Lake Rhona toilet issue

[Binder]

Parks hat on.

I have recently made it into Lake Rhona to look at the toilet issues that have been raised many times by forum members (and the scenery...). It was my first trip into the site and a good chance to get my head around some of the issues up there.

On the face of it the easy way out of the poo issue is to put a sputnik in place. However there are a number of problems with this. Rhona is nowhere near the other sputniks that we manage in the Western Arthurs and Mt Eliza (6o kilometres away from Scotts Peak where we need to base the operation out of). The logistics involved and associated expense in our current financial climate (and probably years to come) make this option not viable.

Along with this, the placement of the sputnik in the area behind the campsite, where the majority of people currently use, is far from ideal due to the closeness of cliffs. The pilots aren’t very excited about flying so close to cliffs in a very turbulent area while trying to manoeuvre a 500 kg load at the end of a long line. If we put the sputnik further away, people possibly wouldn’t use it.

So...

I am keen to encourage a bit of a shift in thinking. I will be proposing that we use the Lake Rhona site as a trial ‘carry it out’ site. I am looking at placing signage at the start of the circuit explaining the problem, and asking that folk go outside the catchment, or they carry it out using poo tubes, which have had a fair bit of airing on this forum over the years, along with the reasons why burying waste in alpine areas isn’t so good. We would also look at supplying a sputnik at the Richea Creek carpark for disposal when finishing the walk. This sputnik can be transported by us by 4wd for emptying a couple of times a year.

I am currently looking at sourcing the Poo Tubes and corn paper and making them available from Mt Field at little or no expense with some info on their use.

Mt Cook National Park in New Zealand has had a similar system in place since 2004 and Kosciusko National Park is looking at introducing it to areas above the tree-line where there are no other facilities. Commercial operators are also successfully using the system in the South West.

I am expecting uptake to be slow (as it was in NZ to start with), but if we can get the ball rolling I think long term it may help out in other sensitive alpine areas.

As I say, it’s a proposal at the moment, and keen to hear your thoughts.

Over to you…

[ILUVSWTAS]

I guess it's good that something is being done about it, of course a sputnik would be the ideal solution, but if that isnt possible then this may be the next best thing??

As you said it might not catch on for a while, but if even a small percentage carry it out then it has got to help.

Now that Rhona is so easy to access, people who dont do alot of walking are going up there, and I think the key in this is the signs you put in place. If people are told of the problems that occur when pooing next to the campsite MAYBE they will think about where they go. So I say put lots of signs up stating these rules, and we may start to see a difference.

I cant see many willing to carry it out, but if you state clearly that people must walk outside of the Rhona basin to do their buisness.......


Good to see you guys are trying Binder, good luck with it! It's too nice a place to get ruined!!

[Vern]

I'm looking to walk to Lake Rhonda soon and would like to know what the actual issue is. Also...what is the process of using a poo tube?

[ILUVSWTAS]

Vern, the campsite is a fairly small area behind the lake, and there is no toilet up there. Hundres of people go up there each year...... Not many place to do your buisness...... Just be careful walking around.

[whynotwalk]

Nice work binder - I think Lk Rhona is a good place to trial poo tubes, and also good to try some education at the track head. I can totally see why chopper pilots wouldn't want to go there (apart from any budget issues). I've camped there when the down-draft "bullets" of wind stirred up a 1 metre + surf! The dunes behind the lake are there for a reason

Also agree with Mark that it will have a slow take-up, but better to try and reduce the problem before giardia and gastro-related bugs take a hold.

As for Vern's query about their use, DoC in NZ explain it like this: http://www.doc.govt.nz/parks-and-recreation/plan-and-prepare/care-codes/activity-minimal-impact-codes/disposing-of-human-waste/ A more colloquial spin is put on it by the University of Ballarat here http://uob-community.ballarat.edu.au/~apeach/HM884/Your%20handy%20guide%20to%20using%20a%20Poo%20tube.doc

cheers

Peter

[Binder]

Thanks Peter for the links.

Fully agree we need to tell folks the problem, and we do have some great research to back it up. We are finding that a large number of visitors are first timers to the site, and many aren't the 'hardened' types that you find in the Arthurs etc, and so may take a bit of convincing.

Small steps I know, but we have to start somewhere !

Cheers

[tas-man]

Hi Peter, I will bring this issue up at our next Launceston Walking club executive committee meeting, as I am sure that the Tassie clubs would get "behind" such a trial.

[Marwood]

Hey Binder - you could consider providing "Biffy Bags" or another similar product instead of Poo Tubes.

[Vern]

It's definately worth putting a sign up if nothing else. Even if only some abide by it it has to be better than before. I would imagine having the backing of the National Park would help though. I had a look at the links for poo tube posted above...thanks, eating chips will never be the same again

[vagrom]

Certainly, the fact that something's being done about it is invaluable. Rhona and Cutting Camp have been bad places for this, but the latter may be getting less use as the route up from there deteriorates.[The rats are certainly fat..]
Certainly it's the first timers who discover the situation too late and then make the best of it. Even the sign/s alone, alerting walkers to systems in place, with best and second best options will be great.
Anything will improve things; what a great place to introduce the Poo Tube concept to Tas walking. I don't think people usually stay more than a couple of days.
If you've got the gear with you you're probably going to use it. But it's a long way back to the carpark and extra days beside a flooded Gordon, as commonly happens, might be a problem.
Since the new route was put in the numbers have and will certainly keep going up.

Walls of Jerusalem carpark too, unless things have changed, is also a shocker.

Last edited by vagrom on Sun 03 Apr, 2011 11:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[ILUVSWTAS]

Walls of Jerusalem carpark too, unless things have changed, is also a shocker.

Interesting point, I havent been to the Walls in over 15 years, do they have any kind of toilets up there yet?? Or is it still bury??

Also Vagrom, there's a nice bridge across the Gordon now, so flooding isnt such a huge problem!

[johnw]

Walls of Jerusalem carpark too, unless things have changed, is also a shocker.

Interesting point, I havent been to the Walls in over 15 years, do they have any kind of toilets up there yet?? Or is it still bury??

Has been a toilet at Wild Dog Creek for some time. I believe one has also been installed at Dixons Kingdom in the past 12 months or so. I wasn't aware of an issue at the car park but not surprised.

[stepbystep]

I found some human droppings at the Arm Rver Tk carpark, can only imagine what the Walls would be like.....

Re. Rhona - excellent initiative Binder at least someone in a position to affect change is, good on you.
I think I would be able to use one of these things but then again I'm happy to go for a walk out of the catchment - If you get your timing right so-to-speak you can get some great sunrise shots just 10 mins walk from the lake and kill 2 birds with the one stone

Re. resources and getting a sputnik in, some thoughts.

Firstly it occurred to me last time I was at Rhona the erosion issues and the defecating issues could be helped with trackwork from the campsite around to the outlet creek, and beyond to a more suitable poo spot so that folks aren't stumbling through mud and rocks to have their morning sabbatical. I would be strongly against any trackwork along the Vale of Rasselas as that crappy track helps to keep many out of the region. It also felt if this trackwork was done the sputnik could be located further out away from the cliffs - but if the winds were fluky there would be no flight anyway so I think that is a moot point.

Secondly how the hell are parks going to afford to service the infrastructure on the 3 Capes travesty if they can't afford 1 extra flight to Rhona??? And don't say because of the tourism dollars that's just laughable. that will simply become 'consolidated revenue', and pay for better parking at Parks HQ!

Rhona really is a jewel in the SW and needs to be protected for the long term.

[ILUVSWTAS]

Secondly how the hell are parks going to afford to service the infrastructure on the 3 Capes travesty if they can't afford 1 extra flight to Rhona??? And don't say because of the tourism dollars that's just laughable. that will simply become 'consolidated revenue', and pay for better parking at Parks HQ!

Rhona really is a jewel in the SW and needs to be protected for the long term.

Some good points there Dan, Firstly though im not sure if PWS are going to be responsible for the 3 capes?? I thought there was some kind of outside party taking care of that? It would be nice if Binder or Tastrax could confirm this either way. One of the guys im walking with this weekend has been lobbying to get this project stopped, I will ask him about it.

Secondly I agree about the Chopper thing, Surely it could be done from Mt Field rather than Scotts peak? That would shorten the distance greatly.

[nakedape]

Binder, some thoughts.
You may well have the best intentions backing your proposal - and I don't oppose the concept completely. But I think you'll find a fair degree of opposition to 'poo tubes' when a better solution exists (sputniks) that only for a lack of funds hasn't been implemented*. And it's the lack of funds that will get most peoples' backs up - we all pay our park fees, you collect mega-bucks from the OT fees (independent and commercial walkers) and the sale of fluffy toys & over-priced sunscreen etc, collect revenue from private operators within parks (I'm thinking of a very expensive ferry & $20 hamburgers at Lake St Clair) can afford $M tracks to wine glass bay, and can afford to build oversized (and badly designed) huts at windy ridge. A skeptic might ask: where has all the money gone and why can't we now afford to chopper toilets into sensitive areas?

In short - you need to build a more compelling argument than that presently used. My guess is people are tired of hearing the 'we're broke' line.

PS - I reiterate that I don't hate your idea, but it needs better justification.


* I say a better solution because the sputniks will be used at higher rates, and the request to use them less likely to be ignored, than for poo tubes.

[tasadam]

I've carried out before and it wasn't that big a deal. The problems came when I had to find a way of disposing of my parcel.
The idea of having a sputnik for the purpose is great, though I can see it being filled with a fair amount of plastic bags as well as the corn paper ones or whatever.
The idea of a trial carry-out site is also good, and the idea of doing something at Rhona is better than doing nothing and letting the problem degenerate.
Pleasing to hear that Parks are mindful of the issue there and are looking for a solution.

I am sure that there are many areas of the state where carry-out would be better than the current arrangements.
So how about some suggestions as to what those areas might be.
Some that come to mind -
Labyrinth, carry out to Pine Valley, but would that choke the Pine Valley loo, or are they pods too so it wouldn't mattter? Or a dedicated pod for carry-out, but I suspect lazy &#%)!& will use them for rubbish disposal.
Walls - carry out to Wild Dog Creek, but again re the pods? And also the lazy aspect, a fair amount of "other than crap" goes into them now. So carry-out to a vehicle access point would obviously be preferred, for upkeep costs. And would that even happen if there was somewhere that people thought they could dump it at Wild Dog Creek?

Others? Why not have a few trial sites to see whether the idea does catch on.

[Binder]

G'day all

Thanks big time for the feedback. A couple of good suggestions there that I'm keen to look at.
As far as the overall funding problem goes, I'm given a small bucket for my patch ie Mt Field and part of the SW.My job is to make the best with what I've got, hence the proposal.

Secondly I agree about the Chopper thing, Surely it could be done from Mt Field rather than Scotts peak? That would shorten the distance greatly.

We looked at that, but the flightpath with the sling load on has to avoid climbing up over Mt Field (due to weight / altitude issues and environmental reasons), meaning that we would have to come down the Florentine then follow the road back past Maydena. This still gives us around 45km, one way trip. To give people and idea, the chopper required to do the lift dose'nt give you much change back fron $2000 hr. We base out of Scotts Peak as we need to be able to pumpout, repair and rotate the sputniks as they come in from the Arthurs and Anne, so they can be re deployed immediatley. Yep, in a perfect world things might be different...

I'm not really in a position to comment on the Three Capes project as I'm not involved and haven't seen any business plans etc (I've got enough to manage ).

Anyway, Thanks again for the feedback and for thinking outside the box...

Keep the ideas coming

Cheers

Binder

[tasadam]

The cost of pumpout, repair and return sputniks, vs the cost of extra sputniks to swap over and deploy, returning the full ones via truck to the pumpout station? One would hope that you at least had one sputnik spare so that a chopper makes only one visit to each pod location (per full pod that needs collected). Though I haven't been present at a pod collection so am unaware of the full logistics of it.

[whynotwalk]

To my mind the broad issue here is human waste. And the specific problem is inappropriate toilet practice by (some) humans in the Lake Rhona basin. It seems a bit "mum will clean up after me" to expect a sputnik in every place we want to leave a mess. Lake Rhona is remote and considered to be a "self-reliant wilderness" site. Visitor numbers are in the low hundreds per annum. Isn't it reasonable to expect us to poo appropriately (outside the watershed) or else use poo tubes and carry out?

The Rhona poo tube idea seems like a good start on what may have to be a long education campaign.

Also, given the stats, why would PWS prioritise the spending of thousands of dollars a year to clean up after (maybe) a hundred careless walkers, when the same money could do things like:

* provide a job for a track worker
* make the Wineglass Bay track safer for tens of thousands of visitors

Just my thoughts,

cheers

Peter

[ILUVSWTAS]

I understand your points Peter, but for me a place like Wineglass is already a loss. I know it generates vast amounts of money for our state, but given that it gets tens of thousands of visitors, I find it an annoying place to go. It's just a tourist location now, with as much litter as the CBD.
I'd hate the same thing to happen to somewhere like Rhona, and before we give Rhona away as another sacrifice lets look after it as best we can!! Also agree it is considered a self reliant wilderness area, but the fact that it is so easy to get there now has made it more attractive to less hardened walkers as a few have already said.

[Binder]

The cost of pumpout, repair and return sputniks, vs the cost of extra sputniks to swap over and deploy, returning the full ones via truck to the pumpout station? One would hope that you at least had one sputnik spare so that a chopper makes only one visit to each pod location (per full pod that needs collected). Though I haven't been present at a pod collection so am unaware of the full logistics of it.

Logical thought there Tasadam. We have a couple of spare sputniks that are available at Scotts Peak. Problem is that we don't know what condition the tanks will be in when they come in, apart from rank
We often have multiple sputnik breakages ie broken lids, tie down points etc. Some with minor damage can be fixed on site and re used immediatley, but we often end up with no spare servicable ones by the end of the day. The broken ones are repaired ready for the next round.

We are not permitted to transport the full sputniks by road, that amount of waste (at least 3 tonnes) has to go into a certified waste transport vehicle, to be allowed on public road, hence the truck being on site.

The logistics involved in the day are pretty involved. Without boring everyone with too much detail, the chopper is not allowed to carry any passengers while the long line is attached so staff have to be shuffled in to site seperatley. Two staff must be at each site in the field to hook up the full one and place the empty one when it returns. Staff in the field must also be certified fit to work in remote locations, and carry personal gear for an overnight and walk out if the weather goes bad and the chopper cant get back to them (which has happened). We also have to have a heli base manager at Scotts Peak and someone dealing with the full sputniks. There are a lot of hoops we have to jump through to comply with all the regulations, that most folks understandably would'nt be aware of. Throw into that the South West weather, and you can see that it is a good thing when its over.

Cheers

[tasadam]

Isn't it reasonable to expect us to poo appropriately (outside the watershed) or else use poo tubes and carry out?

Absolutely. But we are talking about "humans", and unfortunately, not all humans are REASONABLE.
(I'm sure you didn't need reminding of that!)

[tastrax]

One thing you missed Binder....New regulations have just come in and there are only a limited number of contractors/sites that will take this type of effluent (thankfully our usual dump site is one of those locations!). This is mainly in relation to their ability to screen waste from the piles (plastic, bottles, rubbish, boots etc). Luckily, we get an extra bite at reducing the extra goodies in our waste by carefully watching as the pile is sucked into the truck. Some other toilet systems don't have this ability.

[JamesMc]

Why not a composting toilet like in other places?

JamesMc

[tastrax]

In a nutshell, its to do with zoning and standards for facilities within those zones. A composting toilet (and associated building) would be outside of the specifications for the area. Often a change to a "higher" zone classification also has implications for track classifications, car parks, huts/buildings, bridges, signage etc. It also generally means that the area is promoted to a different client group (that expect that additional level of service)

(in general) A change to zoning also requires a public consultation process which normally occurs at the time of management plan reviews. This allows all sides of the public debate to take place (both for and against a proposed change)

[ILUVSWTAS]

What a load of poo!!

I know what you mean Tastrax, but talk about red tape geez!!

[JamesMc]

In a nutshell, its to do with zoning and standards for facilities within those zones.

So effectively Lake Rhona could be getting polluted because of colors on a zoning map!

You could put a pit toilet just outside the lake catchment, and make it comfortable (ie sit down) so people would want to use it. And if more people go to Lake Rhona to enjoy the toilet then good on them.

Sounds like a lack of common sense to me.

What if someone wrote to the premier so Parks and Wildlife had to brief explaining this nonsense to her?

JamesMc

[whynotwalk]

So effectively Lake Rhona could be getting polluted because of colors on a zoning map!

Or because of people pooing badly

Let's try changing behaviour before we whack up buildings in the wilderness.

[JamesMc]

Or because of people pooing badly

Let's try changing behaviour before we whack up buildings in the wilderness.

Fair comment. But a solution needs to recognise that people are only human.

I don't recall it being an issue when I was at Lake Rhona. That was in the mid 1980s, so on one hand I'm ignorant of the real scale of the problem, and on the other hand I'm not contributing to the problem of too many visitors.

The place with the worst toileting that I have seen in Tasmania in recent years was Lake Judd. I was surprised as I didn't think it got many visitors. I wonder if this is a fishermen problem rather than a bushwalker problem???????

JamesMc

[Matty_E]

Am looking at making a trip into Rhona next weekend (weather permitting),
havn't made the trip before, but after reading this article I'm slightly put off?

how bad is this issue? enough to ruin a trip? and how likely is it that the water is contaminated?