Dangers of sharing harder routes with others

[JamesMc]

Sad news from the east. JamesMc

[ILUVSWTAS]

Can anyone name a National Parks service outside Tas which is as reticent about providing information to walkers? I think Tas does in fact have a unique view on the world. By providing zero information, they forfeit the opportunity to influence where people go.


JamesMc

Well said. +1

+10349 on Ent's PWS rants getting very old.

[wander]

Parks SA has been reluctant in the past (15 to 5 years ago) to provide any info apart from what was in the brochures they hand out. The conversations with them got so absurd ("oohh it's pretty dry out there, it's pretty steep, rough, rocky out there, we do not encourage people to got out there, why do you not go on this walking track instead?") that I stopped telling them where I was going for concern they would tell me not to go.

I've asked about water in particular and the answer every time is "no water there mate". But usually there is water where I am expecting it and I have found Springs that clearly run 90% of the time where Parks do not think there is anything.

So I can say there have been Parks service other than in Tas that do not want to provide information and actively discourage access to areas for no good reason except they do not want to be blamed if it goes wrong. So I'm sorry you are not unique in Tas at all.

There however has been a generational change in personnel and while I still do not trouble myself to tell Parks SA where I'm off to I have found they now often want to talk about where I have been to find out what is there or what condition and area is in.

I have also noticed the generational change impacting to (in my mind) the positive in NSW with current Managers being much more interested in what Park users want to do and how to facilitate this rather than simply stone walling behind a Management Plan than they were 15 years ago.

I have always found Tas Parks to be more than helpful and when I figure the $/Sqm they have to manage 25% of Tas not mention the watery bits think they really do the best they can to make purse out of a sows ear. Not to mention that other Gummint Depts will go off and organise things that impact on Parks Tas and forget to tell them until it's is halfway through. and they are constantly hammered by lobby groups from each end of the spectrum of Parks users or people who want to use the Parks (commercial interests).

Gummints and Depts stuff up now and then? To bad. Private enterprises stuffs up all the time and often with huge waste in costs or resources but the only difference is it is not subject to the same scrutiny as Gummint. Most people and shareholders would be horrified at the waste that makes Parks Tas and Parks SA look like smooth lean efficient machines of F1 performance.

[Nuts]

I visited parks in WA, SA and Vic last winter, where there was a parks office, all I got was quoted fact sheets.. pretty much what was available online. Going on the casual employees that are employed to give out such info down here I would think it's a good idea they don't go further than popular map marked tracks and universal facts. Those carefully crafted by people who have been around longer.

+1 on people using the term +1

[wayno]

maybe the parks have taken the easy option and taken advantage of the fact there are private publications on the track and expect people to use that for detailed information..

[Hallu]

Well it's true for Tasmania but in general private publications are scarce. Trying to find some info on tracks in Northern Western Australia or in the Northern Territory is quite hard for example. You can get some books from the 80's or 90's which are more novels than walking notes, but that's it. So hats off to the people writing the fact sheets you can find online. The problem is it varies a great deal from state to state. I've said it many times, but Park Victoria has the best website of all states with detailed info (much better than NZ's DOC by comparison). The worst one would be NSW : you can't find anything there but road closures... NT's website is ok, and for Western Australia it's mixed (the problem there is that you have great areas outside of national parks that aren't detailed). SA and Queensland's websites look like administration websites, and are pretty much a mess, although you can get some good info sometimes.

[wayno]

any of the oldies will know in decades past, often you just went out there into the void with little or no information at all about where you were heading and just took it as it came..
sure it doesnt need to be like that anymore. seems like thes dept deliberately want to limit how much information they handle. one one hand if you use someone elses information and you dont have time to verify it and something goes wrong with someone using that information , are you liable for the inacurate information, also do you even want to allocate the resources to manage the information... seems they just dont want to get into expanding the information they have at all. its not like their computer servers can' house the information and distribute it. just seems more a case of "we don't want to go there"
for the area DOC look after and the mileage of tracks they manage there still isnt a massive amount of information online from them.
they recently changed the free pamphlets they handout with the great walks, they used to be a couple of dozen pages, now its half a dozen and you have to pay for the older version now... unless you're lucky enough to have downloaded the pdf's for the older version, you cant get the old pdf anymore. so it looks like a deliberate move to make money from previously free information... given my tax dollars and hut fees helped finance that information i'm not happy.

[Ent]

+10349 on Ent's PWS rants getting very old.

See signature line and watch the movie on how to deal with bureaucracies

While there are dangers in sharing routes at the end of the day it is up to people to evaluate information in light of their abilities. I for one would not like to judge a person's abilities as I would either insult or endanger them I would have more doubts about my ability to convey the information well than their ability to use it correctly. Quality information is useful tool especially information coming from a trustworthy source.

For all my criticism of Parks I do believe that they should be the premier source of information on the land that they control. I fully accept that limited resourcing means a complete and detailed webpage for every eventuality and or trip is not possible but over time an accumulation of knowledge could be collated, maybe by dedicated volunteers? I have no tolerance for “legal” arguments of the nanny state not to provide information. Should Uni’s not train doctors as they might be responsible for their students mistakes? Hogwash is my view of that argument. All that is needed is appropriate instruction on what to expect, and in some areas it is anything.

I stumbled across a Uni report on an area that I was interested in that related to the history and this gave me a guide of terrain. Also it was fascinating reading up on early European visitors’ perceptions and their reasons for visiting the area. Even hundred years apart we share a lot with them.

I often use the term Chapman hordes a short-hand means to describe people more interested in ticking of bucket list walks rather than appreciating an area. Does not mean any disrespect to that author, simply that more than a few people use his notes in ways he may, or may not, have intended. I find his notes useful (WA are good notes) but more interested in just finding out areas and walks to explore and then prepare for anything and suck and see. Taken me a few years to be comfortable doing this as I built up experience from others in the group that I walk with. It is more fun for me to “stumble” across things than having a planned checklist (peaks to bag) to tick off. But others differ in their views and motivations so each to their own.

I struck an overseas visitor that was part of a social media group that had a dubious idea of the amount of preparation required to tackle areas. Personally I would not trust my life to those instructions and the devil may care approach of pushing members to the limits.

All said and done, and more is said than done, given the amount of discussion there appears to be very few rescues given the number of walkers out there so most people apply commonsense.

Cheers

[stepbystep]

+10349 on Ent's PWS rants getting very old.

See signature line and watch the movie on how to deal with bureaucracies

Given it's a movie and not reality and your rants continue unabated I suggest you try a new approach

Your repetitive complaints about 'Chapman's hordes' will undoubtedly be replaced with complaints about the PWS hordes if they had a complete list of walk information on their site. Are you not concerned about increased numbers in sensitive areas leading to increased management? Oh let's think of 2 examples, maybe The Overland Track and The Arthur-Pieman CA, but then I guess we've not heard you complaining about PWS management of those areas have we??

We are already seeing an increased interest in peakbagging and Abel bagging leading to increased numbers.

FYI it is my understanding the PWS website desperately needs a complete rebuild but they lack the funding to do this. If you have a good look at it there is heaps of information on it but it is an ugly clunky beast not designed for current applications and not easily manipulated.

In addition to this PWS needs to manage vast areas of the state on a shoestring budget. Frankly I don't blame them for not providing information in the public domain. It might be a good service if, when approached by a party wanting to do a particular route information could be divulged, this would require some lateral thinking on behalf of PWS, not something any bureaucracy is good at, but the last thing we want is anyone to see a beautiful shot from a remote area, download a gps route and set off. The SAR will undoubtedly see more action.

Somehow people still do remote and interesting trips by using initiative and enthusiasm and I'm also sure routes like the DuCanes are being more and more frequented thanks to the internet. I know my inspiration to go there(and other places) came from Dave Noble's website. I guess I'm one of 'Noble's hordes'....

[Azza]

I don't see why parks should have the onus to supply information regarding routes. Routes aren't tracks...

A route in Tasmania is often just vague guidance on a way to navigate through a particular area / feature. If your lucky there might be a pad of sorts. I couldn't just draw a line on a may and say we'll we're going this way.....
Sometimes its handy to have the information it can save time and hassles but at the end of the day if you can't work it out yourself then you probably shouldn't be there.

Often shared information is not necessarily the most optimal route, I can think of a couple of examples where published route information gave directions that lead to some unnecessary difficult rock scrambling on exposed ledges. I can also think of times when we've not followed advice and almost ended up in the same circumstances.
Often routes aren't necessarily verified by parks, and why would anyone risk giving out unverified potentially inaccuracy information to the public.

Having been on the recent walk with SBS - its safe to say we probably underestimated certain parts of the walk that were advised as being 'easy', in actual fact they were just not quite as the really hard bits... certainly knowing what I know now, I would not share any information on this route other than what is already available in the public arena. How does one assess someone else's capability to deal with the same difficulty?
Unfortunately in the current world where people can't accept responsibility for their own actions - in an official context you are safer to not give advice. Then you cannot be blamed or held liable for when it all goes wrong.
On the recent trip we almost got trapped by a river and we know of other parties that have had to be rescued from same area in such circumstance. If I was parks I wouldn't touch that one with a barge pole.....

I guess my only real criticism of parks is that there are quite a few nice tracks around that aren't well publicised such as: Mt Sprent, The Sentinels, The Needles etc.

[Nuts]

OSM is gradually accumulating tracks and I have put in the one to Lake Sandra on Murchison but not the one to the peak as I have not done that.

Cheers

Iv'e been onto Murcho a couple of times now but not Lk Sandra. Last time I did look up info for a circuit and saw a note on someones blog indicating where a track/ tested route starts? I'm not sure if this track was on an old map, is there a track?

Would there be any good management reason not to have this on a map: preference for spreading out, access to more 'dangerous' country (ie on a circuit), proximity to cultural relic, minimal funds to maintain said track with increased traffic, sensitive plant communities (some odd ones up there), an attempt to limit camping in that water catchment? I honestly don't know which (if any) have been considered .. just trying to think of the good reasons for editing maps..

[stepbystep]

Iv'e been onto Murcho a couple of times now but not Lk Sandra. Last time I did look up info for a circuit and saw a note on someones blog indicating where a track/ tested route starts? I'm not sure if this track was on an old map, is there a track?

Would there be any good management reason not to have this on a map: preference for spreading out, access to more 'dangerous' country (ie on a circuit), proximity to cultural relic, minimal funds to maintain said track with increased traffic, sensitive plant communities (some odd ones up there), an attempt to limit camping in that water catchment? I honestly don't know.. just trying to think of the good reasons for editing maps..

Doubt the Lake Sandra route was ever marked on official maps. I have seen mention of it being quite a sensitive area so probably best not advertised as a recommended campsite..??

[wayno]

the old NZ forest service park maps would show any track that had been in existence in the last few decades in the Tararua map i had in the eighties... i found out the hard way how many of them were overgrown or just didnt exist... and the govt topo maps were the same... you saw a track marked on a map you didnt read too much into it, you half expected you'd have to navigate and you'd pay more attention to the lie of the land than the existence of a track...

[ILUVSWTAS]

I

Having been on the recent walk with SBS - its safe to say we probably underestimated certain parts of the walk that were advised as being 'easy', in actual fact they were just not quite as the really hard bits...

what on earth led you to believe there would be "easy" bits??????

[north-north-west]

[what on earth led you to believe there would be "easy" bits??????

You have to spend some time sitting around in the tent. Which is about as easy as the PoW gets . . .

[ILUVSWTAS]

[what on earth led you to believe there would be "easy" bits??????

You have to spend some time sitting around in the tent. Which is about as easy as the PoW gets . . .

We DID!

[Nuts]

I thought they might have been exaggerating a little, then i saw his portrait photo

[ILUVSWTAS]

We had a few 12+ hr days, and besides the walk in and out, our average distances for each day was around 4-5 k's

[Ent]

Lake Sandra track from memory has a sign on the road. There is a well define track to the Lake but after that it is follow your nose. I believe that the track to the peak by the common way in is well defined but as mention I have not done that as weather was rather uninspiring when we went.

Not sure of the age of the track compared to the age of the Tasmap so it might not have existed when the map was last revised.

It appears to be well known by the locals as we struck a few there.

Cheers

[Azza]

what on earth led you to believe there would be "easy" bits??????

Stupidity?

Is all relative I guess and the POW scale of easy to hard, is very skewed towards the far end.....

[wander]

Most people really only learn the hard way that nothing is to be taken for granted (and that includes things like the OT) and more often than not it it the bit you not expect trouble from that gives cause for thought and effort. And this is an important lesson to appreciate before tackling anything more complex than the OT and SCT. Preparation and training (such as do the SCT before tackling the WAs) is good and required but never the ultimate answer. There will always be surprises and challenges. No preparation or training is just plain stupid.

It dos not really matter that people use Chapman or The Green Book or blog reports, so long as they do and do so widely prior to commencement.

As for Parks being the core source of info it just will never happen in Australia for several reasons;
1. Not enough resources.
2. Fear of being sued when people stuff it up and seek to recover expenses rightly or wrongly from the info source.
3. Land Management, it easier to slow the flow of people to an area by not releasing information. And there are many reasons why Parks would prefer to keep people numbers down in many areas for example spread of disease or erosion control. This impacts on point 1.
4. Once people access an area they traditionally demand the services provided be upgraded such as track marking, track clearance (pruning and such) or full track hardening work or provision of toilets. This impacts on point 1.
5. Parks role is really to protect the land for the land, flora and fauna that resides in the land and not to be running a fun park for people. I know others do not share this view but I am firmly of this conviction. Any access by people is a luxury and privilege and it is reasonable that it is denied should it conflict with maintenance of the land, flora and fauna.

So to some extent there is no point pushing for Parks to be the source of info, it is not in their interests to be so. The only benefit they may gain is by publishing a route this is the route that 99% of people will use leaving another route to fade away. But that process requires a lot of work to get right and get right for the long term.

Third parties are already marking and cutting tracks (for example Cockle Creek Walking Club up Mt Picton) or publishing the routes in books or blogs outside of Parks control.

[wayno]

its probably a tradeoff. parks cultivate shorter walks on easier terrain with easy access and put up with large no's of people trapsing over it. and on the flip side do nothing to encourage people to head for the back country areas so those areas can be spared the problems associated with high use areas.
the tongariro crossing in nz has been labelled the best one day walk in the world. thats if you like sharing it with hundreds of others and overflowing portaloos...
its actively promoted, nothing is done to limit no's they board walk and put in tracks designed to limit erosion. but do little to promote longer more challenging tracks other than the northern circuit. ideally you want less people on the crossing but theres no sign of that hapening, its like a sacrificail lamb to the interest of people in the area, spiked by Lord of the Rings., kamanawa national park is a stones throw away next door and that receives far fewer visitors or publicity.

[stepbystep]

Most people really only learn the hard way that nothing is to be taken for granted (and that includes things like the OT) and more often than not it it the bit you not expect trouble from that gives cause for thought and effort. And this is an important lesson to appreciate before tackling anything more complex than the OT and SCT. Preparation and training (such as do the SCT before tackling the WAs) is good and required but never the ultimate answer. There will always be surprises and challenges. No preparation or training is just plain stupid.

It dos not really matter that people use Chapman or The Green Book or blog reports, so long as they do and do so widely prior to commencement.

As for Parks being the core source of info it just will never happen in Australia for several reasons;
1. Not enough resources.
2. Fear of being sued when people stuff it up and seek to recover expenses rightly or wrongly from the info source.
3. Land Management, it easier to slow the flow of people to an area by not releasing information. And there are many reasons why Parks would prefer to keep people numbers down in many areas for example spread of disease or erosion control. This impacts on point 1.
4. Once people access an area they traditionally demand the services provided be upgraded such as track marking, track clearance (pruning and such) or full track hardening work or provision of toilets. This impacts on point 1.
5. Parks role is really to protect the land for the land, flora and fauna that resides in the land and not to be running a fun park for people. I know others do not share this view but I am firmly of this conviction. Any access by people is a luxury and privilege and it is reasonable that it is denied should it conflict with maintenance of the land, flora and fauna.

So to some extent there is no point pushing for Parks to be the source of info, it is not in their interests to be so. The only benefit they may gain is by publishing a route this is the route that 99% of people will use leaving another route to fade away. But that process requires a lot of work to get right and get right for the long term.

Third parties are already marking and cutting tracks (for example Cockle Creek Walking Club up Mt Picton) or publishing the routes in books or blogs outside of Parks control.

Excellent post!

A lot of bushwalkers seem to think PWS exists for their purposes alone where they perform so many other roles, I encourage the likes of Ent to read this closely, think about it deeply and gain some perspective.
One great service imho is the discovery ranger program, might seem naff to those of us that love the bush etc but it serves to educate and inform so many kids and the general public that may not be exposed to what we take for granted as to the importance and wonder of the natural world and how to protect it.

[Ent]

5. Parks role is really to protect the land for the land, flora and fauna that resides in the land and not to be running a fun park for people. I know others do not share this view but I am firmly of this conviction. Any access by people is a luxury and privilege and it is reasonable that it is denied should it conflict with maintenance of the land, flora and fauna.

So to some extent there is no point pushing for Parks to be the source of info, it is not in their interests to be so. The only benefit they may gain is by publishing a route this is the route that 99% of people will use leaving another route to fade away. But that process requires a lot of work to get right and get right for the long term.

This is a valid view and one I find hard to resolve as some areas are becoming damaged heavily by traffic such as the WAs and Frenchmap Cap to name but two. Parks are aware through studies of the number of passes along a route before the long term damage sets in and the number in some areas is remarkably low, woody scrub I think is the most venerable. Peak bagging points now likely means that every named mountain top has had an increased number of passes and this could be past the limit before long term damage happens. I just wish that Parks would publish these studies on their website so we walkers can get a better understanding of the damage that we can do. This is some of the information that I would like to see on Parks website along with times of year to avoid certain areas to minimise impact on say breeding wildlife.

My favourite park is the Walls area and I have long admired the solution to solving erosion on the Hells Buttress/King Solomon Throne track as stand out track work. In fact, until a few years back the park management was pretty impressive with willingness to leave historical huts in full use and largely sensible track work. Also, there are large areas of the park that you can wander over with no track work but the low frequency means areas are not been churned up into mud or covered in toilet paper. It combined sensibly hardened tracks for the “tourist” walker but still allowed for more adventurous wanders. Trouble is books such as Chapman’s means massive increase in foot traffic over the Never Never which has appeared (the secrecy of Parks’ decision making means this is only an assumption) to have been the catalyst for further spate of restrictions on locals’ use of the Cradle Mountain Park.

I see Parks role having a strong educational aspect and as mentioned do not have much regard for avoiding possible legal cases by the litigious. Parks being part of a government can quite easily legislate away frivolous lawsuits. As for not sharing information based on concerns of people’s ability and safely then maybe we should not teach people how to drive?

I tend to be think more these days that the best solution is to spread the people over a vast area rather than funnel them into a narrow area. Many of the paths/tracks and or just follow the compass ways have been used for many years by the locals with no great issues and only now due to the heavy tourism attraction push that they are being loved to death. Unless Parks has the willingness and capacity to either restrict, spread people out, and/or harden tracks we will see more long term damage from toursim.

Yes Wayno having seen the Hobbit last night I must admit the draw of the area but boy some of those mountains look like they would need some serious preparation before being tackled. I walk with a person that over the last ten years has been building up with guides to do the Grand Traverse (assuming I have got that name right) so tackling such terrain needs respect.

Cheers

[wander]

have been used for many years by the local

I find this one rule for the locals and one rule for the outsiders or the view that locals do it better than outsiders and variations on this theme (the extreme end of which is the call for a locals rate for Parks Pass) a little myopic.

I and many others (Chapman, D Noble just to name 2) visit Tas very often and have done so for many years and do not see that I am any different to a local wandering about the place.

I do not have any issues with Tasmanians wandering about SA and I am happy to pay the same price for an SA Parks pass as is charged for other visitors.

I pay tax in SA but so what, I pay tax on everything I buy when in Tas. The bulk of the tax I pay is probably GST and is Federal tax any how, so it is all a poor argument to use as part of the locals rate discussion, but I digress.

Now this response might seem a bit heavy handed with respect to the quote but it needs to be read in the context that the post the quote is from is just one of many, many posts from regular posters that essentially denigrate wanderers from outside Tas.

It is true that outsiders probably make up the larger number of wanderers that are in-experienced but so what? On the plus side they are holding up their end of the Tasmanian economy.

[Walk_fat boy_walk]

have been used for many years by the local

I find this one rule for the locals and one rule for the outsiders or the view that locals do it better than outsiders and variations on this theme (the extreme end of which is the call for a locals rate for Parks Pass) a little myopic.

Totally agree. As a Tassie expat I only get down there for (on average) one extended walk a year these days, but I'm pretty sure I'm no less entitled to be there than Ent. I'm also jack of the "Chapmans hordes" refs... Yes having read a guidebook is not on its own any type of preparation but to suggest the bush should be reserved for local "regulars" is nothing more than self-serving. And so what if they're ticking off a bucket list? Those of us who venture overseas often do the bucket list walks in those countries as they are the first, and often only exposure to that particular area. The experienced locals are generally friendly and helpful, not turning their noses up at the newbies walking on their turf. Be nice to be able to say the same for Tassie

[stepbystep]

The experienced locals are generally friendly and helpful, not turning their noses up at the newbies walking on their turf. Be nice to be able to say the same for Tassie

Don't let Ent speak for all of us mate, come twice a year

[Hallu]

Not to mention that Chapman doesn't sell exactly millions of copies of his books... There are no "hordes", just a handful of passionate bushwalkers... Besides, a lot of the walks he describes in Tasmania aren't the most popular ones. He generally focuses on long day walks, a good portion of them quite obscure (not for the members of this forum of course, but for most folks). The most crowded walks are the short 1 to 3 hour easy/medium walks, and these, apart from a couple of exceptions, aren't in his books. Not to mention the fact that many interesting areas aren't in Chapman's publications, so even if you still believe there are such "hordes", just go elsewhere. In Tasmania for example there's nothing on the Tarkine, the North-West Coast, the Bay of Fires/Mount William area, and nothing on the nearby islands (Maria, Bruny, King and Flinders).

[Ent]

The bulk of the tax I pay is probably GST and is Federal tax any how.

Correction the GST is a tax collected by the Federal Government on behalf of the states and theoretically should be fully distributed to the states so a state tax as from it states fund their services such as health and education. Similar that pre 1936 each State collected income tax and funded the federal Government. The collection is paid by businesses without reference to where it is collected or paid. By that, if a Melbourne Head Office for say Coles remits the GST then that collection is recorded against Victoria. This means GST receipts is more to do where the head offices are based than where the transaction takes place so hence a lot of GST distribution arguments between states are political smoke and mirror bun fights.

The simple fact is once the number of walkers in an area exceed a certain number of passes environmental impact is such infrastructure is needed or walkers restricted. If the number of locals using the area is below that point then the costs are minor but once that number is exceeded then who foots the bill and at what rate? Nothing like trying to collect money to realise that people get very sensitive about this.

When I started walking Park entrance was free funded out of state consolidated revenue but infrastructure was minor and apart from the OLT most areas not being known for much damage being done by walking. Walks to Frenchman Cap and Western Arthurs hammered home the damage that walkers are doing.

Simple fact appears once a route is well published (by any means) the number of people visiting it increases and there is a point where costs need to step up to cover this increase. A simple remote toilet is not cheap to build and maintain so once one is called for the cost to Parks jumps. It is not a case of not liking or being rude to tourist simply that as cost rises and money needs to come from somewhere, as unpopular this may be. All I am saying is tourism should be an income earner for the state same as mining, forestry, etc.

As for individual dangers of publishing remote routes I can find no breakup on search and rescues so very hard to say if overly ambitious walkers are a problem. Personal experience has been locals tend to be more familiar with the conditions so have adequate fuel, food, clothes and toilet paper. For the record I have happily handed this stuff over to other walkers so not a case of being nasty or disrespectful to visitors though I do get jack of the garbage left on some tracks due to it not being properly secured and rather annoyed by a particular Victorian school group trashing the place when a local school’s students were a fine examples of responsible walking.

Regards

[stepbystep]

All I am saying is tourism should be an income earner for the state same as mining, forestry, etc.

lol, you never fail to amuse. Do you think an interstate walker does nothing but walk here. Or do they swim to Devonport, hitch to Cradle and then teleport back to their place of origin?

http://www.tasmaniatopten.com/lists/eco ... butors.php