Western Arthurs Permit System

[NickD]

Perhaps it'll ruffle a few feathers and yes it has been discussed before on this board but I want to get the general feeling from people about their ideas of putting up a limiting system on this fantastic mountain range.

Obviously a classic for the experienced Tasmanian bushwalker, but fast becoming an international renowned mountain range the visitor numbers to the Western Arthur's are increasing! I have not seen the NP stats on the range but my own observations have got me concerned. My first visit to the Western Arthur's range was in January 2008, not long ago at all yet during this time myself and my walking companion saw only one other chap who we bypassed at Lake Oberon, I know we were probably lucky to not have to share with many others as 2008 was a busy year, but I think growth since then has increased. In June 2009 I came down Kappa Moraine on my 2nd visit to the mountain range and looked through the log book to find my 2008 visit, I only had to simply flick back a couple of pages to find my name from 17 months ago!
I have just returned from my 3rd visit, this time when studying the log book I realized page one was taken up between the days of Jan 6 to Jan 27! And the party sizes were getting bigger too!

This however was no surprise to me, I can tell from the degradation of the walking track and around the camping areas that visitor numbers are exploding! Certain areas like the climb down the muddy slopes of Mt Capricorn will only need a few more hundred and the trail will erode away to become impossible for walkers to traverse! I am not a fan of boardwalk and over developments on such a remote and beautiful place, but I understand its necessary to protect the fragile environment, but if hundreds of people complete this trail each Summer then it will need massive amounts more work!!

I would propose that a permit system is put in place from December till the end of March with a price tag for those who want the range during these months! This plus the ideals of keeping visitor numbers to a low through limited spots is the only chance this mountain range has to stay as pure as it is now. I understand a lot of Tasmanians believe this to be wrong, that it is their rights to walk in our protected areas whenever they want, and that we shouldn't be forced to pay, but I believe its time for us to take some accountability and responsibility for what we are doing to this precious gem. Because we sure as hell aren't going get enough money from any government we put in, its time our fragile areas became economically sustainable so that our enviornment can be too.

Myself and my two walking companions, who don't have a lot of money all agreed after walking along the Arthur's plains back to the car that we would have been happy to part with more money than what is charged on the Overland Track to walk the mountain range, especially in Summer and especially if it meant a guarantee that each campsite would not be swarming with people. I understand the further implications of having a permit system especially in terms of policing the system, but I bet this could be done at a low cost, if they need volunteers instead of payed staff for the job I'd be one of the first to put my hand up to spend time in such a wonderful place!

I know this has climbed on the P&W agenda list from time to time, but without public pressure I can't see anyone pulling their finger from their bum! Please feel free to sledge the idea but also feel free to add your comments of support and other ideas below.....

Cheers

[Nuts]

It would be interesting to see the numbers monitored, any additional impact of tour companies 'deciding' to advertise the walk?

[wander]

Yep, go the permits and restricted numbers. The area is getting trashed and some sites overcrowded. Controls are required to A) protect the place and B) ensure the experience is not devalued by trying to fit in with 30 people at the same time at Lake Oberon.

[Son of a Beach]

I'd still like to see a system where Tasmanians don't require permits to visit their own parks, but tourists from elsewhere do. Not sure how workable that is, though.

[wander]

So Tasmanians do not poo nor use tent platform space? Interesting.

[Son of a Beach]

So Tasmanians do not poo nor use tent platform space? Interesting.

My desire, is based not on funds required to maintain tracks, but on reduction in requirements for such funds by a reduction in walker numbers (by requiring visiting tourists to have permits), without penalising the people who consider it their back yard (and who already pay taxes into the appropriate authority).

Ie, I'd prefer to see the areas less damaged by having fewer walkers, than have duck boards built to deal with more walkers. It would be nice if such a limitation didn't prevent locals from walking in their backyard though.

No, I've not idea if it is a feasible concept. No, I've not thought it through. It's merely something that I think would be reasonable, if it was workable.

[Marwood]

I'd still like to see a system where Tasmanians don't require permits to visit their own parks, but tourists from elsewhere do. Not sure how workable that is, though.

Why?

[wander]

Any fee should not be considered a penalty.

Parks are not in place for people but the flora, fauna and geology that is there. People are visitors, they have no "rights" to be there. You consider a fee a rent if you like.

[Son of a Beach]

Any fee should not be considered a penalty.

OK, perhaps penalty was the wrong word. I should have said without financial imposition (other than what it takes to get myself there and pay for my own needs).

Parks are not in place for people but the flora, fauna and geology that is there. People are visitors, they have no "rights" to be there. You consider a fee a rent if you like.

That's debatable. In any case, before they were 'Parks', they were land. The land was (and still is) owned by all Tasmanians. I think all Tasmanians have a right to have an opinion on it, and as public land, I think we all have the right to spend time there. I think that in paying my taxes to the Tasmanian government (largely via the Federal government, I suppose), I have a right to use public Tasmanian land, including 'Parks'.

I'd still like to see a system where Tasmanians don't require permits to visit their own parks, but tourists from elsewhere do. Not sure how workable that is, though.

Why?

Because I consider it to be my back yard. I like to go for a walk in my back yard and don't like to have to ask permission every time I want to walk in a particular part of it. It is the back yard of all Tasmanians. We already pay for it through general taxes, as well as through parks passes (which is another issue altogether). If the purpose of track-specific permits is to reduce visitor numbers, then have permits, but don't charge even more for them (that is how the OT passes were originally supposed to work).

I don't expect anybody to agree with me, as they never have before, and I'm not attempting to convince anybody. Just expressing my opinion.

[ILUVSWTAS]

I agree with you Nik.

And a fellow I know in the HWC has been trying to push for a similar thing in regard to the 3 capes project where Tasmanians who have been enjoying the area for years, wont have to pay the fees.

[Nuts]

I don't expect anybody to agree with me, as they never have before, and I'm not attempting to convince anybody. Just expressing my opinion.

I disagree, i'm sure many people would agree with you . It must be hard to fathom a world before user pays. I dont think it matters where the money comes from, though 'user pays' does seem to be a smoke n mirrors approach to me. Who knows where the money goes, there is little accountability, no details of the deduction afforded the general public by suddenly having things on a user pays basis.

Money aside though, i think the same, its a shame to complicate 'going bush' any more than necessary. To 'start' with a permit system for any track (including The Walls....) should be a last resort rather than an easy option for a difficult management issue. I doubt there would be 30 people at Oberon on all but a few days a year, is it that big a deal yet?... waterfall valley was into the 00's.

[corvus]

SoaB I agree with you so +1
corvus

[Marwood]

The land was (and still is) owned by all Tasmanians. I think all Tasmanians have a right to have an opinion on it, and as public land, I think we all have the right to spend time there. I think that in paying my taxes to the Tasmanian government (largely via the Federal government, I suppose), I have a right to use public Tasmanian land, including 'Parks'.

Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, but aren't the National Parks equally owned by all Australians, and their management funded by all Australian taxpayers? So why then should residents of any particular state have different access rights to access to parks?

[ILUVSWTAS]

The land was (and still is) owned by all Tasmanians. I think all Tasmanians have a right to have an opinion on it, and as public land, I think we all have the right to spend time there. I think that in paying my taxes to the Tasmanian government (largely via the Federal government, I suppose), I have a right to use public Tasmanian land, including 'Parks'.

Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, but aren't the National Parks equally owned by all Australians, and their management funded by all Australian taxpayers? So why then should residents of any particular state have different access rights to access to parks?

I was under the impression that Tas PWS came out of Tas funds, and same with Vic PWS, and so on so on. I could be wrong though.

[NickD]

Yeah I can't say I agree with you Nik. Unfortunately this is how the system will become abused, if you allow a certain side of people to go freely. How about if a person has lived in Tasmania for the previous 40 years, moves to QLD for two and then comes down to walk the Western Arthur's? Are they no longer free to enjoy the park without a penalty?

I think you have to remember that yes we do pay our taxes, but its not covering what needs to be done. Clearly. And whilst you crap in the toilets which need to be flown out (a couple more are chocka-block right now) and walk across the board walk you are utilizing development that is being struggled to be payed for. I think Tasmanian's have this idea that we deserve the privilege for simply being born here or moving here but remember if this your backyard then you should take responsibility for looking after it. And $80 a year for a family of cars will simply not cut it. If you do live in Tasmania either put up the fee or hope you get lucky with the weather outside of a proposed permit date.

I think this forum is a strong tool for action now with so many people signed up, I'd urge you to write your suggestions into the Parks Minister, Brian Wightman.

In regards to commercial operators, I do work for a company that runs trips through the Arthur's but we are limited to very small numbers and very infrequent trips. We are also not allowed to advertise either the Western or Eastern Arthurs in our catalogues. I think word of mouth and trekking publications have done a lot more than commercial operators who practice only the most tight of environmental practices.

[Marwood]

I was under the impression that Tas PWS came out of Tas funds, and same with Vic PWS, and so on so on.

But the state's money comes from federal taxes, true? When I lived in the US, we paid federal and state taxes separately. In the state I lived, access to the state's state parks was free for state residents only. But the state's national parks had the same conditions for all.

[corvus]

When I write to the Minister about Tas Parks I write to a Tasmanian Government Minister and get a reply from "same" so I guess our Parks are paid for by us as is the Minister ,does that not mean our Parks are owned and paid for by Tasmanians +welcome visitors
corvus

[Azza]

I was under the impression that Tas PWS came out of Tas funds, and same with Vic PWS, and so on so on.

But the state'sw money comes from federal taxes, true? When I lived in the US, we paid federal and state taxes separately. In the state I lived, access to the state's parks was free for state residents only. But the state's national parks had the same conditions for all.

Yup.. thats pretty much right. The SW WHA is funded to a certain amount every year by the Federal Government.

Also Tasmania operates on consolidated revenue, which means that park fees etc most likely go into the same big bucket of money as everything else to be dished out by treasury...
I doubt PWS are getting much back at the moment.

[NickD]

they are probably more paid for by our tourists who actually pay the fees.....

[ILUVSWTAS]

Very interesting discussion.

And thanks for those who know for the info....


I do support anything that is going to benefit the most amazing range/place in all of Tasmania.

[NickD]

I think it matters little where your taxes go to and who 'owns' the park. As it is, the National Parks you and I use are being overran, under funded and lets face it, we wont have a government that gives much of a crap anytime soon, so maybe WE should give a crap!!

With the forestry reform looking to have new areas locked away into reserves and National Parks people are excited, but basically none of the land can really afford to go into a National Park because we don't have the funds for it!

Anyway I also wanted to get an idea of how many support the idea in principal, not just a debate about whether Tasmanian's should pay or not.

[Son of a Beach]

its a shame to complicate 'going bush' any more than necessary.

I think that this one of the problems. One of the reasons I go bush is to get away from 'the complications'. Having to do paper work in order to enjoy the wilderness of my own back yard seems fundamentally wrong to me.

NB: I have no problem with people saying that we should financially support our parks, sure. I do that in a number of ways already. And I've never yet seen a comprehensive government report to say how much money they raise from park fees and other sources and how much it costs them to maintain the parks infrastructure, and what the difference is, so any debate around that issue is very difficult.

Again, I should emphasise that for me this is a matter of the heart, not a matter of the head. However, that does not make it incorrect, or wrong. It merely makes it a lot more difficult to quantify, or deal with by policies and such like.

[Son of a Beach]

looking to have new areas locked away into reserves and National Parks people are excited, but basically none of the land can really afford to go into a National Park because we don't have the funds for it!

Does changing the status of the land automatically require more money to be spent on it?

Or are those areas already severely damaged and needing repair?

I've no idea. Just a thought.

[weetbix456]

Surely a booking system can be put in place without an accompanying price tag?? just a thought..i would have no issue with setting a limit on the number of people who can commence the walk per day, but i'd imagine it would be hard to enforce?..theres no nice little huts up there for a ranger to squat for a week at a time. Also i'd have no problem paying a small fee as long as i knew it was going directly into track maintence/area preservation and upkeep of the booking system. I'm not very 'in the know' with these kind of things but yea..I can see both sides of this one

[NickD]

I think it does. Not certain though I guess but as it sits a lot of area is managed by Forestry Tasmania although I use the word 'managed' loosely. Things like road access will have to come from taxes (which yes are more or less already funded by taxes informally). Also I'd say that some of the new areas wont and should be not just be a new status but also need to look at how we can utilize the land to secure more jobs in Tasmania differently (such as new attractions) but I guess this is a completely separate debate.

I think your being over the top with your complications arguement. A permit isn't exactly hard work (backpackers who speak no English can get them on the OT) and if you can't be bothered with a little paperwork there are plenty of other areas in Tasmania!

Weetbix - I understand your concerns with where the money would go, I too share these concerns. I guess we can only urge for transparency.

[tastrax]

.....With the forestry reform looking to have new areas locked away into reserves and National Parks people are excited, ......

I am not sure there are too many national Parks Workers/staff who are excited - we struggle to keep up with maintenance as it is and in the last year we have lost quite a few staff - I just hope any new land that we are expected to "manage" comes with some resources.

[Son of a Beach]

I think your being over the top with your complications arguement. A permit isn't exactly hard work (backpackers who speak no English can get them on the OT) and if you can't be bothered with a little paperwork there are plenty of other areas in Tasmania!

This is exactly the kind of thing I meant by "heart" over "head". I have no logical problem, dealing with the paper work. It is about how I feel, not about how I think. Clearly that is not something that is easy to communicate.

[stepbystep]

The land was (and still is) owned by all Tasmanians.

Sorry man, this 'land' is not 'ownable' how's that for a word, was here long before even the original custodians were there, we are the current custodians, best not screw it up IM(most humble of)O.

Good thread Nick!

[Son of a Beach]

The land was (and still is) owned by all Tasmanians.

Sorry man, this 'land' is not 'ownable' how's that for a word, was here long before even the original custodians were there, we are the current custodians, best not screw it up IM(most humble of)O.

Good thread Nick!

Depends what you mean by "owned". The Earth is our home. Tasmania is my home. That's all I meant. I don't mean I had title deeds to the entire state and planned to sell it to the martians.

[stepbystep]

The martians might do a better job Nik My point was serious though, this is a very special and unique place with global significance, we need to be very careful with how we administer our custodianship of it.

Certainly not pretending to have answers, but I welcome the discussion.

Part of the reason being is the erosion I saw on Capricorn, not so much on the famous steps, but also the wrong turn I followed also how alien the duckboarding on High Moor felt after the 'organic' experience prior. It would be a major shame to sterilise the experience.

More thoughts to come I am sure.