Windy Ridge - Bert Nichols Hut

[Azza]

I just saw this article on ABC news website and almost choked...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008 ... 407913.htm

Having stayed at the new hut recently I'd say it was anything but eco-friendly / efficently.
Major wastage of internal space.
Impossible to heat efficently, they seem to be cutting down trees and stacking firewood under the hut so it
can be burnt in 2009/10. In the meantime the old coal heater has been re-instated to heat a 4 times the size
of the old one.
Feels very out of place compared to the rest of the overland track huts.

Comments in the log book suggest that it would be more at home in Queensland rather than Tassie. I'd tend to agree.

I believe the cost was 1.2 million...! I bet most of the money went to an expensive architectural firm.

I'm suprised that Parks and Wildlife could get things so wrong..

[Son of a Beach]

It's very misleading for a news service to call something environmentally friendly without providing any supporting justification for that. I wonder on what grounds they use that catch phrase? Perhaps because it blends into the environment visually if you stand on the other side of Mt Geryon?

If they are going to refer to a new hut on the Overland Track being environmentally friendly, they really need to explain how it is more environmentally friendly than other huts on the track.

[Nuts]

It does say environmentally 'efficient'...
however, did you notice the other mistakes? That's one for the 'quality of journalism' topic

[walkinTas]

It's very misleading for a news service to call something environmentally friendly without providing any supporting justification for that. I wonder on what grounds they use that catch phrase?

I'd suggest it is because they are the words that were used in the press release (just guessing). You didn't expect the journalists to actually go there and do there own investigations did you?

[tasadam]

Scoff... Choke... Named after former hunter??
Name a hut after someone who used to kill the wildlife??

I know, it used to go on - just look at the history of Dixons Kingdom, Trappers, DuCane huts along with MANY of the other huts out there, I'm just taking the *&^%$#!.
Funny concept to the tourists though - fly to Tassie to see the wildlife and walk the overland trap, arrive at the Windy Ridge Bert Nicholas hut and ask Who was he? Oh, some old hunter...

I reckon the architects got it right, but the builders that moved in were affected by the haunted stump when they chopped the tree down, and we now see the end result - too expensive to fix so they say yeah, that'll do.

[Son of a Beach]

Oi! Don't knock hunters!

Actually, you'll find that some (not all) hunters like wildlife more than some non-hunters, and they certainly get to see a lot more of it than almost anybody (and I don't just mean through their sites). Being out at night with a spotlight (or without one, where a spotlight is illegal), you get to see a lot more wildlife than I ever see bushwalking.

[Nuts]

OK, Now I am a bit confused. Everyones calling it the Bert NicholAs hut But: ?

http://www.overlandtrack.com.au/huts/windyridge.html

Also- Was there ever a "Windy Ridge"? I thought that was just the name given the old hut?

[tasadam]

OK, Now I am a bit confused. Everyones calling it the Bert NicholAs hut But: ?

http://www.overlandtrack.com.au/huts/windyridge.html

Also- Was there ever a "Windy Ridge"? I thought that was just the name given the old hut?

See this post re the hut name.

I thought it was just a name for the hut too, but perhaps there is a ridge known as Windy Ridge there, will have to check, when I have nothing better to do, if nobody else knows.

Edit. Der, just noticed you were the next poster in that other thread. You have seen it...

[Nuts]

Year, Just confused...nothin unusual!
Guessing it's Nichols (as in chickens)? Not Nicholas (as in xmas)?

[Pedro]

Sadly, I think that PWS has completely lost the plot with their new huts. This is supposed to be a World Heritage Wilderness area. Most of the old huts were / are inconspicuous and blended into their local environment. Walking in the area is supposed to be a wilderness experience - if you need heated accommodation, stay at one of the flash pubs outside the World Heritage area. The new huts are both conspicuous and intrusive. Feeding the coal stoves requires helicopter flights, which are conspicuous, intrusive, expensive and, to me, quite offensive, in this area.

Earlier this year, I was on the Acropolis with friends. The Windy Ridge construction site was clearly visible and we could hear music being played by the construction workers - great wilderness experience:

Windy Ridge from the Acropolis

Last Saturday, I was on Barn Bluff. The dreadful "New" New Pelion Hut was visible from there. Admittedly the photo required a bit of focal length, but this is hardly a structure that blends inconspicuously into its environment:

New Pelion Hut from Barn Bluff

Building of this hut required the destruction of a number of large trees, despite there being plenty of vacant space back where the original hut was placed (out of sight!). I wouldn't be at all sad if this one suffered the same fate as the original New Pelion Hut.

One can't help wondering if there isn't some long term agenda to sell off these structures so that people have to pay even more to stay at each site. Yeah, I know I'm paranoid.

[Singe]

I couldn't agree more.

The accusation of selfishness is often leveled at anyone who dares question any development within National Parks and the WHA; they want to keep the wilderness to themselves and lock out anyone who won't put up with a lack of facilities. Of course the fact that anyone can buy a parks pass and access any national park is conveniently ignored... In fact it's inappropriate development in these areas that is selfish. Turning remote wilderness areas into five-star theme parks damages the integrity of these places for no reason other than the fact that politicians and bean-counters are unable to see the point of any land use area that doesn't directly contribute to State coffers.

Development is sometimes necessary to protect NPs from overuse - the Overland is a good example of this, and without the duckboards, toilets and tent platforms it would be in a very poor state indeed. However, the State Government appears keen to cash in on National Parks by upgrading facilities beyond what is required for their protection, and where current demand is not at a damaging level anyway - eg Lennon's Tasman Peninsula 'experience' - and mandating the use of these facilities at a cost. Colour me cynical, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear an announcement from the PWS once the remainder of the old huts are upgraded that they are very happy with how the Overland has recovered, and can now deal with double the number of visitors. Ka-ching ka-ching.

[corvus]

Pedro this is controversy corner but your comments are just a bit out there ,the original was destroyed by fire !! as was Windy Ridge so what are you calling for FIRE IN THE RESERVE get a reality check, if you dont like what has happened on the OLT dont go there as we have hundreds of Wilderness walks available to you elsewhere in Tassie as you know.
Windy Ridge Hut was always visible from the Acropolis as far as I can remember and sheesh I could hardly make out Oakleigh View Hut in your "focal length" photo from Barn Bluff.

[Singe]

Pedro this is controversy corner but your comments are just a bit out there ,the original was destroyed by fire !! as was Windy Ridge so what are you calling for FIRE IN THE RESERVE get a reality check, if you dont like what has happened on the OLT dont go there as we have hundreds of Wilderness walks available to you elsewhere in Tassie as you know
Windy Ridge Hut was always visible from the Acropolis as far as I can remember and sheesh I could hardly make out Oakleigh View Hut in your "focal length" photo from Barn Bluff.

I took Pedro's comments re the old NP hut as being tongue-in-cheek... but suffice to say I agree that the park would be better off without it. I'm guessing your comment "if you dont like what has happened on the OLT dont go there as we have hundreds of Wilderness walks available to you elsewhere in Tassie as you know" might be a bit tongue-in-cheek as well? Sure we can 'go elsewhere' - and to an extent I think that the strategy of sacrificing some areas to intensive use is a good one. But what happens when government and private enterprise see how profitable the 'wilderness experience' can be and turn their eyes to other, unexploited wilderness areas? We already have luxury lodge inside Frecinet NP, and would have similar development inside a NP and a stone's throw outside the WHA at Cockle Creek if the developer hadn't pulled out. My concern is that we have a State government that regards undeveloped wilderness as a waste of space, and has now had a taste of the potential earning capacity of private and government endeavors within them. They have also shown themselves to be prone to back-room deals with developers (Parks were told of the Cockle Creek development only hours before the public announcement - and were told it was going ahead and to cooperate with the developer. This is in an area where they are the management authority, and they weren't consulted in any capacity!). Once these areas have been developed, there's no going back - my question is whether in fifty years time will we still have the same wealth of wilderness walks, or whether the OT provides the model that will be pursued for the rest of Tas - a 'wilderness' theme park for rich tourists.

[tasadam]

Interesting points. Think of New Zealand and the Squillions you need to spend there to do the Milford track.
And it's booked up WELL in advance.
If the state gov't gets the dollar signs in their eyes, I think we can say good bye to things as we know them.
I think the walk does need to remain difficult to some extent (not that the OLT is difficult in the sense of comparing it to a true wilderness walk).
The money they get from people doing this walk - I wonder where it goes. Like, did you know that less than 10 percent of revenue raised from traffic infringements goes into road maintenance and safety? The rest goes into state coffers consolidated revenue.

I agree there are areas of sacrificial parklands in Tasmania - OLT and Wineglass are 2 I can think of - when I went to Wineglass area for a few days it was disheartening to see how much litter (paper flowers and the like) was on the track. And when we finished out walk, there was a parks employee in uniform, with a magnificent display of stuffed animals to show the tourists.

I have to trust Parks department to make it so that they allow this (sacrificial areas) so the other areas remain as close to status quo as possible.
Frenchmans, for example - a real bog hole and a massive amount of mud and track degradation, as Dick Smith went off at Parks about and came forward with his own money (do a search).
But if they fix the track to the level of the OLT, they have another walk that will be accessable to the majority rather than those experienced and equipped enough to be less at risk in this truly remote area (even though there are huts with heating). Some track work - yess, necessary to keep it passable with minimal further degradation. But a full on boardwalk? Not there, not on the Arthurs, not on the South Coast track.

Huts? Well, they can't put em underground. And if they are hidden in the trees, it's not so bad - Vera for example you only find when you nearly trip over it as opposed to early 90's when the vegetation was sparse and it stuck out a lot more.
I haven't seen the new Windy Bert hut but can imagine hearing music from the top of Acropolis would have been very disappointing.

So how did they get it so wrong?
By the way, from Cathedral you can clearly see Ducane hut, which has been there a lot longer than Windy Bert among others. You can see Kia Ora as well, private and public.

This conversation is getting off the topic of the Bert Nicholas Windy Ridge hut a bit, but I see it developing to discuss the broader problem, which is a good thing.

[Pedro]

Good to see some robust discussion going on here. Note that you can add Capes Hauy, Pillar and Raoul to Tasadams list above if government plans go ahead.

And yes, I do know what happened to the original New Pelion Hut. I slept in the mangy old canvas tent that temporarily replaced it until the second New Pelion was built (on the same site). Judging by the burn marks I've seen on the decking from cooking accidents, the latest iteration will likely suffer the same fate, as many huts do. The point of my photo is that it is visible from as far away as Barn Bluff, from Oakleigh, it sticks out like canine testicles, and that there was no need for this. Why create an eyesore, when there was no real need to do so? Unless there is an ulterior motive for ensuring a splendid view from the deck, but then, as I admitted earlier, I'm quite paranoid.

[corvus]

Oakleigh View was selected on this site( with public input) to provide a mountain vista for walkers who will only do this once in their life time unlike us who can do it any time .Forget the OLT as wilderness we have Copper Mines, Coal Mines up there , lets just think of it as a Gold Mine that is so fantastic that we have Hundreds of tourists giving us money to see our "Wilderness" and from my experience mixing with them it is good for TASSIE and our economy so please dont give potential tourists a bad impression.

[Singe]

Oakleigh View was selected on this site( with public input) to provide a mountain vista for walkers who will only do this once in their life time unlike us who can do it any time .Forget the OLT as wilderness we have Copper Mines, Coal Mines up there , lets just think of it as a Gold Mine that is so fantastic that we have Hundreds of tourists giving us money to see our "Wilderness" and from my experience mixing with them it is good for TASSIE and our economy so please dont give potential tourists a bad impression.

Tourism is essential for Tassie's future and the OT is a big part of that. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss the pros and cons of the way the track is managed just in case potential tourists stumble on the discussion and are put off! Personally I feel that it's a good thing if visitors gain an understanding of the impacts of tourism on fragile areas and on locals. As I stated earlier, I support the strategy of creating and promotion 'sacrificial zones' - but that doesn't make obtrusive huts of the scale currently being built necessary. It's nice to have spectacular views from the huts but IMO a better option is to set the huts in less prominent locations and build less obtrusive viewing platforms in the popular spots. I don't see this as being opposed to the interests of tourists, who have generally paid a lot of money to come to Tasmania and walk the OT primarily because of its remoteness. Somehow I doubt that they want to see obtrusive structures from every mountain summit any more than I do...

Hopefully I'm not coming across as too negative; meeting people from around the world only enriches the walk for me and I think the PWS is doing a good job of managing what is a very popular area (my opinion of the new huts notwithstanding) - it's certainly in better condition than a few years ago. But I'm wary of a Government that appears keen to extend the same management strategy to other areas for no other reason than to generate income.

[NickD]

I think one of the major points of the hut thats being missed is the inefficiency of the hut.
I heard the statement 'environmentally efficient' - how can that be?

The old hut from memory slept 20 in beds, this one from a count can sleep 28. Only 8 extra beds Yet the hut is over double the size, and three to four times the eyesore. When I cruised through in mid October (staying in tents of course) - I popped my head into the cooking area to see four people in a space the size of a gymnasium. There was numerous complaints in the log book already about it being thermally inefficient, although I must admit the people staying there had it quite cosy, but more so the hut has a completely insociable feel to it.
Now I guess one could say you don't go hiking for the sociability of it, and that the solitary feeling is nice, but if you do favor the free space and the quiet there is some fantastic platforms avaliable to set your tent onto.

The old hut was definately a favourite of the locals judging by some harsh comments in the book, so I ask - is 1.2 million dollars really worth 8 extra beds and a drying room?

One final note is the Park Rangers hut - its about the size of my house!! What's wrong with the igloos!?!?!?!

[tasadam]

Now I guess one could say you don't go hiking for the sociability of it,

Huts are a sociable place - they have to be. Put people together and they will talk. If you want to use a hut and don't like socialising, go to New Pelion in the off season where you can have fifteen rooms to yourself , or stay in a tent - sounding more and more like I like my tent...

What's wrong with the igloos!?!?!?!

Nothing! I loved the igloo at the old hut, looked so fantastic. But, then, I didn't have to sleep in it... Perhaps that would change my opinion.

[corvus]

I think one of the major points of the hut thats being missed is the inefficiency of the hut.


The old hut was definately a favourite of the locals judging by some harsh comments in the book, so I ask - is 1.2 million dollars really worth 8 extra beds and a drying room?

One final note is the Park Rangers hut - its about the size of my house!! What's wrong with the igloos!?!?!?!

The old hut was a bit of a hole IMHO cramped eating area even more cramped sleeping area virtually no where to hang wet gear other than under the hut .
Whats with the criticism of the Rangers quarters do you sleep in a Plastic room at the end of your working day.

[NickD]

Whats with the criticism of the Rangers quarters do you sleep in a Plastic room at the end of your working day.

Actually at the end of my working day I sleep under a STS overhang tarp, so yes I kinda do.
I thought dear old windy ridge hut was quite nice, rustic charm one could say.
The old windy ridge hut was obviously a hut that was put under excessive use these days for what it was, and so yes perhaps an upgrade was the right move, but with the money that was used and the space & serenity that has been used up - i thought they could have produced something more than 8 extra beds and massive drying areas.
Thats only my opinion - although last time i checked the log book, the opinion of 90% of punters too.

[corvus]

Post Deleted by corvus

[NickD]

Nope.
I have no real issue with huts, they are a great way of managing sustainability of our outdoor areas in heavy use, my complaint if you wish to call it, is the inefficiency of the hut & the rangers hut, not just from the area that it has taken up but from the visual aspect as well from many of our great remote peaks.
Let's not make it personal Corvus, however it was you who asked whether i sleep in plastic rooms at the end of my working day when in fact thats exactly what we do.

[tasadam]

A reminder (see the pink bit at the top of the page).

Controversial topics have the potential to get nasty. Do not let that happen here. Keep all content polite and friendly. Abuse or attacks of any kind against any persons (forum members, politicians, or otherwise) are not permitted. Eg, discuss the policies, not the politicians or the other posters.

[Luuk Veltkamp]

The hut was commissioned in recognition of the former hunter and Overland Track guide Bert Nicholas, I don't think it does him justices and ask that it now be referred to as the Burt Newton Hut. (-:

On another note, I heard a rumour that the reason the hut was rebuilt and the rangers hut was moved there was because a 3 day loop track may be built from Narcissus - Pine Valley - Burt Newton - Narcissus. Has anyone elce heard this or is it just that, a rumour?

Luuk Veltkamp

[Son of a Beach]

There used to be an alternative route into Pine Valley from the Overland Track a little South of Windy Ridge Hut, but it was officially closed years ago. The reason I heard was that they wanted to encourage fewer visitors into Pine Valley.

[rucksack]

This may be getting slightly of the topic, but you are right Nik, there was another track there. Actually, there were quite a few tracks into Pine Valley even up to the early 1980s. The second edition of the Du Cane 1:25,000 map (#4235, 1989) shows the two tracks linking the OT to Pine Valley. The more northerly (now closed) headed off at GR248544. The two tracks merged on the western bank of Cephissus Creek at GR233(5)525, where the bridge now crosses the creek. There were a number of tracks crossing near this point. Where the current Pine Valley Track comes to the bridge from the western side of the creek, there was another track which did not cross the then wire bridge, but stayed on the western side of Cephissus Creek and waded northwards through the muddy button grass all the way to Pine Valley. It was always very wet underfoot and the lesser preferred access route, except during dry spells. There was another track linking Pine Valley directly south to Narcissus hut too, via Nichols Junction. This followed the western side of Cephissus Creek and also waded through lengthy sections of swampy button grass, as it followed the creek. You can still find remnants of this track, but it is fairly overgrown. At the time that the Pine Valley-Nichols Junction and the more northerly of the OT-Pine Valley tracks were closed, I think the principal reason given was to concentrate track maintenance on just a single track (now the Pine Valley Track). However, all these tracks were being regularly used when the tiny original Pine Valley hut was still in place. It’s little four pane window was much photographed at the time. It’s floor was half split planks and half dirt and it had the usual (for the time) stone fireplace, a little different to the new pavilion on Windy Ridge, it would seem.

[Nuts]

Well.... Just returned from an 'adventurous' Overland trip. Spent last night camped near the new hut and awoke to a blanket of fresh powder. The sight up over the ranges was spectacular...

Anyhow, I have to say that the lower 'grand hall' in the new hut was suprisingly warm and functional (Still 4c warmer than outside after the stove had been out at night). With more work (and some of the many suggestions made) the hut could grow on you.

However, what is blindingly obvious was the need to spend some of the money on the track itself and start with a less ambitious project for the hut (that perhaps could be added to at a later stage).

The track in places is an absolute nightmare, more a hazard than a help. Loose wire, logs balanced 'see-saw' style in bogs, and endless k's spent goose stepping over roots between ever eroding bog holes. It's been as bad before and much worse though what happens to the funding now?

[E.G.]

The hut and the name. Bert Nichols deserves to be remembered. Although Bert lived in Lorinna, he was a snarer in the area between Du Cane and Lake St Clair for many years. And this was his area as each snarer had their own patch, at least until the reserve was proclaimed. Then he adapted and guided walkers along his rough track from Pelion Plains to Lake St Clair, starting before 1929. In January 1931 Bert lead the first recorded trip from Cradle Mountain to Lake St Clair, even though the Overland Track had not been formed at this time. In April 1931, Bert marked the southern part of the route. Being an experienced bushmen, his markings were not as clear as the less experienced bushwalkers desired. Bert applied to be the first ranger at Lake St Clair but was not chosen, the reasons aren't clear. Bert's involvement in track cutting continued until at least 1935 but the energetic Connell family at Cradle Mountain, rather than the semi-literate Bert, built many of the huts and guided walkers with pack horses along the track for many years. Bert served in WWII. He died in Devonport in March 1950.

Commemorating Bert is a great thing and any hut should not be to the standard that he preferred as they were pretty rough and ready affairs. While the new Windy Ridge Hut, like the huge hut at Pelion Plains and the expanding huts at Waterfall Valley are fit for purpose they are incredibly insensitive to the natural and cultural values of the area. Rather than blending into the country, as all the other huts have, especially the private huts, they are eyesores. New New Pelion can be seen clearly from Pine Forest Moor, where as a few 10s of metres further south and it would have been softened by the forest. There is no continuation, or even nod, at the tradition of hut building in the reserve, for example the use of rough hewn timber, local timbers, smaller huts, etc. New New Pelion also contradicts Parks own conservation plan for Old Pelion Hut as it detracts from the precinct by its large, both broad and tall modern northern face. Old Pelion, while not a hut to serve many, was relatively sensitively restored in the days when cultural heritage was part of the thinking.

In summary, remembering Bert 10/10, efficiency 10/10, natural and cultural sensitivity 0/10.

Cheers,

E.G.

[muka]

It looks to me like this Tassie hut business matches the BER.
How can a hut cost 1.2 million dollars?

And now the Three Capes is predicted to cost $33 million -
I wonder how much those huts that Helen Clark replaced in NZ cost?

Anyone seen this news article:

http://www.themercury.com.au/article/20 ... ravel.html


Cold comfort in Tassie bush

PHILIPPA DUNCAN

May 16, 2010 09:34am

A BUSHWALKERS' hut on Tasmania's Overland Track has been constantly leaking since it was built for $1.2 million in 2008.

The Bert Nichols Hut at Windy Ridge near Lake St Clair is attracting criticism from bushwalkers, who have described it as "freezing" and "ice cold" in the hut's log book.

When it rains, weary trekkers who pay up to $160 to walk the track have to dodge buckets put out to collect drips from the hut's continuously leaking skylights.

On a visit to the hut this month, the Sunday Tasmanian overheard bushwalkers regularly criticising it.

Parks and Wildlife spokesman Stuart Lennox said the skylights were a problem.

"Staff are working with the builder [Maci Construction] to rectify this problem as soon as possible," he said.

Tasmanian National Parks Association vice-president Anne McConnell said the hut had cost an "outrageous amount of money" and did not meet bushwalkers' needs.

The association fears similar huts will be built along what the State Government is billing as Tasmania's next great bushwalk, the Three Capes track on the Tasman Peninsula.

The Sunday Tasmanian last week revealed the budget for the proposed 68km dirt walking track had more than doubled to $33 million.

Mr Lennox said the Parks and Wildlife service would learn from the Windy Ridge hut, which had been designed for summer, when most people walked the Overland Track.

He said the Tasman Peninsula was a different environment, and did not have the constraints of Windy Ridge, which had been a difficult site.

The original Windy Ridge hut was demolished to make way for the new hut that is four times the size of the original but has only eight more beds.

Mr Lennox said the 24-bed hut had been built to accommodate up to 34 walkers when the weather turned bad.

In comments in the Bert Nichols log book, bushwalkers vent their disapproval.

"The coldest hut on the planet," said one.

Another said: "Can't help thinking the hut was designed for an African safari rather than cold alpine walkers."

Another vows to never again stay at the hut.

The designer of the hut, BPSM Architects at Battery Point, declined to comment.