always I made a typo on my Dec 21 comment (should read). The highest point still remains in excess of 1110m so this should replace the Abels location of 1108, marked as The Dial on recent maps and the Needles in the Abel list.

[Wherever I may roam]

Anyone know when we can expect Volume 2?

[Osik]

Vol 2 was published around 2011 and Is still very accurate. I don't think we'll see an update anytime soon.

[Overlandman]

Story from ABC

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-11/b ... ls/8342972

[north-north-west]

Trying to nominate a top three is impossible, although I agree that something from the WArthurs has to be in there. Personally I prefer Western Portal and Scorpio - the views from Scorpio on a fine day are unsurpassable.
For the rest . . . too hard. Ommitting a few forgettable bits like Penny West, Patrick and Tramontane and most of the rest could be on the 'favourites' list at times, for varying reasons.