Bushwalk Australia

Hi,
This is kind of weird subject . On one of the hikes this year one guy from our party got very upset with my daughter throwing rocks to a small river. He said that this is altering the environment and the flow of the creek and that I could pay a fine if I got caught by a ranger. I'm a very conscious hiker. We always pick other ppl rubbish if we find it and generally leave no trace etc. My daughter has been hiking with me since she could walk and she also always protects the environment. For some reason, she always loved throwing rocks to the water. I never stopped her as I want her to enjoy the hikes and love nature as much as I do. Also, I never saw any harm in it. In this particular case, the creek had swift current, plenty of water in it and was in a narrow valley and would have picked the rocks after next heavy rain anyway. But we had an argument that we left unfinished. What is the general consensus on this topic (if there is any)? Is this frown upon? I do need to allow her to do something besides just walking. Kids have weird ideas and sometimes we just need to allow them to be kids, within reason.

Life must suck for some people. Imagine living his life!

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Leave that guy behind next time...

If there's no one around, I'll practice skimming rocks or play dam builders with my 7yo & have fun knocking it down before we leave. It'll be flattened completely during the next good flood anyway.

In a shared swimming hole or creek, no, we just swim, dive, shiver & try to warm ourselves on a sunny slab.

Making dams with kids is the THE very best fun. Walk with somebody else next time. In fact I personally believe that part of our current problems with extended droughts is that the rivers flow too freely and we need many many more leaky dams in our creeks

Your friend sounds fun

Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk

Moondog55 wrote:In fact I personally believe that part of our current problems with extended droughts is that the rivers flow too freely and we need many many more leaky dams in our creeks

Droughts are an absence of rain, not an absence of dams. A years long drought won't be mitigated by empty dams.
The Murray-Darling (for example) was just fine in droughts (didn't always flow along its length in times of drought, but there was enough water for fish to live, havens for wildlife), not because the Aboriginals dammed it, but because wetlands soaked in water during times or rain, and held it or released it slowly. Now run-off is caught before it gets to the river, and water is held into dams for diversion into irrigation. Wetlands are gone or dry sponges.
Climate change means more variable weather, including years long droughts.

What you are proposing is to artificially create the effect of wetlands with leaky dams.
But wildlife can't live well in silted dams.

The riberbed gets shifted around whenever there's a heavy flow, so from an environmental standpoint some extra rocks are neither here nor there.

Baeng72 that isn't quite accurate, the Murray Darling river system was dredged and all the big snags which impeded river flow were removed to allow the boats to travel up and down and carry goods. The system that the First Nations tribes lived along was a series of deep holes with water flowing between them. Nothing like the river system that existed after we started using boats on the river and before the big Hume dam was built.
Droughts can be locally mitigated by wetlands and wildlife love wetlands but ribuck is on the money

If it is illegal then your friend should produce the legislation. If the child is under 10 then no action can be taken. Tell your friend to contact the fun Police and leave your friend behind completely. If they get upset about this then what is next? Also tell your friend that bushwalking changes the environment in very small ways as well, probably more than the amount a pebble thrown in a river does. As tracks wear, water will follow the path of the track and cause erosion and also change the flow of the water. Someone else had the same thought and the discussion is here https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/ques ... -ponds-etc

Some people are just idiots. Tell him he's dreamin' ........ I hope he puts back every pebble he bumps when he's walking

Does this walker carry out there used toilet paper and *&%$#!? If not, suggest they do to minimize their impact on the natural environment.

to be entirely honest she was throwing rocks a bit larger than pebbles to make bigger splashes but, being a child, nothing that could alter the creek anyway.
Thank you for all your opinions. I'm relieved. I started to doubt my sanity a bit. He was very convincing and promised to write a letter to NP to prove his point. I hope he does.

Big rocks, deep pools, echoing canyon walls...lovely sounds.

I'm with all the others here. This is someone to avoid walking with at all costs. Nothing better than letting kids be kids. Even if the're in there 50's (or worse)

What next - ban sand castles!!!

I wish I was his MP. I'd address the reply by starting with. Dear buttock Headed Idiot.

The guy is a twit for sure ... kids should be kids, when it gets out of hand, parents should be parents.

I once stopped a walking companion hurling stones into an alpine lake from a high ridge. They were quite large stones and many were crashing into the bush on the lakes edge. I saw it as unnecessary and destructive. There was also a group of young walkers from Sydney in the area and I really felt uncomfortable with what this douchebag was doing, a bad example to set in a sensitive environment. That was the last walk I did with that clown.

Do you want the legal view or the common sense view?

Legal view is

National Parks and Wildlife Regulation 2019
13 Littering and damage
(1) A person must not—
(h) carry or possess, interfere with, dig up, cut up, collect or remove for any purpose any soil, sand, gravel, fossil, clay, rock, ochre, mineral, timber (whether or not consisting of or including dead timber), gum resin, humus or other natural substance or object in a park, whether on land or on or under water, or

Of course, laws (or in this case, regulations) as written can be used to convict pretty much everybody, which is why we have judges to interpret and apply the law in real life. So someone collecting bushrock for gardens would be fined, but someone walking on a beach would not.

Common sense view is that we are causing damage to the environment by bushwalking or just being in it. When it's occasional, or one person, it has minimal impact. But what's OK occasionally or in a place that gets few visitors might become a problem in a popular area.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... re-tourism

As you say, a creek that's regularly being flooded is going to handle a few rocks being moved. But it's also worth keeping in mind that what appear to be small actions, if carried out by large numbers of people, can become a problem.

tom_brennan wrote:Do you want the legal view or the common sense view?

Legal view is

National Parks and Wildlife Regulation 2019
13 Littering and damage
(1) A person must not—
(h) carry or possess, interfere with, dig up, cut up, collect or remove for any purpose any soil, sand, gravel, fossil, clay, rock, ochre, mineral, timber (whether or not consisting of or including dead timber), gum resin, humus or other natural substance or object in a park, whether on land or on or under water, or

Of course, laws (or in this case, regulations) as written can be used to convict pretty much everybody, which is why we have judges to interpret and apply the law in real life. So someone collecting bushrock for gardens would be fined, but someone walking on a beach would not.

Common sense view is that we are causing damage to the environment by bushwalking or just being in it. When it's occasional, or one person, it has minimal impact. But what's OK occasionally or in a place that gets few visitors might become a problem in a popular area.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... re-tourism

As you say, a creek that's regularly being flooded is going to handle a few rocks being moved. But it's also worth keeping in mind that what appear to be small actions, if carried out by large numbers of people, can become a problem.

Nicely summarised Tom. We tend to hike in places rarely visited by tourists (at least we try to stay as far from ppl as possible). I totally agree with you that too many ppl doing the same/similar damage will eventually change the environment. As a parent, I usually need to find a balance between allowing some fun (and encouraging the next generation to bushwalking) and applying strict rules. I don't think I lack common sense and as I said before we leave no trace. I started this thread to know other opinions on that matter. It is also a bit similar problem to cairns and stone circles around fires but much less visible. Personally I have no problem with occasional cairns in the bush (and quite like them on the coast) even if I was lead astray a few times by trusting them. On the other hand, I fight the fire circles and dismantle them in wild places. In my personal opinion playing in the creeks and even building small dams is a harmless activity and the water will take care of any new obstacles anyway.

Funny. Like the other posts above my reaction was 'get a life. Let the child be a child. What's the harm?'.

Then the last few comments got me thinking about the Blue Pools on the Haast Highway where you can't move but for tripping over one of the flippin' stone cairns on the gravel riverflats that the tourists build because it's a (foreign tourist) tradition. And I recalled how much that gets my back up!

So clearly somewhere between the two activities, there' a line not to be crossed. Now without the pom getting grumpy anyway!

How else do rock's learn how ti swim ? .

The only reason not to have fun with rocks in water is if people are fishing, otherwise no drama. Unless you build a dam. Imo

Sent from my Mi 9 Lite using Tapatalk

There is no greater pleasure in life than chucking rocks into water, I especially enjoy the "blonk" noise big rocks make when they break the surface of a deep pool or creek. If there's no water around one can still peg rocks at any handy target in practice for when a body of water presents itself. I would not walk with anyone who does not understand that water is there to a) provide a source of enjoyment, and b) provide a source of enjoyment.

I overlooked one vital exception: there is also immense pleasure to be had in chucking rocks at backpacker cairns.

Chuck a yonnie.

dingelberry wrote:How else do rock's learn how ti swim ? .

That's the rough way and it wouldn't always guarantee the rocks will continue to love you.

mikeRsyd wrote:The only reason not to have fun with rocks in water is if people are fishing, otherwise no drama.

Dunno about that. There is always drama when you DO throw rocks where people are fishing.

GregG wrote:There is no greater pleasure in life than chucking rocks into water, I especially enjoy the "blonk" noise big rocks make when they break the surface of a deep pool or creek. If there's no water around one can still peg rocks at any handy target in practice for when a body of water presents itself. I would not walk with anyone who does not understand that water is there to a) provide a source of enjoyment, and b) provide a source of enjoyment.

It's just as great a pleasure to jump into puddles when someone is standing next to them.

Like Tom's response.

It's one of those one or two with a few pieces of rocks is inconsequential. But when everyone does it in quantity, then it's chaos. Take your own position and just be reasonable about it. Yes, kids and even adults like to throw things...

It seems to me that in moderation and with small rocks, there is minimal harm where the rock lands. The rock may hit an aquatic creature or habit required by the creature. The place where the rock comes from is another matter. Concern has been expressed about rock stacks and rock cairns.
https://www.ausableriver.org/blog/leavi ... k-stacking
https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/get- ... n-the-bush
http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/08 ... -stackers/

I've a soft spot for anyone being precious about ecology and park regulations. And if a ranger doesn't quote the regs they should work somewhere else. Where would we end up without them?

That said, I come from a long line of.. skimmers.

Left field... Why do dogs like to chase balls and other thrown items? Do humans have an innate urge to throw rocks? And balls? And chase them too?

GPSGuided wrote:Left field... Why do dogs like to chase balls and other thrown items? Do humans have an innate urge to throw rocks? And balls? And chase them too?

Interesting question. I Imagine being able to throw was an important skill for much of human history. Might be why?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Another thing to consider is that by picking up a rock, you could be destroying the house of some small critter. So better not touch anything. However, I admit I sometimes enjoy throwing small stones in streams too. I certainly wouldn't blame a child doing this, within reason.