Bushwalk Australia

Jarred Parsons, Tourism Partnerships Manager at Parks Victoria, will present the GPT as a case study at the TRC conference. Amongst friends, it will probably offer some insight into how Parks sees these icon walk developments.

https://trctourism.wpenginepowered.com/ ... 092022.pdf

Thanks for that CraigVIC - the conference is starting this coming Tuesday .
Reading the draft program, one is filled with an electric frisson of excitement about the universal precepts of corporate business models being applied to public outdoor places.

Monetise. 'Add value'. Target the market segment.
Use an imported nomenclature that has no history of use in this country.

Time to pipe down, put up, and pay my priority-experience premium hiking fee.
So y'all - let's go trailwalking !

If this FHAC development all happens and the project goes ahead then I fail to see how " they " can charge us Back country XC Skiers to use the Bogong High Plains in July , August and September when we seldom use any set routes that follow any pole lines!.

A parks pass would be easy to introduce.

paidal_chalne_vala wrote:If this FHAC development all happens and the project goes ahead then I fail to see how " they " can charge us Back country XC Skiers to use the Bogong High Plains in July , August and September when we seldom use any set routes that follow any pole lines!.

I don't recall reading anything about people having to pay such as you suggest.

It all smells like privatization of our national Parks and private development by incremental steps to me.

paidal_chalne_vala wrote:It all smells like privatization of our national Parks and private development by incremental steps to me.

I understand how you feel but I don't think scaremongering without facts or a basis for these claims is helpful. This is not Fakebook.

CraigVIC wrote: the TRC conference. Amongst friends, it will probably offer some insight..
https://trctourism.wpenginepowered.com/ ... 092022.pdf

I note in passing, that presenting at the conference is Matt Harrington of Yarra Ranges Council, speaking on "Navigating the legal environment for trail construction"
Could be a touch embarrassing, I don't know... : - https://vnpa.org.au/yarra-ranges-nation ... b6de86130d

Xplora wrote:

paidal_chalne_vala wrote:It all smells like privatization of our national Parks and private development by incremental steps to me.

I understand how you feel but I don't think scaremongering without facts or a basis for these claims is helpful. This is not Fakebook.

The FakeBook is a jazz song book used by us musicians as a quick way to bluff our way through innunerable Jazz tunes from the Golden era of jazz i.e before Rock music took over.

paidal_chalne_vala wrote:

Xplora wrote:

paidal_chalne_vala wrote:It all smells like privatization of our national Parks and private development by incremental steps to me.

I understand how you feel but I don't think scaremongering without facts or a basis for these claims is helpful. This is not Fakebook.

The FakeBook is a jazz song book used by us musicians as a quick way to bluff our way through innunerable Jazz tunes from the Golden era of jazz i.e before Rock music took over.

Would Farcebook be more appropriate "Farce is a comedy that seeks to entertain an audience through situations that are highly exaggerated, extravagant, ridiculous, absurd, and improbable." - Wikipedia

Some time ago, Parks Victoria advised that FHAC had strong support. My vague recollection is that this was qualified by saying that business interests or similar strongly supported FHAC. Can someone please direct me to where PV gave this misleading information?

There were 196 public submissions. These had
90 per cent against
5 per cent for
4 per cent neutral.
Numbers have been rounded. There were around 30 submissions not available for public viewing, probably from resorts and commercial interests. With 30 such submissions all for FHAC the figures are now 78, 18 and 4 per cent. That is, there are 4.3 times for as against, at most.

Another article about FHAC
https://cosmosmagazine.com/earth/sustai ... nt-debate/

I'm attempting to locate a history of the Alpine NP names. The current name is Alpine NP. I can vaguely recall parts of this having names such as Bogong Unit and Wonnangatta-Moroka Unit. Can anyone advise me of the names and when they changed?

I don't have precise answers to your question, but can quote a few published details.

1. Melbourne University Mountaineering Club (1970, rev. ed. 1974) Bushwalking in the Australian Alps. Melbourne University Mountaineering Club.

Around 1890,

an awareness developed of the value of preserving the Buffalo Plateau as a National Park . . . [T]he government in 1898 made its first reservation of land on the Buffalo Plateau for a National Park. The area was subsequently extended in 1908 and 1948, but today [1974] this is still the only National Park in the Victorian Alps.

2. Sandra Bardwell (1979) 50 Bushwalks in Victoria: discovering the Victorian countryside on foot. Anne O'Donovan P/L.

The areas covered by all the walks in this section [The High Country, and also in the following section, The Snowy Range] will probably come under the control of the National Parks Service during 1980 or 1981.

These walks are: Mt Bogong; Heathy Spur; Nt Niggerhead [sic] and the Bogong High Plains; Bungalow Spur and Mt Feathertop; Razorback and Mt Feathertop; Mt Loch and Cobungra Gap; Mt Tabletop; Bryces Gorge; Mt Whitelaw; Mustering Flat.

Vgls seems to have some leads.

1.A preliminary planning report on the proposed Wonnangatta/Moroka National Park / prepared by P.R. Boadle.

https://www.vgls.vic.gov.au/client/en_A ... %29&ps=300

A report on huts in Bogong National Park / P.R. Boadle.

https://www.vgls.vic.gov.au/client/en_A ... ps=300&h=8

This search lists titles such as "Victoria needs an Alpine National Park : the alps, everyone's heritage / Department of Conservation Forests Lands"
and planning for units of Alpine nation park.
https://www.vgls.vic.gov.au/client/en_A ... 00&ir=Both

Graeme Wheeler (1991) The scroggin eaters: a history of bushwalking in Victoria, to 1989. Federation of Victorian walking clubs & Pindari Publications (p.169).

The Alpine National Park Bill was finally passed by Parliament in 1989 and opened by the minister for CFL [Conservation, Forests and Lands] in December that year.

I'm not clear on what "opened" means in that sentence. Chapter 12 of the book 'Gains and Losses - Conservation' details the history of the sustained struggle bushwalkers and conservationists put up against minority vested interests.

Lophophaps wrote:Another article about FHAC
https://cosmosmagazine.com/earth/sustai ... nt-debate/

I'm attempting to locate a history of the Alpine NP names. The current name is Alpine NP. I can vaguely recall parts of this having names such as Bogong Unit and Wonnangatta-Moroka Unit. Can anyone advise me of the names and when they changed?

Bogong area was declared its own National Park in 1/10/1981 by Act of Parliament but then included into the Alpine National Park in 1988 I think. You can read the Bill to change the Act here:
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/ ... 9340_2.pdf
and that will also show the other names you seek which were all separate parks. Unit names are given to each area now and that reflects the previous National park name. Bogong has a northern and southern unit. The Greater Alpine National Park management plan was created and included a number of other National Parks but those parks are still not part of the Alpine NP. They are parks on their own.

"The Greater Alpine National Parks Management Plan guides the management of
the Alpine, Baw Baw, Errinundra, Mount Buffalo and Snowy River National Parks,
Avon Wilderness Park, Tara Range Park, and Walhalla, Howqua Hills, Grant, Mount
Wills and Mount Murphy Historic Areas "

Xplorer, thanks. Your date revived my memory - I made a submission in 1988 about an Alpine National Park. The late 1980s is good enough for the creation of the ANP, over 30 years ago. The context is that someone said that a Bogong NP exists now.

Victoria is spending big on major projects, with extra taxes and program cuts to pay for it. Not much has been seen about FHAC of late. Is it on hold due to lack of funding?

Lophophaps wrote:Victoria is spending big on major projects, with extra taxes and program cuts to pay for it. Not much has been seen about FHAC of late. Is it on hold due to lack of funding?

Or was it never really a serious contender to ever be funded, simply an illusionary project dreamed up by "developers" to skim off a bit of taxpayer's cash?

peregrinator wrote:

Lophophaps wrote:Victoria is spending big on major projects, with extra taxes and program cuts to pay for it. Not much has been seen about FHAC of late. Is it on hold due to lack of funding?

Or was it never really a serious contender to ever be funded, simply an illusionary project dreamed up by "developers" to skim off a bit of taxpayer's cash?

We can only speculate since there has not been an update for a while. The plan may be changing or scaling down. There could be issues with the environmental report or problem with some statutory requirements regarding the buildings. Funding may also be the issue and Victoria might consider it not to be prudent to put millions into this project while it is in so much debt. Perhaps someone actually read the economic plan for the walk and realised the return was well overstated.

"Speculate" is a good word to describe what is happening. Invariably, governments do not report anything that reflects badly on them, and if information to this effect is made public, governments deny or spin.

In my January 2017 submission I said:
"Another person gets a return of 0.7:1. That is, spend a dollar and get back 70 cents. We need more data. However, on balance of probability on the information before me it seems that the FHAC will run at a loss. I cannot say more as the DMP finance information is flawed. Further and better particulars are needed ...

"There seems to be limited commercial interest in the matter."

Other submissions said similar things. With over 90 per cent of submissions against the idea, many citing detailed figures, Maybe the message has finally got through.

It's nice to be optimistic but realistic to remember Parks works at a glacial pace. Replacing the existing boardwalk at the Prom with a new boardwalk on the same alignment is taking years; and that is just the paperwork, not single sod has been turned.

CraigVIC wrote:It's nice to be optimistic but realistic to remember Parks works at a glacial pace. Replacing the existing boardwalk at the Prom with a new boardwalk on the same alignment is taking years; and that is just the paperwork, not single sod has been turned.

Craig, you make a good point. But on the matter of the boardwalk (assuming you mean T Saddle to Sealers Cove), that seems astonishing. Given the masses who camp there, I'd imagine that PV might be losing money over the long term by having it out of action for so long. (I'm basing visitor numbers on what I've seen there decades ago. Have had no intention in camping there since.)

I don't want to derail this thread into a Prom discussion but the boardwalk to Sealers was damaged beyond repair by floods in 2021. Flashforward to 2024 and funding is set aside and they are now obtaining 'regulatory approvals' Parks expects to conclude that work in 2025 and then begin actual construction.

My point being that just because PV appears to have stopped work on something doesn't mean they have. It may just mean they are proceeding extremely slowly. Even given the native title claims interrupting the process the GPT took a very, very long time to complete (and was even opened with some loose ends because they couldn't quite get it done by the finish date they eventually fixed on (after many extensions)

Cultural permission is required to turn a sod of soil and there are only two people doing it for the entire state but don't confuse local maintenance with major projects. Different bucket of money and different driving force.

Surely the same surveys and negotiations are required for icon walks but I don't pretend to understand the ins and outs of joint management given Parks says so little about it. They do seem to be bad at it given it's not new and there are now so many areas under joint management you would expect it to be a major area of expertise they would have developed.

A local told me that they'd heard on the grapevine that the lorne-skenes walk had been canned. Months later I got the next stage of the engagement.

CraigVIC wrote:Surely the same surveys and negotiations are required for icon walks but I don't pretend to understand the ins and outs of joint management given Parks says so little about it. They do seem to be bad at it given it's not new and there are now so many areas under joint management you would expect it to be a major area of expertise they would have developed.

A local told me that they'd heard on the grapevine that the lorne-skenes walk had been canned. Months later I got the next stage of the engagement.

BHP is not under joint management. All National Parks require cultural permission to do any work. Some campground on the Mitta needed road work and the gravel sat there for 6 months waiting cultural permission. Davies Plain track required work and I think that took a year or more. You cannot pull weeds in a National Park without cultural permission and I am not joking. If it disturbs the soil it is needed.

BTAC and PV had to replace the old wooden signs at St. Phillack Saddle in the Baw Baw N.P.. with new shiny metal signs .We were not allowed to dig a new hole, nor reinforce the existing post holes with cement or concrete etc.. It was all Indigenous heritage listed with a quagmire of red tape and YES MINISTER style by laws.

Edit. Decided I was off topic

I was on the FHAC a few days ago and recorded entries from Dibbins and Derrick Huts.



This is 51 people in 2.75 years. Allow three people for the May 2022 party, giving 53 people, less 8 skiers is 45 people. That is, for green season there are 17 people a year



This is 33 people in 2.25 years. Allow two parties of 2 people each in January and April 2024, giving 37 people, less 10 skiers is 27 people. That is, for green season there are 12 people a year.

If the numbers are underestimated by a factor of five this is 100 people a year in green season.

On 24 November 2016, Parks Victoria released the Draft Management Plan (DMP) for the proposed Falls Creek to Mount Hotham Alpine Crossing (FHAC) bushwalk. Page 87 says:
"There are an estimated 17,000 walker nights per year on the trail".
This means that there are that many people in mid to late 2016, not a projection.

The FHAC walk has three campsites: Cope Hut, Tawonga Huts and Dibbins Hut. If 100 walkers stay at these places then there are 300 walker nights. The maths is easy – 17,000/300 = 56. That is, the DMP 17,000 figure is out by over 50 times.

An alternative is that the popularity is falling, down by 98%.

If anyone goes to the FHAC huts, please record the number of people on FHAC and post here in the above format. Entries from Cope and Tawonga Huts would be useful.