WoJ Plan feedback to PWS

[Nuts]

Oh &%$%& right.. I think I need a disguise

Allow me to differ I'll say again, releasing draft plans of management is part of a process of consultation.. (does anyone not agree?)

What more precise and substantial a target group could you find in one place for The Walls than here? Is the assumption matagi that away from here walkers generally want increased regulation and permits?

wTas, not any more special than the members decide

[matagi]

Oh &%$%& right.. I think I need a disguise

Allow me to differ I'll say again, releasing draft plans of management is part of a process of consultation.. (does anyone not agree?)

No argument from me.

What more precise and substantial a target group could you find in one place for The Walls than here? Is the assumption matagi that away from here walkers generally want increased regulation and permits?

I would call this group specific, I don't know about substantial. The forum stats show 5760 members - what proportion of bushwalkers that represents, I have no idea. Given the diversity of opinions in society, I am sure there are walkers out there who would be fine with increased regulation and permits. Personally, I would be quite happy if highly sensitive areas were completely closed off to human access of any kind but I acknowledge that mine is an extreme and unrealistic viewpoint.

[Nuts]

No.. I subscribe to that point of view. As with a permit system though, as a commonplace management option, I wouldn't trust it to tas parks (the institution not any particular individual)

[wander]

I think the evidence is (for example the the pic of the quads in this thread) that parks users are to be less trusted than Tas Parks.

[tigercat]

The WOJ/Lake Adelaide trip is a wonderful walk, if there is a need for more well supported walks and this would protect the WOJ, maybe this would be a good option. We remoter walkers have many other places we can go. Having said that I am very glad that I have camped within the walls and also at lake ball before these changes come in.

[Nuts]

Yeah, that is pretty dismal wander.. I was trying to avoid it as quads at Lady Lake will have little to do with permits to the central walls or bushwalkers (not that walker management is the only theme.. i'd encourage people to read the draft plan.. have a say if things don't seem right.. let parkies know what we want of the future management directions for our parks.)

Changed access wont effect me much personally either t'cat.

[walkinTas]

PWS have done what is right, fair, reasonable and appropriate.

[walkinTas]

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

I think these three measures are very appropriate and should go ahead even if other plans can not be implemented. They seem to me to be measures that could be implemented in high-conservation areas wherever traffic volumes warrant closer management.

[Nuts]

ok.. ok.. lol. I never said that parks should have released their draft plan on BWA ... hold on there!!
I do think that bwa presents a unique opportunity to access walkers (to my knowledge there isn't another portal with such direct access to local bushwalkers?). If the process is really about discussion.. consultation.. not making remote, disjunct decisions then it's not a matter of 'doing enough', it is obvious that the people using the park will be found here!!

The concept isn't that hard to grasp surely.. we see people come here looking for participants in surveys bushwalking related. There is no 'favour', it is encouraging discussion, picture yourself as a manager who really is interested in this process.. 'consultation'.. by crikey, you might even go so far as to make bushwalking clubs aware that there is a draft plan available for comment.

I AGREE, a track ranger is very appropriate, funding should never have stopped!
I AGREE, education is good value for money, the area is already heavily impacted, when was the first time you heard of number restrictions?

I'm less enthusiastic about this 'need to register' but fair enough, a chance for education.

A far worst direction to head is regulation, permits wilderness angst.. wasted, shuffled administrative money and a poor failure of the initial steps (that obviously haven't been taken).

Of course, it could be brushed aside.. oh, permits are a long way off.. we do intend them as a last resort..
It's no good moaning after the fact about policing and access, once these things are encased in management plans it's only a matter of time. Let them slide without even a second thought and they will become more and more the 'go too' as the only answer. Easy, clumsy, inefficient use of resources that funds the process rather than any real conservation improvement.. unless-of course- an indexed exponential raising of fees is planned...

[stepbystep]

At least the walking clubs educate members as to leave no trace.
There is no pinned, coherent information on this forum. If the mods feel this forum is such an important tool they need to pull their socks up and take personal responsibility rather than just whinge about PWS not directly engaging. IF the moderators and admin of this forum are serious and not just typing in thought bubbles they would have a dedicated set of educational tools already and would initiate engagement with PWS marketing to find a way of getting the info out as quick as possible.

I'm sure PWS bods read this forum but when they get ragged on continually including by 'senior members' why would they engage when all they will get is inane rants such as the usual diatribe from E.. and they would be stuck in a position of bashing their head against a wall, and in fairness I know of 4 members that are PWS employees who have contributed regularly on various issues, albeit not 'officially'.

We all get frustrated by public service wastage but rarely consider the balancing act involved.

In the time you've spent justifying the importance of consultation with this forum you could have(and may have) facebooked and tweeted the plan amongst other groups.
I have seen this plan shared amongst a couple of the walking clubs already, it would be easy to share to fly fishing, photography, geo-caching, bushcare, guiding, scouts, girl guides, outdoor ed groups etc etc etc

btw I have met many walkers that aren't members of bwa and don't give a hoot about it.

[Nuts]

Give us a break, my involvement was to initially point out and object to one simple inclusion in the draft... I have agreed with everything else...

They may get 'ragged on', not by me.. I simply have questions... based on observations.. i'm open to being Proven wrong, right or have the indifference pointed out..

Aside:

That the forum could be more valuable is a given, some people seem to now treat it with contempt, I guess they got what they were after some time ago.. Now it seems to come in waves.. we should be thankful.. but anything remotely controversial needs this process of picking apart peoples posts and sabotaging topics (im sure in this case to some parkies delight) Getting ones knickers in a knot as soon as member X has a say.. Get over that part, people express themselves in different ways, so what? You know people who don't care about the forum, what's the point there? Is it cool just to say so? I do too but bfd... so what? As hollow as it's now starting to sound- Encouraging involvement doesn't have value?

[Hallu]

I agree that there should be a registration/fee system only for large groups. It's fairly obvious that TAS park intends to do the same as with Cradle : some modern tracks easy to walk on for day walks, hence most of the tourists; a longer walk with a huge fee, similar to the overland; and then leave a couple of side tracks for passionate bushwalkers to cling on (areas similar to Barn Bluff for example). It's certainly easier to do than opening up the track-less Tarkine for tourists, which could help its conservation (by making it known) and imho could be a better idea.

We're discussing the surplus of tourists from the Overland track to the Walls, but maybe we're also starting to see the surplus from NZ. It's only a matter of time before all those European and Asian tourists hiking NZ's great walks and day walks (mainly Germans and Japanese according to the stats) discover that Tasmania is just as beautiful, with less people on the tracks. Tasmania needs to prepare itself for it.

Regarding walkinTas's comment, at first National Park were created to be protected for the enjoyment of the people and specifically preserved for future generations so they could enjoy it as well. The problem is Australia's got its own notion of a national park, unique in the world : it's not national, it's managed by the state, whereas Americans specifically created NPs to prevent the states from doing whatever they wanted with their parks (usually logging and mining prevailed against conservation). Criteria to be an NP are also very low : 500 NPs in Australia, against 10 times less in the US, with a similar surface area. This is so ridiculous that it's leading today to the "national landscape" status, to pinpoint the main areas to the common tourist... If Australia had done its job properly in the first place, we wouldn't be seeing this. Rangers and locals are complaining that there are so many NPs that not enough money is allocated to each of them. I discussed this with a tour guide at François Péron and he thought it was ridiculous that it would get to this. Australia needs LESS national parks. A more drastic selection could prevent this. But it would need such a huge reform that it's impossible nowadays. So we have to create this "national landscape", link some parks, and try to make sense out of it.

[stepbystep]

Nuts, you were the one banging on about the importance of this forum, it's a bit part player, fullstop. I simply pointed out many bushwalkers don't read it.

A lot of people don't get into the discussions here because a lot of threads seem to be dominated by people that don't even seem to go bushwalking and frankly the threads are dull. No idea what you are talking about 'thread sabotage' WT *$&#? bfd! Are you talking about me or you?

Back on topic, there was a 3 minute story on this subject on ABC radio tonight with contributions from respected bushwalking sources, no one consulted the mods of this forum I note.

[Nuts]

yes, well, as I said, any hope of supporting the importance of the forum Was starting to sound hollow the more I get involved.. what can I say, it's a rare occasion I feel strongly about park issues these days.. especially enough to bother arguing with a pleb. I don't tweet and f'book seems more for lunchbox heros..

hmmm, maybe I can save some bandwidth by addressing these directly:

Nuts, you were the one banging on about the importance of this forum, it's a bit part player, fullstop. I simply pointed out many bushwalkers don't read it.

Ok, perhaps it comes across that way.. supporting the use that could be made of the forum. Perhaps there is another single source of equal relevance?

A lot of people don't get into the discussions here because a lot of threads seem to be dominated by people that don't even seem to go bushwalking and .

Could you be more specific? Who? Which Thread? I don't know you, you started walking when you came on here yes? my bushwalking days might have seen their best by then.. are you talking about me? I can see how it seems that way tbh so perhaps there is a lot that you don't know or haven't been told? I'd hate to bore anyone with it, pm perhaps.. (if not me then i'll take a breath and remember that I don't know you either)


frankly the threads are dull whose? where? what a snob I picture you/perhaps others sitting around droning about how much better you could do...? That must be riveting

Back on topic, there was a 3 minute story on this subject on ABC radio tonight with contributions from respected bushwalking sources, no one consulted the mods of this forum I note.

Well I hope they asked the right questions... of those right people. Maybe you could enlighten us of what Hobart walkers want for our Walls then? So your posts really do come back on topic and all..

[north-north-west]

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?

They can bushwalk to their heart's content. But only if they leave the boganish behaviour behind.

[stepbystep]

yes, well, as I said, any hope of supporting the importance of the forum Was starting to sound hollow the more I get involved.. what can I say, it's a rare occasion I feel strongly about something these days.. I don't tweet and f'book seems more for lunchbox heros..

hmmm, maybe I can save some bandwidth by addressing these directly:

Nuts, you were the one banging on about the importance of this forum, it's a bit part player, fullstop. I simply pointed out many bushwalkers don't read it.

Ok, perhaps it comes across that way.. supporting the use that could be made of the forum. Perhaps there is another single source of equal relevance?

No there is not, that's my point, if you engaged with other social media you would understand this.

A lot of people don't get into the discussions here because a lot of threads seem to be dominated by people that don't even seem to go bushwalking and .

Could you be more specific? Who? Which Thread? I don't know you, you started walking when you came on here yes? my bushwalking days might have seen their best by then.. are you talking about me? I can see how it seems that way tbh so perhaps there is a lot that you don't know or haven't been told? I'd hate to bore anyone with it, pm perhaps.. (if not me then i'll take a breath and remember that I don't know you either)

No, personal references are against the rules. I grew up in the bush nuts, we didn't call it 'bushwalking', we called it living, I explored the Darling Ranges, SW WA and the Murchison as a young fella. I started 'bushwalking' when I came to Tasmania 7 years ago. Enough of the jingoistic bs please, my outdoor life didn't start when I signed up to this forum.

frankly the threads are dull whose? where? what a snob I picture you/perhaps others sitting around droning about how much better you could do...? That must be riveting

Dude I don't picture you at all, you need to get out more! I'm sorry but repeated threads about porridge is dull to those of us that want to see images and reports from new areas or interesting discussions.

Back on topic, there was a 3 minute story on this subject on ABC radio tonight with contributions from respected bushwalking sources, no one consulted the mods of this forum I note.

Well I hope they asked the right questions... of those right people. Maybe you could enlighten us of what Hobart walkers want for our Walls then? So your posts really do come back on topic and all..

More jingoistic bs perhaps you and Brett should erect a fence?

[Hallu]

lol even though I don't read them, topics about porridges, "regularity" and if your pets like to watch you pack your gear are part of the weird folklore of this forum. It's pointless yet necessary.

[Nuts]

yes, well, as I said, any hope of supporting the importance of the forum Was starting to sound hollow the more I get involved.. what can I say, it's a rare occasion I feel strongly about something these days.. I don't tweet and f'book seems more for lunchbox heros..

hmmm, maybe I can save some bandwidth by addressing these directly:

Nuts, you were the one banging on about the importance of this forum, it's a bit part player, fullstop. I simply pointed out many bushwalkers don't read it.

Ok, perhaps it comes across that way.. supporting the use that could be made of the forum. Perhaps there is another single source of equal relevance?

No there is not, that's my point, if you engaged with other social media you would understand this.

Riiight... and, so..

A lot of people don't get into the discussions here because a lot of threads seem to be dominated by people that don't even seem to go bushwalking and .

Could you be more specific? Who? Which Thread? I don't know you, you started walking when you came on here yes? my bushwalking days might have seen their best by then.. are you talking about me? I can see how it seems that way tbh so perhaps there is a lot that you don't know or haven't been told? I'd hate to bore anyone with it, pm perhaps.. (if not me then i'll take a breath and remember that I don't know you either)

No, personal references are against the rules. I grew up in the bush nuts, we didn't call it 'bushwalking', we called it living, I explored the Darling Ranges, SW WA and the Murchison as a young fella. I started 'bushwalking' when I came to Tasmania 7 years ago. Enough of the jingoistic bs please, my outdoor life didn't start when I signed up to this forum.

That's great, now i know something about you, good stuff (great country the parts iv'e seen).. now..Ok...Let's say we forget the rules for a moment... i'm still intrigued..

frankly the threads are dull whose? where? what a snob I picture you/perhaps others sitting around droning about how much better you could do...? That must be riveting

Dude I don't picture you at all, you need to get out more! I'm sorry but repeated threads about porridge is dull to those of us that want to see images and reports from new areas or interesting discussions.

Well i'd always agree with that, I should get out more... I don't agree that all those posts are necessarily 'dull'.. then..I don't read them all..

Back on topic, there was a 3 minute story on this subject on ABC radio tonight with contributions from respected bushwalking sources, no one consulted the mods of this forum I note.

Well I hope they asked the right questions... of those right people. Maybe you could enlighten us of what Hobart walkers want for our Walls then? So your posts really do come back on topic and all..

More jingoistic bs perhaps you and Brett should erect a fence?

Whats with that? I thought it was a reasonable question... under the circumstances

[doogs]

Ermahgerd. we are back to the usual *&^%$#! of "we want tourism to be our main income in this state" but "we don't want to build new pay per walk tracks". for *&^%$# sake if it brings money into the state while providing jobs and helping to preserve a beautiful area (which is going to suffer if a purpose build track isn't put in place). Plus the knock on effects will be also be felt in the local communities such as Deloraine. I think if managed well it's a great idea.

[stepbystep]

I've run out of colours and motivation nuts, I'll sort out a link to the radio piece tomorrow, you'll enjoy it, even if it was 'southerners' commenting....

[Nuts]

If it is good discussion then that would be great sbs.
How does charging a fee and requiring permits bring in more tourists doogs? : ? (you don't Have to swear, it upsets my doggie)

[doogs]

How does charging a fee and requiring permits bring in more tourists doogs? : ?

It works on the Overland track, which people enjoy, so why not offer them something to come back to the state for? Surely repeat customers is what most businesses rely on for success?

[Nuts]

Let's suppose that the permit system barely sustains it's own administration on the OLT..

[doogs]

Let's suppose that the permit system barely sustains it's own administration on the OLT..

If you like, but the good folk who walk the OLT don't just spend their money on permits for the track, there are small communities that rely on the tourist dollar at both ends of the track. Why not spread the love to other communities? It is not just about Parks, it is about the wider economy of the state..

[walkinTas]

And there is the rub! Balancing the need to survive as a society and make money with the desire to preserve and protect these areas so they are there for future generations.

[Hallu]

The Tassie government and Tassie in general hasn't really a pro-tourist policy I'm afraid. The promotion of Tasmania outside of Australia is so poor it can only come from a voluntary policy for being that way. Tassie rivals NZ for scenery, and surpasses it for wildlife (by miles). So if promoting were adequate, the tourism industry in Tassie could be immensely more developed. It doesn't need that many more developed tracks or multi-day hikes. It's got everything already. Hotels and B&B are also far from full capacity as I'm sure we can all admit.

I don't know why everybody seems to be struggling to find new touristy things to develop in Tassie while an easier way to go it to present it well and right to potential European, Asian and American tourists... I always take this example, but Kangaroo Island has rubbish roads, un-special walking tracks, every attraction has a steep fee attached to it, hotels/fuel are too expensive, and yet it's advertised ad nauseam every time you see a general clip or book about Australia... It's like Tassie is afraid to admit it's got amongst the best beaches, mountains and wildlife in the world, cheap accommodation and great food, afraid to become as touristy as NZ... It's probably also linked to the fact that talking to Tasmanians, and looking at it, you still feel that insular isolation, that fear of the stranger. And having Tassie Parks general policy being decided by the state only accentuates this problem.

[Peaksnik]

It seems like an excellent plan. I'm a tourist, not a Tasmanian local, who has visited WoJ on four trips over the past three years. I keep going back because it really is something special and I applaud the goal to keep it that way. I don't walk with commercial operators but when I visit from Queensland to walk I do put money into the local economy.

[Nuts]

There seems to be this 'faith'.. enough to hand over the ability to simply fix overuse by regulation & permit..

Creating onerous permit systems just so the meagre staff increase has a set of 'rules' to enforce is just failure (to me). Maybe if I could imagine parks (generally.. not as individuals) making the most of what they have I might think differently... Maybe properly funded in the first instance rather than chasing associated $s.. (If they are dabbling in business... grants require accountability..)

But then there would probably be little need for permits.. staff would already be out in enough numbers to have a presence... In this particular case 'enough numbers' could obviously be swapped for 'at all'..

[tastrax]

All these discussions are great folks so I hope you take the time to send in a submission detailing your desires and aspirations for the area as well as any alternate solutions.

so just to reiterate.... there is 5 weeks to go before the deadline

Walls of Jerusalem National Park Recreation Zone Plan 2013 – Release for comment

The Parks and Wildlife Service is seeking feedback from the public and stakeholders on the Walls of Jerusalem Draft Recreation Zone Plan 2013 (downloadable from http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/?base=31595).

The ‘Walls’ is the second-most popular backcountry walking destination in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, with about 4,500 visitors each year. Walking in this scenic alpine wilderness is one of the best walking experiences Tasmania has to offer. The plan details strategies for the next five to ten years that aim to protect both the area’s high conservation values and the visitor experience.

The plan has been 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) or

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 draft plan looks at the core issues facing the Walls and proposes a strategy to combat problems and improve the experience. Parks is interested in walkers’ views on how the area should be managed and we encourage dialogue, including any alternative suggestions for managing the increasing visitor pressure, on this forum and via the public comment process on the plan.

[Chris]

All these discussions are great folks so I hope you take the time to send in a submission detailing your desires and aspirations for the area as well as any alternate solutions.

Thanks for the reminder about the original purpose for starting this topic tastrax. I'm finding it very sad to see how often topics on this forum move from civilized discussion to personal abuse.