Tourism and Bushwalking.

[Mechanic-AL]

Whenever the sad state of Tasmania's economy is bought to light anybody with any political aspirations or vested interests start floating all manner of weird and wonderful schemes that will supposedly help transform the state into the land of milk and honey. More often than not these schemes have direct links to the tourism sector. Love it or hate it the logic behind the 3 Capes development can't be denied when you look at the popularity of walks like the OLT and SCT with overseas and interstate visitors. Most people would be aware by now of the state governments campaign to entice foreign investors ( or anybody with a bit of spare coin ) to spend their money on developments in the Tassie wilderness(??).
What I'm wondering is if tourism is really the goose that is going to lay the state a golden egg ( which I doubt ) then how much of a role should bushwalking be expected to play?
It would be hard to deny Tasmania's status as the nations number one bushwalking destination and as such the likelihood that it will be subject to future development proposals. But when the foreign investment dollars ( or yen) begin to flow are there any truly independent voices in the local bushwalking community with more than just a token say who get to have any input into just what is being allowed and what is over the top??.

[clarence]

In my opinion the sad state of the economy is due in part to many reasonable schemes, which are proposed by reasonable people, being beaten down by certain hard line environmentalists/environmental groups.

If Tasmania is to succeed economically, it needs to look at where it has some unique or "competitive" advantage. Nature based tourism is one of these advantages. I suspect the benefit flowing from bushwalking would only be limited if it caters to self reliant individuals, and not high end tourists paying for premium experience and servive (eg Cradle Huts). Like it or not, projects like the Three Capes Track will be part of the solution in the tourism mix for the state.

I'd rather see a Three Capes Track than a Pulp Mill type project any day.

Clarence

[icefest]

How about putting new tracks/lodges in the previously logged and private land? That way we won't be buggering up the NP for future citizens. :/

[Scottyk]

How about putting new tracks/lodges in the previously logged and private land? That way we won't be buggering up the NP for future citizens. :/

You see the problem with those previously logged areas is that in the last 40 years they have kind of been made very ugly, clear felling does that.
So now the tourism developer looks at the clear felled mess and then looks over the fence at the nice looking national park and world heritage areas and says "that area over there is nice", and so here we are. Liberal government comes in and everything is for sale.
By the way I think the three capes walk is a good thing

[doogs]

I think bushwalkers only make up a small fraction of the tourists to Tasmania, although the majority come to experience our wilderness areas. But those walkers that do come are of course very important for the Tasmanian economy. Increasing the wilderness experience for tourists would be a great way to maintain the tourist trade.. dare I say it but draining and restoring Lake Pedder would attract world wide attention and if done correctly a seasonal lodge (removed each winter) in that area would be quite amazing.
Sustainable industries need to be improved for the economy also; agriculture, vitriculture and energy. Unfortunately with the scrapping of the carbon tax the Hydro is scaling back its plans to invest in wind farms and other energy infrastructure...this would have been fantastic for the state, as it's so *&%$#! windy here in Autumn and Spring they could have generated large amounts of energy and sold it to the North Island.
All this would be great but unfortunately politics will always win and Tasmania will be a basket case economy. That is until there is a bureaucratic paradigm shift...which is unlikely with the present conservative mindset in power.

[icefest]

I agree with you Doogs, though I suspect that the carbon tax (or a variation thereof) will be back within the next 5 years.

What do you think about putting the resorts in the SW Conservation Area (near the more damaged areas) as opposed to inside the NP?


Lastly, congrats on the profile pic change (though I'm definitely in the opposite team).

♫♫♫ Reindeers are better than people, ♫♫♫
♫♫♫ Doogs, don't you think that's true? ♫♫♫

[DaveNoble]

There is of course that quote (Not sure of its source, but it came from the Franklin Campaign days) -

"Bushwalkers come down here with one set of clothes and $5 in their pocket and change neither"

Dave

[RichB]

Maybe look to the future a bit hey..When the wild places in the rest of Australia and the world have been obliterated which is not far away...they will all pay a fortune
to come to Tasmania to see its beautiful forests and wildlife if there are any left..Honest it will happen...So dont just think about your greed driven today, think about tomorrow hey..
There may even be a job for your kids in Tasmania who knows..

[Mechanic-AL]

My reasons for getting started on this topic weren't to re-open any old pulp mill/logging debates. That's been done to death. It's because I'm sitting in the far south of Western Australia looking at full page glossy advertisements inviting developments in Tasmanian wilderness regions and if I'm to believe what I read then these ads are popping up in a few Asian countries as well. Just for the record I'm definitely not anti-development. I just think there is a fine line between what is acceptable and what is not. I think that new tourist developments in the Tassie bush are inevitable.
As people with a lot to be won or lost I would regard the bushwalking community of Tasmania as major stakeholders in any decision making regarding future proposals. There seems to be a lot of very well informed people on this forum who are passionate about what bushwalking in Tasmania has to offer.
I'm wondering if anybody with bushwalking in their blood will be included in the planning stages of new proposals or will that be the sole domain of politicians and academics?

I would just like to know that some people who have a bit more than a passing interest in these areas might get to have some input into just what is acceptable out there.

AL

[Hallu]

Tourism is always a long term plan, and Tasmania is no exception. I think Tasmania is well catered in term of walking tracks and parks. While maintaining the tracks, there is no real big need for new ones, just keeping the current ones in good shape. What Tasmania needs is two types of tourism that are currently booming : food tourism, and cyclotourism. A recent study in France showed that people cycling a country actually help the local economy more than people driving a car. It's mostly because they spend more time there, and need more stuff, as they can carry less than a motorised tourist. Foodies are also big now. And Tasmania has the perfect profile for it, without even having to develop its farms or anything. It just needs to promote better : Tassie cheeses need to be recognized, as well as Tassie fruits, wine, meat, and sea food. It doesn't need big resorts or hotels, big highways or a bridge from the mainland : flights are numerous and cheap, hotels and bnb's are great and rarely crowded. The point is, if Lord of the Rings had been shot in Tassie, the state would be rich by now... But at the time it seems that the Tassie gov. is doing what it's been doing for decades : juggling between industrialism and conservation, without being able to choose or completely please either side... They need to realize that on the long run, conservation is a safer bet for everyone. You don't need to build big in order to attract wealthy Asian tourists... They need to see Tasmania as Australia's wild backyard, if they want modern cities, they have Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, and Perth. Tasmania's n°1 gift is its wildness, unique flora and fauna. Start gnawing at it, and Tassie won't stand out from other nature destinations such as the European Alps, or the American West. I would be deeply sad to see the equivalent of Queenstown, NZ suddenly popping up somewhere in Tassie... Tasmania is to Australia what Alaska is to the US : the last place where we can do things right.

[stepbystep]

I've thought about this a lot but I'm still very much conflicted. The only way I see of making bushwalking a 'going concern' as a business is to use the Cradle Huts model with some other operators on the mid-level(supported camping/guiding). However the infrastructure doesn't exist other than the OLT, Bay of Fires and Tarkine Trails walks.

So...to play devils advocate and think long term...and I have heard whispers of this...

The big 5 or 6 Tassie walks could be developed, all with nightly 'nodes' all with track construction that doesn't freak out international visitors and all with value adding businesses at either end.
Let's say, Overland Track, 3 Capes Walk, Walls of Jerusalem, South Coast Track, Frenchmans Cap, Bay of Fires, Tarkine Trail, Freycinet Peninsular as a few to start thinking about. All with a fee. This would have to be a 20 year plan.

A similar model could be built around mountain biking, not in the WHA but utilising existing trails, forestry areas and areas such as the APCA. Creating more events like Wildside and Silver Dragon.

The key(in my mind) is to engage user groups and get them to come back time and again to spend their dollars. You can then start thinking about all those other user groups, the 4WD community, Fly Fishermen, Bird-o's etc etc give them a reason to come here for specifically designed experiences that are world class. I don't see why these need to impact heavily on the WHA. Selective infrastructure on the periphery and minimal impact inside would be the only way all the while keeping everyone away from the 95% of the WHA...

Anyhow, some thoughts...

But back to bushwalking specifically I'd like to see some more short trails that are wheelchair accessible here too and more short walks that currently exist upgraded to improve the experience of the driving tourist. Most of them have no idea they are there and if they try them out are traumatised by the condition of the tracks(Mt Farrell springs to mind)...

It's a tough topic in regards to the bigger walks though, and I'm conflicted

[slparker]

This doesn't need to be a zero-sum argument and I seriously think that this whole debate is subject to the black and white fallacy.

if you think that any part of tasmania (except for deepest mountain-iest south-west) is 'pristine wilderness' you're mistaken. Most of tasmania was subject to human occupation and human induced environmental change for millenia. The north west, including OLT and WOJ etc has had incursions from anglo trappers, fishermen, walkers for generations. Even the areas of the south west that I have visited (limited) shows signs of industry (tin-mining at melalueca, fishing detritus all over the beaches and headlands) or over-walking by bushwalkers (ever wondered where those mud pits that are so much part of the 'experience' sprang from? they weren't there in 1830).

I'm not suggesting building roads to frenchmans cap and a chairlift to the top but what I am suggesting is that there is certainly a place for increasing access, improving tracks and commercialising walks. This doesn't mean 'adventure lodges' at cox's bight, but it might mean hardening the track, interpretive signs and lodges at melalueca; for example.

If you really, truly, honestly believed that wilderness was wilderness you'd never breach the purity by entering. I'm personally embarrassed to have walked the south coast track last summer - because i contributed to the 'loving to death' of a once pristine area. maybe it's time to either close off sections of tasmania and increase the traffic to others, in a way that is not only aesthetically sensitive but maximises the hidden wealth of Tasmania's endemic flora and fauna.

[Walk_fat boy_walk]

(ever wondered where those mud pits that are so much part of the 'experience' sprang from? they weren't there in 1830).

Exactly. It's often implied that keeping tracks boggy, and thereby deterring the hordes, is keeping the area 'pristine'... but in fact it hasn't been pristine for some time. I'm not necessarily pro-development but there is definitely something to be said about the NZ Great Walk model. The 'hordes' are capped in numbers and corralled onto well-managed tracks and infrastructure so the damage is contained to an extent, and the flow-on into other business sectors are significant... The 'tramping' industry has flow-on effects for the transport, accommodation and even retail sectors.

The big 5 or 6 Tassie walks could be developed, all with nightly 'nodes' all with track construction that doesn't freak out international visitors and all with value adding businesses at either end. Let's say, Overland Track, 3 Capes Walk, Walls of Jerusalem, South Coast Track, Frenchmans Cap, Bay of Fires, Tarkine Trail, Freycinet Peninsular as a few to start thinking about. All with a fee. This would have to be a 20 year plan.

These 'nodes' would be comparable to the 'great walk' style huts, whereby there are separate establishments for both independent and guided walkers. Of course the impact of these types of establishments needs to be managed, including siting in a way that minimizes environmental and visual impact. If the environmental impacts can be effectively contained , the biggest losers really become the local walking community, as their access to some areas might become regulated (have heard this complaint a number of times from Kiwis), which is a sacrifice that wouldn't sit well with many on this forum. But honestly I see this type of thing as a necessary evil if the state is to move forward and shift its reliance from dwindling primary industry income (eg. forestry) to more sustainable, tourism-based functions.

In any case I think the 'hordes' will come sooner or later... and we might as well corral them to selected areas (such as one or more of those listed above), subject to appropriate checks and balances being in place, and this would of course only be one component of a broader strategy that might incorporate some of the suggestions above (food, cycle tourism etc.). I'd certainly need a lot of convincing that 5 star resorts in WHAs could ever be palatable (and on available evidence would never be), but an open mind, and dare I say it, some pragmatism, is needed so long as conservation remains at front of mind (and acknowledging that any development, even a great walks type venture, could be the thin end of the wedge if not appropriately regulated).

[Nuts]

All good motivations but I can't agree with the defeatism. There appears to be an assumption that infrastructure within parks will equal substantial profit to parks? Whether they are involved in this profit making or not is this profit above that which can be garnished on the fringes..? rather than softening the experience.. Is the total amount significant? If of the scale to make profit significant, will the impact (especially of private leases) be insignificant? How many 'sacrificial' tracks?

Is it the experience that is precious or wilderness?

Why private enterprise?

Such an opportunity still to make our parks Not like the others!


Brought to you by iPiphone

[Walk_fat boy_walk]

All good motivations but I can't agree with the defeatism. There appears to be an assumption that infrastructure within parks will equal substantial profit to parks? Whether they are involved in this profit making or not is this profit above that which can be garnished on the fringes..? rather than softening the experience.. Is the total amount significant? If of the scale to make profit significant, will the impact (especially of private leases) be insignificant? How many 'sacrificial' tracks?

Is it the experience that is precious or wilderness?

Why private enterprise?

Such an opportunity still to make our parks Not like the others!


Brought to you by iPiphone

To be honest I don't really disagree with this... and there would absolutely need to be a rigorous cost-benefit analysis (that also accounts for non-$$$ costs and benefits to the community, environment etc.) before making decisions on any such venture. Infrastructure may not equal profit and that equation will almost certainly differ from park to park, but this should at least be examined. Also agree that there would need to be an acceptance of some (maybe) areas being 'sacrificed', subject to a cost-benefit case being made, and that might not be palatable to the community.

Not necessarily saying private enterprise need be involved either, although that is a key option (was just drawing on the NZ private + public example).

I just think an open mind is needed and too often in Tassie the "No" sign goes up too quickly (flame suit on).

[Hallu]

Well as I said I don't believe Tassie needs so many "great walks" on the NZ model. What I'm wondering right is whether it'd be better to have new/better roads in the South West to unclog the Cradle region, or more accommodation in Cradle itself. If I were in charge of this, I'd open up the North-West first, and make people (the world) aware of the Tarkine and of the wild West coast, in order to protect it in the long term. For some wild areas, gravel roads only are good, but in this region, industrial lobbyists are already doing their dirty work, opening it more to tourism should gather public support and limit future industrial schemes in my opinion. A bridge to Bruny Island would be nice too, I don't know what the locals think of this ? And some parks could have easier/more obvious acess and info, such as Narawntapu or Mt William. For the latter, people mostly visit the Bay of Fires Conservation Park, and ignore Mt William, thinking it's not part of the Bay of Fires (as did a couple friends of mine last summer).

[Mechanic-AL]

All good motivations but I can't agree with the defeatism. There appears to be an assumption that infrastructure within parks will equal substantial profit to parks? Whether they are involved in this profit making or not is this profit above that which can be garnished on the fringes..? rather than softening the experience.. Is the total amount significant? If of the scale to make profit significant, will the impact (especially of private leases) be insignificant? How many 'sacrificial' tracks?

Full agreement Nuts. And I think that having cabins/lodges or any accommodation outside the parks and WHA's can only add to the sense of being somewhere unique when visitors actually enter these areas.

But because the wilderness areas are unique does this really mean that they need a unique management? USA, Canada, NZ even places like Nepal all have something to teach us about tourism vs environmental management. Wouldn't it be possible to just pick the eye teeth out of what has proven successful elsewhere and adopt it in Tasmania rather than trying to re-invent the wheel? If you want to have a crack at something new and untried before then you must also be prepared to be the first one to fail.

AL

[Nuts]

I'm actually thinking of nothing unnecessary from a conservation perspective within parks. Infrastructure (public huts and tracks) has an important role to play in conservation but I don't believe that tourism saving wilderness is necessary or even desirable long-term. To be propped up by such a fickle industry with little community support (other than the promise of fairly basic 'jobs'), an industry itself of little real 'need' or substance.

It's not at all a negative viewpoint (to me), tourism's great, there are so many (tourism) opportunities in alternate directions, different activities, around perimeters, on other reserved lands, looking at realistic tenure (changing boundaries if they weren't best planned).. not that I expect pollies will see further than making a new, unfettered 'mark' deep within our parks. Such 'backward steps' as public ownership and a call for better accounting for the situation to date may however prove even bolder than picking the best of other management scenarios or pouring vast resources into speculative tracks with ideas of attracting commercial investment, as by account, exercising the true worth of park boundaries would exclude private enterprise from parks.

Personally I find that such discussion quickly leads to thoughts of deal-breaking examples and in controversial directions. Not that similar ideas aren't bandied around by many others, I just find that, being involved in the 'industry', it's not worth (or perhaps even fair) going further than a vague contribution. As i'm sure anyone with experience in their industry or career would relate, sometimes the public perception is vastly different to the reality. Subtle differences adding up to a different view of 'what is' and conclusions for what is possible.

[Hallu]

I have understood absolutely nothing of what you just said lol

[Nuts]

I can believe that

[Taurë-rana]

IMO there's a lot we could do here without impacting too much on the National Parks. I've said it before but there are pockets of amazing beauty all over the state outside reserves that have no infrastructure which could be developed and made accessible to people who can't undertake multi-day walks. We don't have to open up the National Parks for development. i suspect that the government that wants to open up the NPs has no idea of what else can be found in their state.

[Nuts]

I liked your last post too Taurë-rana

[icefest]

IMO there's a lot we could do here without impacting too much on the National Parks. I've said it before but there are pockets of amazing beauty all over the state outside reserves that have no infrastructure which could be developed and made accessible to people who can't undertake multi-day walks. We don't have to open up the National Parks for development. i suspect that the government that wants to open up the NPs has no idea of what else can be found in their state.

+1

The Tahune airwalk is a pretty good example (even if it means the huon bridge is closed).