Western Arthurs Permit System

[DaveNoble]

I think this topic has been explored before.

I'm not sure numbers visiting the range have increased. Anecdotal information from a few years and a few visits to the range is not really useful. The parks service should have some reliable data - e.g. from counters on the tracks, markers where they record bushwalker erosion, remote area logbook on Moraine K etc

Numbers from year to year can and do fluctuate wildly - e.g. due to weather, wild fires and other factors

I have regularly visited the Western Arthurs on bushwalking trips since 1975. Back then - some parts of the range were far worse than they are now. I refer to the huge piles of rusty airdrop drums at High Moor and Prom Lake. Back in 1975 there was a short rock climb on the way down to L Oberon - the same as now. Back then - there was no formal marking of the route - so the track (and it was a good track right through the range back then as it is now) was braided in many places.

Erosion? The tilted chasm and the other Beggary Chasms don't seem to have changed too much (if at all). However some parts have become much more eroded - e.g. a gully at the end of the Pegasus and the descent off Mt Capricorn. back in 1975 - it was was as the route guide said (an incredibly steep but fern covered slope) - now it is deep, entrenched, dirt steps, but with good vegetation still as handholds. It has been like this for perhaps the past 20 years? - and hasn't changed too much from what I can observe (but this is where the Parks data would be better - where they place markers and take photos from year to year)

Not too long ago - numbers were such to sustain a regular bus services to SPD. This is no longer running - perhaps due to declining numbers?

If a permit system was introduced - it could lead to increased visitation and in bad weather too - when erosion increases a lot. People who have waited for a permit - may set out in bad conditions just because they don't want to waste the permit

If some people's problem is sharing campsites with other groups - then there are plenty of other quite spectacular trips they can do where there is much less chance of meeting people - e.g. Frankland Range. There are many other campsites where people can camp in the Western Arthurs - away from the platforms if they so desire. I think the only place where camping is banned is L Fortuna.

On my trips to the range I have never seen crowded campsites. Most of these trips have been in January. I can remember reading reports of people complaining about a big party traversing the range (a party of 11) - but it was not the size of the party that caused complaint - but rather the fact that they got up at dawn and annoyed people singing loud hymns. This was back around 1980!

Also - a lot of the money for trackwork in the range, I understand, has come from Federal grants, rather than State funds - due the area being World Heritage.

Remember that there is a natural factor that limits numbers - called "Huey". Spells of bad weather (= typical weather) keep many away. Another way to limit numbers would be to close the Scotts Peak Rd. This would also increase the size of the wilderness!

Dave

[rucksack]

I have been following this discussion with some interest as the Western Arthurs is one of my favourite walks and I have traversed the range many times since my first visit back in 1977, (and my first visit to the nearby Eastern Arthurs and Federation Peak was two years later in 1979). I have to say my perception (and experience) of the track and numbers of walkers on the range is very much in alignment with Dave's. I have visited the Western Arthurs in all four seasons over the years, (admittedly some briefer than planned when the weather decided to be 'difficult', as we know it can be), and I have walked solo and in groups and I have never met more than the odd party or solo walker on my journeys. These visits have mostly taken place in January and February and the number of other walkers or walking groups on the range has either been small or non-existent. In one visit, with my university walking club in January 1988, we walked the whole range in blazing 30ºC sunshine and in those 9 days the only other party we met were three very stressed chaps from Melbourne who we bumped into at High Moor. They were very stressed because there was no surface water about at all and we had to lend them our 'yabby tube' and introduce them the delicate art of 'handkerchief filtration'. Yes, the descent of Capricorn is much more eroded than it was back in those earlier trips, but overall the range doesn't seem all that different; the platformed campsites have allowed the generally wet and muddy sites to recover to their present state, and now we actually have the choice of not having to camp in the running slush. And Dave is right, if the campsites are 'overcrowded', there is always an 'elsewhere'. I am not saying the numbers haven't increased, but one would really need to see the hard numbers on that before making any more comment.

For me, with very few exceptions, the range looks fairly much the same as it did in 1977 and I have never bumped into more than the odd party or solo walker along the way. I am visiting the range next week, as a matter of fact, so I will mull the state of the track as I amble along. It's October, of course, not January, so I don't expect to see too many other walkers. If I do, and have to jostle for place on the platforms, I will stand corrected.

I think the cancellation of the three times-a-week Tassielink service, that ran for a few years, has possibly made a bit of a difference too, at least to interstate and international walkers. That service only ran in the summer months, so if anything, it may actually have contributed to a decline in numbers visiting the range in summer. Again, I am only speaking anecdotally and one could only take this discussion further with the aid of some hard data of the kind that PWS may well have. For me, the range looks fairly well the same as it did back in 1977, on my first visit. The two ugly three-sided shelters that were previously at Cracroft Crossing and Junction Creek have long gone and the fuel drums up on Goon Moor too. The muddy capsites are no more, so, I think that, all in all, it is looking in better shape than it did back then, notwithstanding the obvious erosion on the decent off Mt Capricorn. PWS may well have data showing a very different story, of course. But until we see that, or something like it, I don't really see the basis for a serious argument at the moment, for delving into the world of permits and such like for the Western Arthur Range.

rucksack

[grantd]

Like Tastrax, I speak here with two hats, which are hard to separate; I have a Tas Parks hat but also an attachment to the area and its conservation built over almost 40 years of bushwalking and at least 13 traverses of the Western Arthurs (so have no doubt contributed more than my fair share to on-ground impacts there).

WESTERN ARTHURS – SOME FACTS

There is no data to suggest any dramatic increase in visitation to the Western Arthurs in recent years. Use through the 1990s and early 2000s was pretty static and registration data suggests little change.

It is important to note that an area doesn’t have to have increasing use for there to be increasing impacts. If use is in excess of relevant environmental thresholds then static use (or even decreasing use) can still result in increasing impacts. Broadly speaking, this has been the case in the Western Arthurs (& many other Tasmanian mountain areas) for more than 20 years. Furthermore, the relevant thresholds will be different for the different types of physical impacts that may be of concern (eg track erosion, broadscale trampling around campsites, etc).

User numbers are strongly correlated with impact levels at the less-impacted end of the spectrum (eg development of incipient tracks on alpine moorlands), so use management may work in these situations. Once things have gone beyond this early stage and an eroding track has developed then environmental factors are generally more important (although use is still relevant). There is both Tasmanian and plenty of international data and studies that show this relationship.
It therefore follows that regulating use alone in such situations is insufficient (even if use is reduced dramatically); track stabilisation and also changes in user behaviour are likely necessary also.

The only localities in the Western Arthurs where there has been any improvement since the early 1990s are where there has been some management intervention, mostly track or site hardening or relocation of use as a result thereof (for example, broadscale impacts at Lk Oberon have declined since construction of camping platforms in 1994). But this is only the case if intervention occurs in time, and even then any recovery is very slow (eg. platforms were installed at High Moor just before another eroded campsite developed but in 10 yrs revegetation of this latter site has only occurred sporadically, and at Lk Cygnus, where impacts were more advanced, revegetation is virtually non-existent after 16 yrs). In virtually all localities where there has been no management intervention (which is most of the range), there has been a continuing increase in impacts documented over the last 17 years.

In all this it is important to remember that, iconic as the Western Arthurs are, the impacts and problems seen there are not unique. There is a bigger picture, with similar impacts extant or developing in other Tasmanian mountain areas. Focussing on one area may not produce an overall environmental benefit (eg preventing escalation of impacts in areas where they remain minimal is arguably equally important to stabilising impacts in damaged areas). And debates about who is responsible and who should pay are not very productive, but there is/will be a cost to any solution.

[Nuts]

Thanks for the input g.d (and dave) (and rucksack) good to have your experience on here.

[north-north-west]

The simplest is a donation and I think if there was a way for folks to say "donate this to the track fund" then they would be happy. In effect its a voluntary "bushwalkers pass" over and above your park fees.

That, I would not object to.
While I agree that the various Parks services around the country need far more funding than they get, I'm not a fan of permits and booking systems for walks. Like Nik, one of the reasons I go walking id to get away from rules and regulations and *&%$#! bureaucracies trying to tell me me how and when and where I can/have to do things. It's almost impossible to go for a charter dive now without filling in half a dozen forms and signing away your first-born. I won't go through the same garbage bushwalking.

I had planned to hit the WArthurs last week of February. It was three weeks later that I finally got in there, after postponing it four times due to weather conditions. With a booking system, could I have done that? And what about lay days due to bad weather, or wanting to do extra sidetrips?

[NickD]

I'm afraid I just find those excuses about getting away from it all quite weak. No offence meant. You are walking on tracks provided by Parks & Wildlife and sleeping on platforms provided by Parks & Wildlife, in a sense this bureaucracy already has a control on where you are walking. Rules and regulations that have been put in place in a lot of areas of our South West are generally not argued anymore by the bushwalking public (with a few consensus). Ideas mainly based on Minimal Impact Bushwalking such as no campfires etc which at first people didn't like.

I'm not saying that a Permit System wouldn't suck! I spend more time out in the wilderness than I do at home, I certainly feel connected to our wild parts of the state in the deepest of ways, in so many ways the Western Arthur's changed and shaped my life to where it is now. I too would be saddened by the idea of further development of this trail, this is not what I'm suggesting, I also hate the freedom of it all being ripped away.
But do we just do nothing because we prefer it to not be inconvenient for us? Do we selfishly utilize the land without any cares for sustainability and what it will look like to our children?

I'm not sure numbers visiting the range have increased. Anecdotal information from a few years and a few visits to the range is not really useful. The parks service should have some reliable data - e.g. from counters on the tracks, markers where they record bushwalker erosion, remote area logbook on Moraine K etc

I haven't seen the data, but as is the problem, data would not be accurately recorded due to...why? A lack of funding.

Another way to limit numbers would be to close the Scotts Peak Rd. This would also increase the size of the wilderness!

I like that idea. Unless numbers to the area do decline, which is extremely unlikely due to its write up in Guide Books & various Trekking Mags the area will continue to feel the pinch of the footprint and the human ****

[Lizzy]

Unless numbers to the area do decline, which is extremely unlikely due to its write up in Guide Books & various Trekking Mags the area will continue to feel the pinch of the footprint and the human ****

this website too.... i love the info on this website but plenty of people would get ideas to give it a go after seeing all those AWESOME photos posted. The world is becoming a small place with the internet....

[stepbystep]

If you closed SPR a LOT less people would walk the area and come to the state, rather counter productive I would think. Having done several walks from several points along SPR I love that road and doubt greatly if I would ever have time to add the extra 3 or 4 days to a trip to what, walk the road or would PWS then have to resurrect the Port Davey track from Mueller Rd? More trackwork, more $$$.

A bit more an idea for elitists than those based in reality, or Nick would you propose certain 'groups' could get access to the road? I have also pondered that by proposing this question are you not more interested in controlling numbers at campsites so certain 'groups' don't have to share with others, and therefore dilute their expensive wilderness experience? Just asking.

Very interesting to see the observations of those who have been walking the area for many years.

[Nuts]

I have also pondered that by proposing this question are you not more interested in controlling numbers at campsites so certain 'groups' don't have to share with others, and therefore dilute their expensive wilderness experience?

I doubt it SBS (even though it might be a thought promoted by managers?) With a bit of passion and limited experience it can be easy (amongst peers) to dismiss the reality of a wider view:

In all this it is important to remember that, iconic as the Western Arthurs are, the impacts and problems seen there are not unique. There is a bigger picture, with similar impacts extant or developing in other Tasmanian mountain areas. Focussing on one area may not produce an overall environmental benefit (eg preventing escalation of impacts in areas where they remain minimal is arguably equally important to stabilising impacts in damaged areas).

I do like the idea of direct fundraising/donations aimed (by the raisers) at fixing specific problems (you mentioned earlier) though

[NickD]

I have also pondered that by proposing this question are you not more interested in controlling numbers at campsites so certain 'groups' don't have to share with others, and therefore dilute their expensive wilderness experience?

I doubt it SBS (even though it might be a thought promoted by managers?) With a bit of passion and limited experience it can be easy (amongst peers) to dismiss the reality of a wider view:



It's more about controlling the impact via limiting numbers & also producing some funds for the area & National Parks.

Nuts - do you think I wear my company badge on my heart? Don't put me in that basket and especially don't make assumptions.

I understand the wider view, there certainly is a lack of support for the idea. Doesn't mean that either is right or wrong, I'm just proposing that something is done. Better than nothing.

[Nuts]

Nuts - do you think I wear my company badge on my heart? Don't put me in that basket and especially don't make assumptions.

No as I said 'I doubted it'.
I would see the other comment as an observation (not an assumption), not really anything exclusive either.
Anyhow.. you must have picked up on how things are and even some suggestions? All good stuff.

[sthughes]

I'm totally opposed to needing to fill out paperwork and pay fees just to go for a walk. It seems we are slowly loosing our freedom bit by bit as each year passes. I'd happily donate to a specific fund run independently and transparently. But he buggered if I want to give more money to the black hole that is government just so 75% of it can disappear into the pockets of pointless overpaid beaurocrats. Besides isn't the southern outlet in Hobart more congested? shouldn't drivers there need a permit and pay a toll? Perhaps the Soviet Union's passport system was a better model? Make everyone need a permit to go anywhere?


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=-41.180303,146.323735

[RobbieG]

Interesting discussion. It seems that some contributors are putting their own wants way above the needs of this amazing place.

[Ent]

Hi

I see the day fast coming where locals should be given preference and lower pricing. It is common practice in Europe. I do feel that every year that I get pushed a bit further into a hole by our bureaucratic leadership always claiming the greater good argument. Well I vote in Tasmanian and do watch what our pollies are up-to and any polly thinking of further charging locals and restricting their movements will find them one vote less regardless of which flag they fly. The beauty of the Hare-Clark system in Tasmania is you can cull the deadwood while still voting in a way that suits your belief. As for bureaucrats, I have yet to be convinced of their absolute belief that they know what is right. On one hand they push tourism and the next attempt to lock up areas or price it out of the reach of locals. As for what is happening in Parks at times I shake my head. Simple basic infrastructure is not been maintained in many areas while huge works are been undertaken elsewhere in another park. Who at Parks is going to own up to the shambles that is Cradle Mountain visitor centre? Anyone wearing a Parks hat claiming the greater good is on shaky ground.

If an area is under pressure and permits are required then the locals should have first pickings at nil cost with no special favours to pressure groups.

Cheers

[flyfisher]

Perhaps trips could be limited to a trip every 5 years or so, so some folk are not doing a lot of damage but others are getting penalised for it.

Perhaps 1 or 2 trips per year is a bit greedy.

[Mark F]

Ent - Obviously the pressure group your are arguing for are the "locals" and you say "first pickings at nil cost" for this pressure group - then "no special favours" - I am puzzled by your logic! As a person who lived in Tasmania for 15+ years and has had family living there for more than a century, how should I be treated? I would mention that I first walked CM in 1968 and the Eastern and Western Arthurs in 1970 so I have seen the "before" picture but admit that I have not visited these areas since about 1995.

"You say that in Europe it is common practice for "locals" to be "given preference and lower pricing" - what, where? The only discounts I have seen are in the club alpine refuges for members of the alpine club that owns the refuge and perhaps members of other alpine clubs and I have not experienced any land access issues in the Alps or Pyrenees specific to locals.

You might also consider where some (much?) of the money comes from to fund the Tasmania WHAs and other natural areas in Tasmania - the Western Australian Treasurer recently seemed to be under no illusion that it came from the mainland states - particularly WA.

Ultimately there are two main solutions for all natural areas that experience over use. You can harden the area to cope with the demand for access (requires money and lowers wilderness values) or restrict access. In Cradle Mountain I suspect they tried hardening the area first and have now had to resort to limiting access. I would be sad to see the WA's hardened to cope with demand - it demands to remain wild.

[Ent]

Hi Mark F

In Turkey there are two prices. Locals and tourists at at least three natural sites that I attended. In Germany I often saw three pricings, locals, EU, and others for entering certain sites. Yes I spent four months backpacking around Europe so I do know what I am writing about based on first hand experience

No matter how you dress it up locals got worked over big time on the OLT. First we got clobbered with park fees and then additional fees for using the track and a quoter system that broke the common-sense rule of planning a trip around the weather forecast. If you consider quoters then first div goes to commercial operators and the next on first in first serve. A lot of local people simply can not afford the fees and the extra gear that might be needed if their allotted date coincides with say a massive snow dump. So you shell out for an extended family of six and the park is snowed out to the point that it might not affect some but not conditions that a local is happy to go out in with younger family members.

When growing up an extended family group could informally plan a walk and weather permitting head through. Now we have the bureaucracy of giving a fixed date and the massive cost of our normal park permits plus special charges. If you are planning a fly in trip then pre-booking is not such as hassle and you are already locked into a time slot by travel arrangements. But for locals it is a massive restriction on flexibility. As for definition of local. It is were you vote not how many generations heritage you claim Oh, and who features in search and rescue parties. Sorry it will cost X to a local to visit that area unless you are "volunteering" to find some idiot that does not believe in maps, compasses, etc.

As for money. Frankly, many Tasmanians were much happy before the OLT and Cradle became a tourist super highway. I saw a Melbourne "prestige" school group leave a trail of litter and ill-feeling behind while a group of local school students were are credit to their generation. As what has happened at Freycinet is ridiculous followed closely by endless stair cases at National Park. As for the stupid sign at Dove Lake that shows the carpark always full, I rest my case on Parks' efficiency and effectiveness. For generations huts and tracks were maintained by volunteers that loved an area but now it is money that drives usage decisions.

Trouble is Only My Planet Lost Galah posts about a new experience and the tracks are soon turned to mud and heritage values get sprouted as been destroyed. Strange it never was a problem beforehand Sorry but I am on the side of any local whether it be a Turk being pushed off his own beach or a Tasmanian tricked into paying even more every year on the promise of improved facilities. Brisbane was quite happy to destroy local heritage values and push a specie to extinction and override the rural locals so it is not just us Tasmanians been worked over.

Cheers

[Nuts]

It could be disguised under a percentage cut of those with a tassy drivers licence. Someone still has to pay in the end. Least those on pushies would be at an advantage.
It seems a pointless position to take that someone should be held more accountable for wherever funds go, what planet is that

This, however, was about the Western Arthurs and those charged with allocating funds seem to suggest other places need the priority. Nothing wrong with suggesting (as was done earlier) someone take the initiative to gather funds to offer for a specific area to be fixed. Any moves made there yet?

[NickD]

Hmmmm..... Nuts, I have been a thinking about this....

I think one of the big problems with gathering funds for an area like this (and let it be noted I created this topic) is that a lot of money gets tied down in a bureaucratic quagmire. It would be interesting to see an independent group gather funds for specific areas, allowing 100% transparency on where about the funds that payers and those who donate go to. Friends of the World Heritage?

It's more than just the Western Arthur's, there are areas on the South Coast Track that are embarrassingly bad, Lake Rhona needs a toilet, Walls of Jerusalem needs plenty the list goes on....I get the feeling I'll be dead before I see any of these problems looked after especially with the current economic forecast with looming clouds of closing schools and torrents of hospital budget cut backs, I think our parks are along way off getting any $$$'s and so the reason of creating this topic was to suggest a way to collect funds in other fashions...

[Nuts]

Good thoughts Nick.

[wander]

We have groups at most SA parks generally known as "Friend s of XYZ Park" which do exactly as you describe. They supply volunteer labour, they work with Parks to determine priorities, work detail, timing and so on, make applications for their own funds (there are often grants from outside "Parks" sources such as Arts, Health and so on that can be successfully applied for), raise their own funds (chook raffles and the like) and spend as they see fit within the gamut of the Park they are Friends with. The smart ones are incorporated bodies to protect the members which does require annually external audited accounts.

So there is a model of what you describe. There could quite reasonably be separate Friends of The Western Arthurs and Friends of the South West Cape Circuit.

But this model is completely dependent on the enthusiasm of the group and their ability to work with Parks and not be fighting with Parks. All people stuff that is variable and not always functional. But when it works it is good.

[Kozzie]

Heres a thought. Keep chargeing everyone to use tracks and theyll decide to make there own createing far more damage then some erosion. I personally dont want to go off track cause i dont want to damage fauna and flora so ive taken to mugging little old women for there pensions so i can afford to go on the overland track and maybe a tour(what is up wit the thousand doller tour prices?!? I can kitesurf overseas for longer and less) on second thoughts ill leave the little old women alone and just rob so tour operators.

[flyfisher]

Good luck, but don't tangle with Nuts.