WoJ Plan feedback to PWS

[Chris]

Don't often read Public Notices in the paper, but just noticed an ad in Saturday's Examiner inviting feedback from "public and stakeholders" on the Walls of Jerusalem Draft Recreation Zone Plan 2013.
All info from http://www.parks.tas.gov.au.
Comments must be in by 19th July.


Summary

The Walls of Jerusalem is a majestic place in the heart of an alpine wilderness. It is the second-most popular backcountry walking destination in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, with 4-5000 visitors annually, and is a favoured area for beginner to intermediate walkers.

The area of greatest visitation, the 3,283 hectare Recreation Zone, is coincident with very high conservation values. It is a very scenic area which has, to date, remained relatively pristine despite high use. It is also an ecological refugia in light of potential climate change.

The iconic grassy pencil pine forests at Dixons Kingdom, the only such extensive communities in the world, are a good example of the coincidence of high scenic, recreational and conservation values in the Walls of Jerusalem area. Fire is a key threat to the area’s values, particularly the pencil pine communities and the scenic values of which they are a critical part. Hence priority conservation management issues are the exclusion of fire; the maintenance of sensitive natural values in the light of climate change; and maximising the naturalness of the area (including minimising trampling impacts and the maintenance of high water quality).

Use of the area by commercial guided walking groups is significant and is likely to increase with increasing publicity. School outdoor education programs are also major users of the area. Both these user groups and some private groups can form large parties that can impact the experience of others.

The Recreation Zone contains more than 31 kilometres of walking tracks of which 6.5 kilometres has been hardened with timber or stone. Active deterioration is occurring on some unimproved track sections and campsites. Illegal campfire use is on the rise and, prior to installation of a temporary toilet at Dixons Kingdom, poor toileting practices were frequently noted.

The purpose of this plan is to describe management actions that aim to protect both the area’s high conservation values and the visitor’s experience. These actions include:

Tracks
Creation of a circuit loop. Relevant sections of the Dixons Kingdom – Lake Ball – Lake Adelaide track will be reclassified and upgraded, creating a circuit of track class T1 and T2. This allows a maximum party size of 13 throughout and creates a loop track option for large groups and commercial trips. This upgrade is a significant change to the present situation, and will require medium-long term track works (campsite upgrades, track re-routes and hardening).

Promotion of three types of Walls experiences. Once track and campsite upgrades are completed, it is proposed to promote specific day walk (to Wild Dog Creek and Central Walls), overnight walk (Wild Dog Creek and Dixons Kingdom) and a multi-day circuit walk (overnights at Wild Dog Creek, Dixons Kingdom and/or Lake Adelaide) experiences. The hardened side routes to the Temple, Solomons Throne and Mt Jerusalem will be incorporated in such promotion but other routes in the Walls of Jerusalem area will not be actively promoted.

Camping
New and expanded hardened campsites. The existing hardened camping area at Wild Dog Creek will be expanded and a new hardened camping area will be constructed at Dixons Kingdom. Another hardened campsite at Lake Adelaide is likely to be constructed in the medium term.

No camping in the Central Walls. Once these upgrades are complete, camping in the Central Walls area will be disallowed.

Visitor Management
Track ranger presence. A track ranger presence is urgently required to redress increasing use of campfires, promote Leave No Trace principles and to educate users.

Education campaign. Appropriate educational messages will be distributed at both a site-specific level and more broadly.

Large group management. To address overcrowding issues, from the 2013-14 summer season, all groups of seven or more members will be required to register to visit or traverse the Recreation Zone.

Web-based booking system. Investigate the business case for a web-based booking system for all users.

[Nuts]

Good find.. who reads papers...one day government departments will be forced to stop acting dumb, be forced to participate in the new world

That is all great stuff!!! How can they possibly fund that??? Oh.. I see:

Web-based booking system. Investigate the business case for a web-based booking system for all users.

[pazzar]

Pity about creating a hardened track down to Lake Ball (even if it is already a fairly clear track). This was where I would go to so I could escape the masses! No longer it seems!

[sthughes]

All sounds great, until the last bit. So basically they hope to sneak in another Overland Track style $200 a head booking system? Yay

[stepbystep]

All sounds great, until the last bit. So basically they hope to sneak in another Overland Track style $200 a head booking system? Yay

Without "class a" hut infrastructure any fee would be far less than the OLT I'd reckon, maybe they are thinking more along the lines of a permit like the rec driving permit for the APCA https://shop.parks.tas.gov.au/ProductInfo.aspx?id=181 which I'd be happy to pay if it paid for a ranger to be on the ground up there. The firepit issue is a real problem as apparantly are large groups. Maybe a permit system for groups of 6 or larger? Dunno, hopefully some PWS bods will come online and give some more info.

On another note I saw a photo of quad bikes at lady lake hut from this weekend, rangers on the ground might be able to react to these sort of things and fine the buggers

[Nuts]

Yeah. I don't like the permits and fees at all.. maybe that is clear Anyhow, it's not just because it is filtered through many tiers of (and needs its own) management or gets redirected or even because it makes life more tedious.. even escaping to the wilderness..

There Was a track ranger in the walls on a regular basis, like.. without additional funding. Managing large groups Can start by just local area regulation.. telling people how to act...

Permits and fees are just Too easy, lip service consultation is Too easy.. 'the public' let things slide Too easily..

[simonm]

On another note I saw a photo of quad bikes at lady lake hut from this weekend, rangers on the ground might be able to react to these sort of things and fine the buggers

Saturday was my first walk up to Lady Lake Hut. Awesome place. How the hell did they get quads up there? Someone had also lit a substantial campfire out the front of the hut - I just don't get some people. Sorry I know this is taking the thread off topic.

[stepbystep]

Yeah. I don't like the permits and fees at all.. maybe that is clear Anyhow, it's not just because it is filtered through many tiers of (and needs its own) management or gets redirected or even because it makes life more tedious.. even escaping to the wilderness..

There Was a track ranger in the walls on a regular basis, like.. without additional funding. Managing large groups Can start by just local area regulation.. telling people how to act...

Permits and fees are just Too easy, lip service consultation is Too easy.. 'the public' let things slide Too easily..

Haha yes I'm not big on paying for things either nuts but the area is obviously under pressure, do numbers need to be restricted? How do you do that without a registration/permit system?

The Walls isn't like the OLT in that many approaches/routes can be taken to or through, how do you apply a fee to someone who may just be walking through and not camping?

Anyway it's all assumptions at the moment.

On another note I saw a photo of quad bikes at lady lake hut from this weekend, rangers on the ground might be able to react to these sort of things and fine the buggers

Saturday was my first walk up to Lady Lake Hut. Awesome place. How the hell did they get quads up there? Someone had also lit a substantial campfire out the front of the hut - I just don't get some people. Sorry I know this is taking the thread off topic.

Don't be, it's my fault Did you run into the blokes on quads? Do you know if they stayed there the night?

[taswegian]

Sign of the times. Or times yet to come.

I'm one of old school. No fees, tracks very few and camp anywhere, light fires stuff.
Contributed in my small way to the present state of affairs.
I sure was conscious of my footprint but still left an impact.

Quad bikes. Just another form of transport. Replaces horses.
I was up there once with kids and was aghast to see guns and roo sections hanging in Dixons.
Rangers were flying around in helicopter and asked us about them and I saw later actually had caught the offenders.

I'd suggest anything that as others state is more than lip service can only be good.

Just needs to be effective.
I guess a couple of full time rangers with suitable fee structure could police that area with overlap of Pelion area of reserve.
Still boils down to actually placing a real value on our beautiful wild areas for what they are without any strings or financial advantages attached.

Thanks for post Chris, I certainly would have missed it.
(PS hows the Oly EM5? I think you did buy one)

[simonm]

Don't be, it's my fault Did you run into the blokes on quads? Do you know if they stayed there the night?

No didn't see them. There was no-one at the hut when I was there. I bumped into a few people on their way up as I was heading down. I know one family was planning to stay there that night (Saturday).

[tastrax]

Good find.. who reads papers...one day government departments will be forced to stop acting dumb, be forced to participate in the new world

you mean like the web

http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/ - article on the front page
http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/?base=31530

It hasn't made it to Facebook yet..... but that's on the way out isn't it?

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Tasmania ... 96?fref=ts

[Nuts]

No (lol), i mean here, places like this! y'know questions (and answers). If you read back the news item was linked in the first post..

Who likes permit systems? Surely the default is to try everything.. anything else first? Is it all too hard??

Why does proper track management have to now include:

Web-based booking system. Investigate the business case for a web-based booking system for all users.

Why can't it start with staffing and infrastructure already within planning & budget capabilities?

Does reducing impact need to default to a permit system, why not start with education and publishing recommending numbers.. (shouldn't recommending 'six' have been done long ago)... see how it goes.. these small steps are the way business usually moves forward.. small frugal steps.. no sugar daddy perhaps..

Why not start with getting a track ranger back up there? before asking for (lets not kid ourselves.. 'a business case') what will end being more money.. even worse- associated regulation.

Seriously, it shouldn't come from me (but hey..) when I brought this up 'there were no plans for a permit system in the walls'.. do a search.. it wasn't long ago...

Next up will be Frenchmans, then what? again.. let's not kid ourselves! Hopefully at least mentioning dissent may contribute in some small way (at the very least) to let things simmer for a while, at no personal favour i'm sure.

It may be seen as some sort of 'anti-park service' rant.. the truth is far from it.. i prefer a 'for-parks' rant..

....

The plan is being released for a six week public comment period from 8 June 2013. Your organisation’s comments are invited and should be addressed to:

1. representations@parks.tas.gov.au (via email)

2. Peter Mooney General Manager
Parks and Wildlife Service
GPO Box 1751 Hobart 7001 (by mail)

Submissions should reach the above address by close of business on 19 July 2013.













The plan is being released for a six week public comment period from 8 June 2013. Your organisation’s comments are invited and should be addressed to:

1. representations@parks.tas.gov.au (via email)

2. Peter Mooney General Manager
Parks and Wildlife Service
GPO Box 1751 Hobart 7001 (by mail)

Submissions should reach the above address by close of business on 19 July 2013.

[tastrax]

I might have to answer some of those questions when I retire

Most of the issues and many of the solutions have been covered before in documents like the WHA Track Strategy (way back in 1994) but they are seldom supported by the public or politicians.

http://www.wyatt-family.com/phil/parks.htm (no longer shows up on the PWS website)

I can tell its not a Parks rant, but alas, much of it has been implemented in the past and failed to get the desired results. Some folk wont have even heard of the past strategies (and failures or lessons learned)

Keep up the dialogue and get your submissions in.

[Ent]

I must admit that I am deeply suspicious of Parks and their continuous drive to "force" people into designated zones and pay additional fees. The issue is the booking system of the OLT and the fees that have pushed people into the Walls area. I have been asking people I meet on the track where they are from and sure enough most are tourists that either chose not to pay the OLT fee or could not get a spot. The problem is Parks is addicted to forcing locals out while hyping up an area for tourists. Nice that Parks again chose to avoid this website for making their plans known. Ghee, and to think they could email people that brought their Parks passes for negligible cost. Oops yet another anti Parks rant but sadly Parks is lacking in ability as ever to get their message out.

Might drop a comment in but generally find that Parks ignore any request so might direct it to the Minister instead.

[walkinTas]

The firepit issue is a real problem as apparently are large groups. Maybe a permit system for groups of 6 or larger? Dunno, hopefully some PWS bods will come online and give some more info.

There can only be two reasons for lighting a fire in a native pine forest - 'don't know' or 'don't care' about the consequences. I struggle to understand why the 'don't cares' go bushwalking (oops! - they don't, they ride quads these days). The best time to address the 'don't knows' is when you are handing out the required parks pass, but anyone can just walk in and get a pass, and you don't have to know and you don't have to care.

Has anyone ever been fined or prosecuted for any of this behaviour?

I must admit that I am deeply suspicious of Parks and their continuous drive to "force" people into designated zones and pay additional fees.

National Parks aren't for people, they are for the protection and preservation. As I understand it, the choice with the OLT was to either limit the number of people or build a hardened track the full length of the OLT or sit back and allow erosion to increase unhindered. Which would you prefer? There is nothing to be suspicious about, the motives are clear and unhidden. And yes, if you limit the number of people in one area, then you would expect there would be a flow on effect to another area.

The problem is Parks is addicted to forcing locals out while hyping up an area for tourists.

Have you evidence that any local has ever been "forced out" of a Park or a walk and preference given to a tourist?

The rest of your rant seems to be about choice of media. Parks used public newspapers and public websites. I reckon their choice of media reached many more people than this website. And as one always hopes with publicity, word of mouth did the rest. As for email, I certainly didn't give Parks permission to spam me. Did you?

IMHO being allowed to walk in National Parks is a privilege, not a right. Letting people in makes sense for lots of reasons, and besides, fencing people out altogether would be next to impossible, so Parks Departments the world over have to reach a balance. The one thing you can bet on is that the number of people wanting to walk in these areas is going to continue to escalate. That is, the pressure on these areas will continue to escalate. So, if you care about protection and preservation, and if you don't like permits and limits, you better come up with a better system, fast.

[stepbystep]

The firepit issue is a real problem as apparently are large groups. Maybe a permit system for groups of 6 or larger? Dunno, hopefully some PWS bods will come online and give some more info.

There can only be two reasons for lighting a fire in a native pine forest - 'don't know' or 'don't care' about the consequences. I struggle to understand why the 'don't cares' go bushwalking (oops! - they don't, they ride quads these days). The best time to address the 'don't knows' is when you are handing out the required parks pass, but anyone can just walk in and get a pass, and you don't have to know and you don't have to care.

Has anyone ever been fined or prosecuted for any of this behaviour?

I must admit that I am deeply suspicious of Parks and their continuous drive to "force" people into designated zones and pay additional fees.

National Parks aren't for people, they are for the protection and preservation. As I understand it, the choice with the OLT was to either limit the number of people or build a hardened track the full length of the OLT or sit back and allow erosion to increase unhindered. Which would you prefer? There is nothing to be suspicious about, the motives are clear and unhidden. And yes, if you limit the number of people in one area, then you would expect there would be a flow on effect to another area.

The problem is Parks is addicted to forcing locals out while hyping up an area for tourists.

Have you evidence that any local has ever been "forced out" of a Park or a walk and preference given to a tourist?

The rest of your rant seems to be about choice of media. Parks used public newspapers and public websites. I reckon their choice of media reached many more people than this website. And as one always hopes with publicity, word of mouth did the rest. As for email, I certainly didn't give Parks permission to spam me. Did you?

IMHO being allowed to walk in National Parks is a privilege, not a right. Letting people in makes sense for lots of reasons, and besides, fencing people out altogether would be next to impossible, so Parks Departments the world over have to reach a balance. The one thing you can bet on is that the number of people wanting to walk in these areas is going to continue to escalate. That is, the pressure on these areas will continue to escalate. So, if you care about protection and preservation, and if you don't like permits and limits, you better come up with a better system, fast.

Excellent post Steve!
Ent and co feel they have a right to go unhindered into these places with blinkers on. I support and applaud the good people in PWS that want to protect these places no matter what. WE are indeed privileged every time we step foot into places like The Walls, The Reserve, The SWNP or any other special pristine place we walk on this amazing island.

[Ent]

Have you evidence that any local has ever been "forced out" of a Park or a walk and preference given to a tourist?

The rest of your rant seems to be about choice of media. Parks used public newspapers and public websites. I reckon their choice of media reached many more people than this website. And as one always hopes with publicity, word of mouth did the rest. As for email, I certainly didn't give Parks permission to spam me. .

I assume that you have been keeping yourself abreast of the restriction on the OLT?

Choice of media is important. I would hardly think it spam being informed of further restrictions on areas that I walk and paid for the "privilege" to. Much better than encountering a sign on the track with the latest restriction. Innovation and Parks for communication probably do not belong in the same sentence is my point.

If Parks now decide that breathing air is a privilege not a right would that that be ok? Hang on someone mega rich in the USA is proposing that having children is a privilege, not a right, so the wealthy should be able to buy more "children"? National Parks are a social contract between people and government. Bit like the commons were in England until the Inclusion Act that resulted in lot of local hunters being hung when relabeled poachers by the lords seizing the lands. Parks is turning more and more of Tasmanian into a tourist theme park. Was not the Walls a cattle grazing area once, like Pelion Plains? How many Parks platforms are suitable for family sized tents? Big hint, I have a Katium and it does not fit on a lot of the platforms.

As I write the increase usage is being caused by accessibility for a growing number of tourists seeking to bypass OLT fees and the booking system. The plan does very little to address this. In fact with board-walked circuits it will make it a tourist playground. All I ask is people read past the aspirational goals and ask is the proposed infrastructure going to happen and be maintained. Hint, walk the OLT and you will find numerous examples of poor infrastructure management by Parks on their boardwalks. Sorry I am not brainwashed by aspirational goals, instead interested in who is the intended users, commercial groups, tourists, or locals. Maybe restricting the area to locals will reduce the impact down to ecologically sustainable levels. Forty years ago there was not much a problem and earlier back even less.

[Nuts]

Sorry, don't think you get it wTas 'Steve' ... drafting a management plan is ideally a component in the process of public consultation.. where better to consult the public..?

If that isn't the case then I suspect the process might as well be one of making proclamations.. (which might be more the reality)

Also (while locking people out of parks might be a strategy) access by the public was variously at the heart of the parks concept, is mandated by the parks act and forms part of management planning. This can be seen as a distraction... especially if nobody holds managers to account.

[Nuts]

Tastrax, I should probably wait until retirement to push the questions ; )

I'm sure i'm not aware of all the strategies that have been used in the walls to control impact.. good stuff with the track work and hardening and facilities that have been put into place in my time.. great stuff!!

that there isn't a regular track ranger is a pretty obvious question for the responsible agent when they ask us to swallow the contention that a permit system is now necessary to be investigated..??

[walkinTas]

Sorry, don't think you get it wTas... drafting a management plan is ideally a component in the process of public consultation.. where better to consult the public..

I'm not missing the point at all Nuts. I'm not sold on the importance of this site either. Membership here represents a percentage of Tasmanians who bushwalk. I suspect that people who bushwalk represent a minority of the public. So if you want to reach the "public" this site would not be your first choice, second choice, or even third. Still, if someone in the Department has the time (and inclination) to get official approval to use this site to publicise the Departments policies in the future, then I imagine it would be welcomed by the membership. I am all for it!

I assume that you have been keeping yourself abreast of the restriction on the OLT?

Yes! They were published on this website. Oh wait! How did that happen?

National Parks are a social contract between people and government. Bit like the commons were in England ....

Contracts are a two way agreements. They rightly specify conditions, practices, limits and costs. The Department would in fact be failing their social responsibility if they allow National Parks to be "loved to death" or simply used and abused to the detriment of the flora and fauna. As I said somewhere before, the argument about what National Parks are for is as old as National Parks. As is the discourse between those who favour tourism and those who champion preservation. My signature should explain my position in the debate. We have theses areas because they enjoy some protection and part of that protection requires some limits and conditions of use. What we are discussing here is what those limits and conditions should be.

Was not the Walls a cattle grazing area once, like Pelion Plains?

We used to have a bounty on Tasmanian Tigers too. History is full of mistakes. Just because it used to happen, doesn't make it 'best practice' or 'sustainable' or a good foundation for future practice.

Parks is turning more and more of Tasmanian into a tourist theme park.

By definition you are a tourist when you visit a National Park. [Tourist (noun) - A person who is traveling to or visiting a place for pleasure.] Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing that every current policy is fantastic. I am inviting you, for the sake of disclosure and discussion, to explain (to all members) where policies aren't applied equally to all.

Forty years ago their was not much a problem and earlier back even less.

We are never going to return to the practices of forty years ago. A little invention called the Internet saw to that. We have no choice but to plan sustainable future practice based on current realities - or develop a plan to radically alter those current realities. So, your alternative plan is to restrict use of Tasmanian National Parks to only Tasmanians. Well, you have an opportunity to submit your proposal and also to comment on the proposal presented by the department. Good luck!

[Chris]

Thanks for post Chris, I certainly would have missed it.
(PS hows the Oly EM5? I think you did buy one)

Yes TW - happily I did. Have answered more fully on http://bushwalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=11199&p=181376#p181376 so I don't stray off topic too much

[Nuts]

On the contrary wTas, it represents a collective of people who actually use the area. I'll admit that the site could be more... perhaps if the initial spirit of discussion & friendliness had been continually genuine.

Anyhow.. even so, consultation could be just as easily seen as positive than seemingly a 'chore' (and from what I hear many more people 'lurk' than join in).

[walkinTas]

I think the best you might have hoped for would have been a post something like the OP by Chris - but maybe for someone who works for Parks. But really it is a big ask to expect that any Government department would go around every Interest-Group's forum or website to give them a heads-up on every policy release or any policy release. It is probably expecting a bit much don't you think?

And where do they start and finish? Do they limit this to Tasmanian bushwalking clubs/groups and maybe other uniquely Tasmanian bushwalking forums, or should they target forums and websites with an Australia wide audience? What about related interest groups like forums of conservation groups, and maybe tourism websites and forums? If you are going to give interest-groups a heads-up, then what about commercial interests like businesses and tour guides, etc?

Wait! Let me guess, you thought we were special! ....and we are - we're very special, but maybe not that special to be singled out as the go-to place for PWS.

I was more disappointed that I didn't see a heads-up in twitter.

Oops! OT again. Sorry Chris.

[ILUVSWTAS]

I struggle to understand why the 'don't cares' go bushwalking (oops! - they don't, they ride quads these days).

Not that I agree with them, but surely even bogans have a right to go bushwalking whenever they want?

I occasionally get off my face and participate in bogan behavior. Why cant they from time to time be normal?

[walkinTas]

Why cant they from time to time be normal?

They can be normal whenever they choose (in theory at least ). Normal shouldn't include fires in native pine forests. And - big ask but - normal probably should include "care". You know, leave the 'don't care' at home. Why go to all the trouble and expense of going bushwalking just to be a bogan? Why risk destroying something so precious? I'm just saying I don't get it!

[ILUVSWTAS]

Neither do i, but everyone is different and I don't need to understand them.

If you understood everything about every other person, you wouldnt ever want to meet anyone.

[walkinTas]

You're right ILuvswTas. I don't need to understand.

[taswegian]

Any management issue costs $$
Someone has to pay. Tastrax and others in Parks can only do what their budget allows.
What the government of the day does dictates what Parks does or doesn't do.
Whether Parks exist at all is at the whim of (probably) the Premier of the day.

There will be increasing tension between those who think they have unfettered access to these areas by whatever means. That is now and into the future.
Lady Hut 4 wheelers is typical example.

Often we kick at the Authority rather than understanding or try to, the process and intentions etc.
Just keep in mind though there's politicians lurking who have 'more pressing issues at stake'.

This topic seems to have raised a few hackles, and thats amongst this group who I gather love our great outdoors. Does that say something and give reason to regulate?

[matagi]

Sorry, don't think you get it wTas 'Steve' ... drafting a management plan is ideally a component in the process of public consultation.. where better to consult the public..?

Unfortunately, not this forum. This represents a small and select group of "the public" namely bushwalkers who like to frequent internet forums. The views and interests of this group may (and probably does) differ substantially from non-internet participating bushwalkers and non-bushwalkers.

As has already been said,

if you want to reach the "public" this site would not be your first choice, second choice, or even third

[ILUVSWTAS]

Well said Matagi