Off track walking banned

[Lophophaps]

https://www.news.com.au/technology/envi ... 3f55933405

Daniel Andrews has been accused of trying to install “nanny state” rules across his state’s city and regional parks.

Walkers and riders caught not using government-sanctioned trails could face heavy fines, while swimmers could be barred from some waterways without a permit. The new rules, which will affect more than 50 city and regional parks across Victoria, were outlined in the government’s proposed Metropolitan and Regional Parks Regulations.

Changes include a fine of up to $924 for walking off a park trail.

Victorians conducting “intrusive research” – interfering with “wildlife, soil, rocks, vegetation or visitors or that contravenes any regulation applying to the park” – could be hit with a $1,472 fine.

Those wanting to swim in a body of water at a park will require a permit unless that waterway has been clearly designated for swimming.

Rock climbers, abseilers, hang gliders and paragliders will also need to get a permit unless an area has been designated for it.

***

Gosh. This is madness! It will mean the end of all off track walking, no more new climbing cliffs. What about XC skiers and snow shoe people? What if the track is impassible, such as a swamp, bridge down or a fallen tree? What about leaving the track to go to the toilet? What about wild swimming?

[GBW]

If it's on news.com it must be true.

[Lophophaps]

News.com is usually not a very reliable source of information. The words beat-up and untrue come to mind.

https://engage.vic.gov.au/MRP_Regulations

601 Camping
(1) A person must not camp in a park unless that person does so—
(a) in an area of a park set aside under subregulation (7); or
(b) in accordance with a permit issued under subregulation (8).
Penalty: 10 penalty units
(2) A person must not camp in an area of a park set aside under subregulation (7) for more than 30 consecutive nights.
Penalty: 10 penalty units
(3) If a person has camped in a park for 30 consecutive nights, that person must remove all their possessions and leave the camping area for a minimum of 7 days.
Penalty: 10 penalty units
(4) A person who camps in an area of a park set aside under subregulation (7) must not camp within 20 metres of any waterway.
Penalty: 10 penalty units
(5) A person who camps on a site in an area of a park set aside under subregulation (7), or in accordance with a permit issued under subregulation (8), must maintain the site free of litter.
Penalty: 10 penalty units
(6) A person who camps on a site in an area of a park set aside under subregulation (7) or in accordance with a permit issued under subregulation (8), must, before vacating the site, clear from the site —
(a) all litter; and
(b) any equipment for which that person is responsible.
Penalty: 10 penalty units
(7) The land manager by determination may set aside an area of a park as an area where camping is permitted.
(8) The land manager may issue a permit authorising a person to engage in an activity prohibited by subregulation (1).

[Baeng72]

Is this for DEWLP parks only? Or includes National parks too?

[Biggles]

Reads very Monty Python-esque!
And is a flag for electoral suicide.
Oh well, let him have his way. The masses who object will make their feelings known at the ballot box. C'est la vie.

[paidal_chalne_vala]

Dan Andrews has long hated parks, nature, trees, conservation and healthy wild outdoor recreation. Long before the Virus known as CV19 gave him unbridled power to lock us all up at home for 2+ years he was acting on a personal vendetta against forests and clean air and clean water and healthy wild unregulated recreation.
It was and still is all about power, money & a squillion rules and regulations and making money out of any kind of transgression.
Soon you will need a permit to do a poo anywhere outside of your home loo.
I hope to goodness we see the back of this man. He has outstayed his welcome for many reasons , be it health issues, parks and conservation, transparency , accountability or any other topic you can think of.

How will the powers that be enforce any of this?
They won't.

[ChrisJHC]

A penalty unit is currently $185 so each of those breaches is around $1850!

[Xplora]

Before we all get our knickers in a knot, these regulations are nothing new and basically mirror much of the legislation already protecting National and State Parks (with some exceptions). The regulations affect Metro and Regional Parks listed and are not designed to prohibit activity but instead control where and how it is done. Many of the parks are close to large centres and receive considerable visitation which needs to be controlled or they will get trashed. The right wing media are beating this up like they did with riverside camping and feral horse control. If you only read the negative in the regs and not the positive you fail to see the benefit to the environment. Get a permit for some activity. No big deal. It happens already for many things mentioned like scientific research. I would suggest everyone read the regulations and the notes before jumping to alarmist conclusions.

Dan Andrews has long hated parks, nature, trees, conservation and healthy wild outdoor recreation. Long before the Virus known as CV19 gave him unbridled power to lock us all up at home for 2+ years he was on a personal vendetta against forests and clean air and clean water and healthy wild unregulated recreation.
It was and still is all about a squillion rules and regulations and making money out of any kind of transgression.
Soon you will need a permit to do a poo anywhere outside of your home loo.
I hope to goodness we see the back of this man. He has outstayed his welcome for many reasons be it health issues, parks and conservation or any other topic you can think of.

How will the powers that be enforce any of this?
They won't.

You are very vocal with your objections to Dan but do you have a credible alternative? The LNP have stated publicly they will stop feral horse control immediately if in government and they will introduce legislation to give horses in National Parks protected status. You think that is a better option? These regulations might look like a big stick to some people but it is just common sense. Some people do not possess common sense and require a big stick. The media talk about fines "up to". That just means the maximum fine if you were found guilty in court. Fines sent out in the mail are much less than the maximum. None of these regs will raise significant money for the government and I don't see anything wrong with defining what common sense informs us and putting a penalty on it.

[Baeng72]

OK, adjust your tin-foil hats, we're going through the looking glass here folks.....

I'm of the opinion that when saying "Dictator Dan" or "Nanny State" you're being had or missing the point a little.

Like a magician who focuses your attention on the wrong thing, then does what they want.

Firstly, a lot of medical experts supported the lockdowns, and they are no longer in place, so I don't see it useful to include them as evidence of an authoritarian leader.

I do see is the curtailing of civil liberties and removal of "rights". Why? Who benefits?

A couple of different things going on

The Federal minister of the Environment has said protests are fine if they're legal.
We can't protest logging in Victoria, not legal.
NSW & Tas have brought in similar laws.
The people benefiting from this are those who are destroying the environment. The excuse is to protect loggers, as if protesters were some dangerous band of cut-throats.
You couldn't save the Franklin like they did in the old days.
This was waved through by both major parties. No point voting for Kang, or Kodos.
What it does do is protect the industry that backs both major parties with donations, Fossil Fuel industry, from the stink that is slowly growing about climate change. More on that later.

We're having our access to parks curtailed to some theme park glamping that we pay through the nose for.
It's to protect environmental values, protect people, and protect indigenous sites.
These have some truth to them, but the medicine is worse than the cure.
But it's pretty obviously a grab by certain areas of business to commodify nature.
These business interests are not partisan, they will have donated to both major parties.
Again, voting Kang or Kodos gets you same result.

We've had a near fortnight mourning porn for an elderly woman who was born at the right time and right place.
The ABC seemingly sent what's left of their underfunded news room to New Idea/Woman's weekly the *&%$#! out of it.
As did the commercial TV media, that's to be expected, they exist to distract.
Is there no other news?
Pakistan is 1/3rd under water.
Scientists just put out a report we're probably past several very important environmental tipping points.
Ice shelves failing, record heat in Europe, Lake Mead and Western US dry, record Typhoons in ...

Keep on your tin-foil hats, I'm not saying they killed ER, just took advantage of it.
They weren't reporting Pakistan before ER died, just something else to distract us from the approaching hellscape.

Who owns the media? News LTD owns the majority of papers & SKY news and uses political power to further it's business interests.
Channel 9 has the Age & SMH and is controlled by Peter Costello, Grandee of the neo-Liberal wing of the LNP.
Channel 7 is owned by a billionaire.
The ABC after 10 years of relentless conservative attacks and stacking of the board really is remade in Ita Buttrose's image.
So, it's lots of Married at first site, SAS Australia, Meghan Markle's being a *&%$#! and trans kids taking over the world.
Certain big Business likes this quite a lot. Panem et Circum.
If the ordinary people trying to make buck don't think about Climate and curtailing of liberties...but when they do. Laws in place, and nobody can go and check the state of the parks in any case.

Anyway, there doesn't seem much hope against vested interests.
Maybe vote Independents or Greens. Don't buy products from *&%$#! companies where possible. Write letters, make good trouble.


You may remove your tin-foil hats now.

All hail President Kang!

kang.jpg (9.46 KiB) Viewed 12843 times

[paidal_chalne_vala]

Before we all get our knickers in a knot, these regulations are nothing new and basically mirror much of the legislation already protecting National and State Parks (with some exceptions). The regulations affect Metro and Regional Parks listed and are not designed to prohibit activity but instead control where and how it is done. Many of the parks are close to large centres and receive considerable visitation which needs to be controlled or they will get trashed. The right wing media are beating this up like they did with riverside camping and feral horse control. If you only read the negative in the regs and not the positive you fail to see the benefit to the environment. Get a permit for some activity. No big deal. It happens already for many things mentioned like scientific research. I would suggest everyone read the regulations and the notes before jumping to alarmist conclusions.

Dan Andrews has long hated parks, nature, trees, conservation and healthy wild outdoor recreation. Long before the Virus known as CV19 gave him unbridled power to lock us all up at home for 2+ years he was on a personal vendetta against forests and clean air and clean water and healthy wild unregulated recreation.
It was and still is all about a squillion rules and regulations and making money out of any kind of transgression.
Soon you will need a permit to do a poo anywhere outside of your home loo.
I hope to goodness we see the back of this man. He has outstayed his welcome for many reasons be it health issues, parks and conservation or any other topic you can think of.

How will the powers that be enforce any of this?
They won't.

You are very vocal with your objections to Dan but do you have a credible alternative? The LNP have stated publicly they will stop feral horse control immediately if in government and they will introduce legislation to give horses in National Parks protected status. You think that is a better option? These regulations might look like a big stick to some people but it is just common sense. Some people do not possess common sense and require a big stick. The media talk about fines "up to". That just means the maximum fine if you were found guilty in court. Fines sent out in the mail are much less than the maximum. None of these regs will raise significant money for the government and I don't see anything wrong with defining what common sense informs us and putting a penalty on it.

I do not vote for the Lib/Labs. Period. The State Green s are too busy fighting each other to make any difference. Some Independents that have some altruistic goals would be a breath of fresh air.

[EGM]

I have to agree with baeng and Xplora. Government on all levels has been making some useless decisions recently, such as the anti protest laws and what's going on with logging in Tasmania but this is not one of them. I spend alot of time in and around Melbourne metro parks and what we think of as common sense is not held by everyone. It wouldn't take many idiots to do alot of damage, an area of Footscray park has been fenced off for about a year now because a few parents weren't able to keep their toddlers out of the pond and they unfortunately drowned.

I think this anger is misdirected.

And you're kidding yourself if you think any of this stuff will influence the election. No doubt the pandemic has slightly increased the volume of votes going to the crack pot parties but it is incredibly unlikely that this election will have a significantly different outcome to the last.

[north-north-west]

Thank you to Baeng, Xplora and EGM for some commen sense and factual analysis.

[Xplora]

I do not vote for the Lib/Labs. Period. The State Green s are too busy fighting each other to make any difference. Some Independents that have some altruistic goals would be a breath of fresh air.

The independents will probably win big but I should tell you all those in the Legislative Council from minor parties and independents recently sided with the opposition in an attempt to stop horses being controlled in parks. Your precious BHP is at risk because of independents. It is only the council but that could change if independents or minor parties have the balance of power in the Assembly. I am not an ALP supporter either. Choose wisely.

[paidal_chalne_vala]

I am aware that some independents are really Nat./ Country party stooges or worse still : flat Earth tin foil hat fanciers.

[jimjim]

I thought political commentary was not allowed on this forum. I must be mistaken as some of the comments above could have been shut down very quickly.

[Xplora]

I thought political commentary was not allowed on this forum. I must be mistaken as some of the comments above could have been shut down very quickly.

I think you are right but this thread does have some political relevance. That does not give it the latitude to express your own political views and I apologise. In my defence I was attempting to provide some balance. The point has been made and well done for stepping in.

[Lophophaps]

Rule 4:
Political content unrelated to bushwalking is not permitted, either for or against any particular issue, party, person or organisation.

The matter under consideration is new regulations with an impact on bushwalking, and this includes a degree of politics. However, that does not mean open slather on matter political. The goal is or should be to better understand what the regs mean. Xplorer put this well:
"Before we all get our knickers in a knot, these regulations are nothing new and basically mirror much of the legislation already protecting National and State Parks (with some exceptions)."

My main concern is 601 Camping
(1) A person must not camp in a park unless that person does so—
(a) in an area of a park set aside under subregulation (7); or
(b) in accordance with a permit issued under subregulation (8).
This seems to proscribe remote camping in places that are not official campsites unless a permit is obtained. Reg 601(1) is apt for metropolitan parks, but not for much bigger areas that have much less visitor numbers.

Like many here I've camped in a lot of places that are not official campsites such as the summit of Bogong, on Howitt, deep in valleys a long way from the nearest track, and many more. Like many I subscribe to Leave No Trace - leave nothing but footprints, take nothing but pictures.

A difficulty arises with snow camping. I've camped on Bogong, Feathertop, Razorback, near Marms Point, Howitt, Baw Baw, Stirling and a lot of other places that are not viable in summer. Reg 601(1) seems to prevent this.

It may come down to PV staff on the ground. They enforce the laws, and have a common sense approach, If a small party is camped away from an official campsite with no fire and everything neat, it's unlikely that staff would use reg 601(1) to issue an infringement. If there is litter, a fire, habitat destruction or similar then it would be different.

[Baeng72]

I thought political commentary was not allowed on this forum. I must be mistaken as some of the comments above could have been shut down very quickly.

I was not aware of the regulations.
But ignorance is no excuse.
Thanks for the heads-up jimjim.

[Baeng72]

A difficulty arises with snow camping. I've camped on Bogong, Feathertop, Razorback, near Marms Point, Howitt, Baw Baw, Stirling and a lot of other places that are not viable in summer. Reg 601(1) seems to prevent this.

Mt. Spec. Campsite late August. (Note trees & rocks in top right corner)

Mt Spec. Campsite early Sept.

It may come down to PV staff on the ground. They enforce the laws, and have a common sense approach, If a small party is camped away from an official campsite with no fire and everything neat, it's unlikely that staff would use reg 601(1) to issue an infringement. If there is litter, a fire, habitat destruction or similar then it would be different.

I was thinking the same thing. If it is National Parks (has this been clarified?), then I doubt a PV ranger will be lurking on Mt. Spec, or some other remote place, on the off chance a reg. is being broken.

[paidal_chalne_vala]

Parks Vic. have been so consistently and badly underfunded that the chances of a Ranger or some such employee finding ( and fining you ) for you snow camping somewhere that is not an official campsite or along an alignment of a summer bushwalking track would be miniscule.
Ditto for wild hiking and camping in the green season.

[Xplora]

I was thinking the same thing. If it is National Parks (has this been clarified?), then I doubt a PV ranger will be lurking on Mt. Spec, or some other remote place, on the off chance a reg. is being broken.

Yes, this has been clarified as per my post which I have copied again here:

Before we all get our knickers in a knot, these regulations are nothing new and basically mirror much of the legislation already protecting National and State Parks (with some exceptions). The regulations affect Metro and Regional Parks listed and are not designed to prohibit activity but instead control where and how it is done.

But just to make it clear, THESE ARE NOT REGULATIONS FOR NATIONAL PARKS AND ONLY PERTAIN TO 50 LISTED STATE AND REGIONAL PARKS. There are other regulations regarding camping in National Parks. Some refer to how far from roads you can camp e.g. Bogong High Plains Road and Pretty Valley Road but generally (unless stipulated for specific areas) you can still disperse camp and walk/ski in National Parks. I don't think we need to complicate things by changing the context of the regulations or continuing to refer to them as applying to National Parks or enforced by Parks Victoria. That is something better left to right wing alarmists and Fakebook enthusiasts.

[Xplora]

And maybe take the time to read the actual information at the link Lops provided. That will avoid considerable confusion and misrepresentation. I am sure it will answer most of your questions but if you have anymore after that I would be happy to clarify if I am able. The link again for people https://engage.vic.gov.au/MRP_Regulations

[Baeng72]

And maybe take the time to read the actual information at the link Lops provided. That will avoid considerable confusion and misrepresentation. I am sure it will answer most of your questions but if you have anymore after that I would be happy to clarify if I am able. The link again for people https://engage.vic.gov.au/MRP_Regulations

OK, now at the risk of getting berated....
You seem like someone who writes in an accurate, straight-down-the-line manner.
Without other evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to believe what you say.
I saw you post this claim (doesn't apply to NPs) a few days ago, and I read the link provide by Lops.
It says metropolitan and regional parks. It did mention DEWLP, which made me think not NPs.
All National Parks are either Metropolitan or Regional in a literal sense, as otherwise they'd be space, subterranean or marine parks.
If "metropolitan or regional" park is a term of art to describe a non-National park or State forest, that's fine, and I was tending to lean that way with my understanding.
However, Lops posted again with the same queries.
He specifically mentions places like Bogong, which to my knowledge are in the Alpine NP.
I then was less inclined to lean that way and was open to a more literal or general reading of the term because I find Lops to also be an accurate reporter of facts and not a silly joker like myself.

I apologize if I've misrepresented anything.

[Lophophaps]

Baeng72, fair comments. When I read the proposed regulations I took "Metropolitan and Regional Parks" to include national parks. The difficulty is that "Metropolitan and Regional Parks" is not defined in the link, or if it is I cannot find it. I cited places I had camped as examples of where the regs fell over, and now it seems that I'm mistaken. The places I cited - Bogong et al - are in the Alpine National Park. Xplorer says that the regs do not apply to NPs, and until there's solid evidence to the contrary I accept that.

[CraigVIC]

The parks covered;

Albert Park Reserve (1204268)
Albert Reserve (1204484)
Altona Meadows Natural Features Reserve (1204645)
Bendigo Regional Park (2015937)
Braeside Park (2011822)
Cape Nelson Lighthouse Reserve (0306727) (COM)
Cape Schanck Lighthouse Reserve (1205575) (COM)
Cardinia Creek Parklands (2011823)
Clarke Road Streamside Reserve (0704465)
Cliffy Island Lighthouse Reserve (1511485) (COM)
Dandenong Police Paddock Reserve (1202789)
Dandenong Ranges Botanic Gardens (formerly the National Rhododendron Garden) (2025374) (COM)
Dandenong Valley Parklands (2011824)
Dandenong Valley Parklands (1204805) (COM)
Gabo Island Lighthouse Reserve (1604547)
George Tindale Memorial Gardens - Gardens of the Dandenongs (2002046 COM)
Hepburn Regional Park (2023940)
Herring Island (1204535)
Kerang Regional Park (2019207)
Kew Land – Molesworth St (2013200)
Kurth Kiln Regional Park (2016144)
Lower Maribyrnong Parklands (2011825)
Lower Maribyrnong Parklands (1204967) (COM)
Lower Yarra River land (2011826)
Macedon Regional Park (0704887)
Maribyrnong Valley Parklands (2011827)
Maribyrnong Valley Parklands (1204454) (COM)
Merri Creek Park (2022275)
Mount Dandenong Observatory (1202582)
Olinda G168 Bushland Reserve (1203163)
Olinda Golf Course (1203110)
Patterson River Parkland (2011929)
Peach Tree Creek Reserve (1604570)
Pirianda Gardens - Gardens of the Dandenongs (2002047) (COM)
Plenty Gorge Parklands (2011830)
Plenty Gorge Parklands (1205057) (COM)
Point Cook Coastal Park (2011851)
Point Cook Coastal Park (0704436) (COM)
Point Gellibrand Heritage Park (2003682)
Point Hicks Lighthouse Reserve (1604546)
Sandbelt Parklands (Karkarook Park) (2011831)
Shepparton Regional Park (0802878)
Wattle Park (2012213)
Werribee Park (0704447) (COM)
Westgate Park (1204741)
William Ricketts Sanctuary - Gardens of the Dandenongs (1203594) (COM)
Woowookarung Regional Park (2012194)
Yarra Bend Park (1204312)
Lower Yarra River land (2011826)
Yarra Valley Parklands (2011832)
Yarra Valley Parklands (1204662) (COM)

[Warin]

Still ridiculous!

Take Olinda Golf Course... not allowed to walk 'off track' in an area where golfers have searched to lost balls .. where grassed old fairways may be considered 'off track' .. idiocy.

Braeside Park ... grassed areas .. not to be walked on.

I suppose if you cannot walk then you cannot sit, picnic, play footy ..

Reminds me of sitting on the grass outside, I think, Oslo Town Hall ... not allowed, was politely told by some official .. of course we moved. I suppose they have trouble growing grass there .. but in Australia?

[CraigVIC]

I do not believe these are blanket rules. They enable the land manager the power to make rules about walking off track where they believe it is appropriate. Eg. They may wish to make a rule that you cannot walk through the flower beds in a garden and this gives them the power to do that.

I don't want to down play anything as I am a little broken hearted over the end of dispersed camping in the grampians but this particular engagement may not be the hill to die on for walkers.

[north-north-west]

Like Wariin, I am sniggering at the idea of being unable to walk "off track" on a golf course. Just how much of a golf course is actually formed walking tracks? No more retrieving balls from water hazards, either.
Banning camping there is fair enough, although a green would make for a lovely tentsite.

[Xplora]

And maybe take the time to read the actual information at the link Lops provided. That will avoid considerable confusion and misrepresentation. I am sure it will answer most of your questions but if you have anymore after that I would be happy to clarify if I am able. The link again for people https://engage.vic.gov.au/MRP_Regulations

OK, now at the risk of getting berated....
You seem like someone who writes in an accurate, straight-down-the-line manner.
Without other evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to believe what you say.
I saw you post this claim (doesn't apply to NPs) a few days ago, and I read the link provide by Lops.
It says metropolitan and regional parks. It did mention DEWLP, which made me think not NPs.
All National Parks are either Metropolitan or Regional in a literal sense, as otherwise they'd be space, subterranean or marine parks.
If "metropolitan or regional" park is a term of art to describe a non-National park or State forest, that's fine, and I was tending to lean that way with my understanding.
However, Lops posted again with the same queries.
He specifically mentions places like Bogong, which to my knowledge are in the Alpine NP.
I then was less inclined to lean that way and was open to a more literal or general reading of the term because I find Lops to also be an accurate reporter of facts and not a silly joker like myself.

I apologize if I've misrepresented anything.

Forgive my frustration if that is how you took it. I try to write in an accurate way but I also want people to investigate for themselves instead of simply believing what I say. That is why I point people to the source, so what I say can be verified. Metropolitan and Regional Parks are defined in legislation and not a term of art. There are areas of Crown land classified as State Parks, Historic areas and Reference areas etc. Legislation defines these places so it can then be made clear what can and cannot be done in each one and that is also stated in legislation. For example, you can camp with a dog in an Historic area but not a National Park even though both areas are managed by Parks Vic. I understand all this can be quite confusing to those not used to reading and interpreting legislation but legislation is actually the fabric on which our society has developed ever since the Magna Carta. I am not commenting on whether the legislation is good or bad. Simply trying to explain how it relates to us.

It gets more confusing when there are multiple Acts that cross over. That is why legislation also needs to be consistent with other Acts. For example, you can't have regulations governing Regional Parks that allows camping within 20m of a stream but then prohibit the same activity on all other crown land. Many of the regulations here simply make things consistent with other areas of Crown Land but then adds regulations more specific to these Metro and Regional Parks.

CraigVic is on the right track. The power is given to the Land Managers to make rules specific to each parcel of land, as needed, to protect that specific area. It still allows for activities to proceed but also allows the Land Manager to prohibit some activity in specified areas where necessary. It is not a blanket prohibition and that is where media outlets like Sky News or 3AW prey. They take things out of context only to push a political agenda. So I would say you will still be able to look for your golf ball. My mother was so sucked in by Alan Jones that she thought everything he said was the gospel truth. She didn't question his view or investigate if what he said was true. I encourage you to do that with what I say.

Unfortunately some people will still choose to believe the false narratives even when provided with the facts. I am still dealing with the fallout from the riverside camping misinformation campaign. Two State MP's had deliberately false information on their websites but trying to convince someone who just loves those MP's that they were wrong is impossible. It is called cognitive bias.

Thanks also Craig for copying the list of Parks affected and your sentiment regarding the affect it will have on bushwalking is also correct. It won't.

[Xplora]

Just did a bit of searching and found the misinformation campaign is well underway and being spread by Fakebook. Scaremongering and false information already out there from opposition politicians. The horse is in full gallop and not much hope of pulling it up now. Remember this story first broke with the Australian which is basically the Herald Sun.