WoJ Plan feedback to PWS

[MrWalker]

Most of the track is fine as it is, but the section south from Dixons Kingdom hut is not well-marked and is developing multiple tracks. So that is probably the main area that needs track hardening.

There is concern about tracks developing in the main walls area, so it makes sense to clarify the existing tracks and avoid large parties creating new ones.

We are going to get increasing numbers going through the area anyway, so it seems to me we should try to minimise further damage.

[greyim]

Things could be worse... pic Everest traffic

[Nuts]

That's an idea. $40+k per person permit fee? Let's try that?
Time's almost up, nearly 1700 bit player views..

[steveh72]

If the booking system comes in ( & associated fee no doubt) then I am just pondering

"what am I paying an annual parks pass for again?"

I am the first to say that tracks & works rangers etc all come at a cost, why not up the annual fee or if a fee comes in at least make it affordable unlike the OLT

For example I have 3 kids + wife which makes the OLT a very expensive outing @ $180 a pop

If the booking system is to protect the environment and not raise revenue then have no fees to walk WOJ as an online booking system should have minimal costs to run

I figure if I can book in online for a round of golf online for free up to 12 mths in advance then it shouldn't be too hard to implement in a cost effective manner

Steve

[walkinTas]

I think the question of a booking fee is a secondary question here and in the management plan as a whole. Actually a fee is not even mentioned in the plan, so it is a bit of a red herring that is sidetracking/distracting from, the real issue.

IMHO the real question is whether the walking community supports the proposed management plan that calls for a very specific hardening of the WoJ. If approved this plan will result in a single track from Wild-dog creek to Lake Adelaide. There will be new hardened camping areas at Dixon Kingdom and Lake Adelaide. The use of other tracks and other camping locations will be discouraged. Rangers will be on-site to police educate & manage compliance.

Is the single walk proposal an "improvement"? Will the track remain mostly natural or will the hardening be mostly duck-board or similar? Will the hardened camp-sites be similar to the one at Wild-dog Creek? The recent work at Frenchman's Cap might suggest that these changes will likely encourage more visitors.

It is a proposal to significantly change the bushwalking experience at the WoJ. Is this desirable? IMHO the extent and nature of these changes is the bit we should be discussing.

Could PWS perhaps better protect the WoJ without such a lavish plan to introduce a significantly different walking experience?

[steveh72]

Happy to support hardening of track as the environment would be long term better protected

The damage done by bushwalk ers to the environment can not be understated (even the well intentioned ones)

I just am cynical re booking system as this will no doubt mean fees

I understand that this all costs money though do a small fee is acceptable

Cheers

Steve

[stepbystep]

I'll go back to my first post, IF there is a fee associated with any booking system it can't be anywhere near the levels of the OLT. There are no proposals for hut infrastucture and the loop walk proposed to be hardened through the central Walls and Lake Adelaide is 3 days maximum and in fact can be done as a daywalk by fit parties.

There are so many options to enter/exit The Walls area for the creatively minded walker I'm sure those that want to dodge the fee can.

A regular ranger presence is absolutely necessary as is a well targeted education campaign for interstate and local user groups, a booking system(fee or no fee) is the logical way to do this, it's crazy to think PWS need to trawl society and the internet in attempt to engage with all user groups.

Maybe they should do as MONA does, just charge an entry fee to interstate visitorsone for the northern strollers

[Nuts]

Well, i'm still waiting for that link to somewhere with access to (now) 2200+ walkers- for anyone genuinely interested in public consultation with the very people who will use the resource.

Great post steveh. Where do the taxes go?, User Pays is alternatively a perfect storm or tedious reality for parks scrambling for funding. Personally I never liked 'user pays', I keep thinking that parks should have their intrinsic value recognised.

As it stands details are quite vague. History suggests that the things not said are as (or more) important to what change actually occurs.

The park service (by and large) have done a good job of the infrastructure and staffing improvements on the Overland Track wTas. In fact these 'on the ground' efforts they do quite well, i'd trust that the footprint of track and campsite upgrades would be equally well implemented. I'm not sure numbers couldn't be easily managed by simple improvements and staff in the area and for a long time into the future.

It's a shame to see permits and regulation included in a management plan as easily as measures which may make permits and regulation redundant. To me it assumes that this is an accepted management process. Improving infrastructure and staffing need control over numbers- needs permits (need local funding).

This is the model. Rather than support for increased general funding or support for increased education and informal control (to me) the choice is being made for wasteful, onerous administration and regulation that is at odds with the motivation that drives people 'go bush' in the first place. That's Crazy.. perhaps a function of city mindsets making decisions or accepting apathy for the bush?

As I said, it doesn't effect me personally, in fact fill up a quotas with the only places left on commercial tours... Close and restrict side access through the walls.. Head over to F'mans, do the same, iv'e been there Please leave Fedders for a few years

It's great to see the conversation, better still the increasing view count. We may only end up with what we are given in a draft plan and a bunch of assumptions but at least some questions may come of it.

[Son of a Beach]

it's crazy to think PWS need to trawl society and the internet in attempt to engage with all user groups.

Need? No, they certainly don't "need" to and are arguably not even obliged to. But isn't engaging with parks users the entire reason that PWS posted this in the papers in the first place? Isn't that the entire purpose of asking for feedback? What's the point in asking for feedback if they don't want to engage with users? If they do want to engage with users, then is an obscure advert in the public notices column in the paper an effective way to do this?

Or perhaps PWS are merely complying with legal obligations by posting in newspapers and are not actually interested in getting useful feedback at all. I'm sure this is not the case, however, and I think that engaging with parks users is actually the aim of them requesting feedback.

So if they really do want feedback, then they have to decide how best to engage with the users. If in fact they are serious about getting feedback, then I would suggest that actively seeking out known user groups might be a useful thing to do. Of course there's no obligation for them to do so, but if they have the resources it would seem a sensible approach.

I guess if they did so, then some groups would complain about how PWS are unfairly engaging with some groups and not others. Still, I would think that directly talking to a variety of known user groups would result in more feedback (and more awareness that feedback was actually asked for at all) than merely a public notice in the newspapers which are rarely noticed by anybody.

I would hazard a guess that posting it here has likely resulted in orders of magnitude more feedback than they would have got if it was not posted here.

(and I'm not just attempting to promote the value of this or another sites)

[walkinTas]

Well Feders is a whole different kettle of fish Nuts. Its way too dangerous. The only solution there is this.

Happy to support hardening of track as the environment would be long term better protected.

Me too, so long as it remains as natural as possible. Not a fan board-walks because it's hard to feel one is in the wilderness when there is a urban footpath stretching to the horizon.

A regular ranger presence is absolutely necessary as is a well targeted education campaign for interstate and local user groups, a booking system(fee or no fee) is the logical way to do this

Agree! As I've already said, I think the Ranger and the education should be an immediate first step. These are an obvious first place to start.

If PWS wants a booking system then it not hard to get one. A no fee, web based booking system is easy. Book a spot and print a ticket with a QR code. All the Ranger will need is a smartphone or similar to scan the ticket to confirm your booking (in your name, for your park pass number, for that day) and your park pass to confirm your ID. A few signs to say 'no ticket - no park pass - no access' and you are all set. And no ticket, no access could mean no access to the whole area - regardless of where you enter. Cheap to set up and cheapish to maintain - if a booking system is what you want. But (1) its not been adopted and (2) its for medium term consideration, (3) it seems to be the most contentious part of the proposal because it would limit access to the area for a period each year and (4) there is potential for people to ignore the system unless there is a penalty. The OLT permit doesn't limit access to the area, or to the track, it just limits the number of people walking the whole track as a single walk.

What about the proposal to shut down other walks in the area and to restrict camping to just the hardened camp sites?

[Scottyk]

This is the model. Rather than support for increased general funding or support for increased education and informal control (to me) the choice is being made for wasteful, onerous administration and regulation that is at odds with the motivation that drives people 'go bush' in the first place. That's Crazy.. perhaps a function of city mindsets making decisions or accepting apathy for the bush?

As the report states several times part of the need to have some sort of a permit system for larger groups is to get a chance to educate people before they enter the park. Large groups seem to be the focus here and I think the report highlights the large impacts groups can have per capita. In my opinion, having walked there several times it seems to be a sensible report.
I think we need to remember that these parks are not maintained for our pleasure alone. They serve as biodiversity refuges and so this is should be the priority over people who want to 'go bush'. People want access for their own enjoyment and so those people need to be managed. The more people, the more management is needed. Access is a great privilege and most of us understand that. If having a permit system for large groups means that they understand the sensitive areas they are about to access then good.

[Nuts]

Good comments Scotty and I agree about managing walker numbers, moreso large groups. I don't think it needs a permit system. People understand that they need a parks pass, i'd assume most have one/ abide by published rules.

[walkinTas]

So if they really do want feedback, then they have to decide how best to engage with the users. If in fact they are serious about getting feedback, then I would suggest that actively seeking out known user groups might be a useful thing to do. ...I guess if they did so, then some groups would complain about how PWS are unfairly engaging with some groups and not others.

I suspect that last bit a problem, bureaucracy is another problem - hard to get approvals.

I know phpbb can be set up to provide RSS feeds. What about receiving and displaying RSS feeds - like the RSS feed from PWS (and even the BOM RSS feed). As you can see WoJ proposal is advertised on their RSS.

[Son of a Beach]

Agreed. I just think its odd that some people seem to think that it would be crazy to try.

[walkinTas]

So just take the last two items from their RSS feed and put it up in the sidebar under "News and Information".

[Son of a Beach]

I'm not really the right person to talk to about that. But even if I was, that would open up a can of worms - we'd have to do a similar thing for every other related department nation-wide. I doubt that would be feasible. Then there would have to be permission sought to republish their works, etc.

[walkinTas]

I understand ! But you don't need permission - RSS is designed to give you the headline and link (Planning for the future at the Walls of Jerusalem, Tuesday 11 June 2013 12:00 AM). In Moodle its easy because there is an add-on module to read selected RSS - too easy to setup. Don't know if this is possible in phpbb. But it would overcome the need for PWS to do any more than they already have and bwa members would get the latest headline annoucements.

And this site could manually add that link to "News and Announcements" anyway.

[Son of a Beach]

I think that it would require several RSS feeds to cover the various agencies (nation-wide, remember), and it would take up a lot of space on the page to include a few headlines from each of several agencies, and that people would be not interested in reading most of what they post. The result would be that it was largely ignored and when something they were interested in came up, people wouldn't notice it.

If people really do want to see what PWS are up to and see every single item in their RSS feed, then they can subscribe to their RSS feeds themselves.

On the other hand, if it is PWS that wants to get feedback from people then it is up to PWS to find ways to make contact with the people. I'm not trying to suggest that PWS should post such requests to this site. I'm merely suggesting that PWS posting information here (and in other places) is not a crazy idea. (In fact they do post here from time to time about other issues already - sometimes in an official capacity and sometimes not.)

[walkinTas]

...And if you flip that coin you see the problem from the other side. Just like it would be hard for this site to be selective, and a lot of trouble to be inclusive, so to0 it must be difficult for a Government Agency to choose where and how to interact without causing offence or being seen to favour - as you've already acknowledged. Its not a crazy idea - just damn hard to work with.

[Son of a Beach]

No, I don't see it as being the same from the other side. It's a very different issue. This is a discussion forum. It is up to each person or entity to post their own information. When PWS are looking for feedback, it is up to PWS to engage with parks users to get that feedback.

Again, my point was not that they should post here - we all agree that there may be political issues with them doing so. But merely that it's not a crazy suggestion to post here (and on other relevant sites, etc), and that it would result in a lot more useful feedback that merely posting in newspaper public notices columns.

PS. It is my opinion that posting merely to Public Notices in a newspaper and on their own website is a standard agency action to take when they're either not really interested in getting feedback, or they don't have the resources to handle a lot of feedback, or they are being apathetic. Ie, it is the very least that they are legally obliged to do, and indicates that they're not really putting in any more than the bare minimum of effort that is required for engaging with people. This is not specific to PWS, of course, but it typical of pretty much any government agency any time (and not just to government agencies).

[walkinTas]

I would love them to engage that way, and would like to hear from a PWS employee about how hard it would be for them to do so. It is only speculation when I say they too may have problems with the whole "selective" and "inclusive" bit. I suspect that it is easier for and individual to post here than it is for the department to post here. But the department may not have a problem at all.

[Nuts]

A simple invite on the parks site? Not notices though- consultation/ clear up assumptions- address (more than minor) public concerns in a statement from time to time, not thrust and parry- cut and paste most likely. Be somewhat accountable!

Ground breaking stuff!!

[walkinTas]

A simple invite on the parks site? Not notices though- consultation/ clear up assumptions- address (more than minor) public concerns in a statement from time to time, not thrust and parry- cut and paste most likely. Be somewhat accountable!

I thought we were just talking about PWS letting us know about the consultation process - i.e. the invite to look at a page on their site. Statements from time to time (as you say, cut and paste stuff) - maybe, but they have there own site for that. Two way consultation (as in open forum/twitter/facebook discussion where you are subject to all manner of abuse and misquoting) - is a big ask - huge ask. Would require a very special person to pull it off.

[sthughes]

Do people actually browse the Parks website randomly to check for news like this? Do people still buy newspapers?
Why couldn't they just email everyone who has an annual/biannual Parks Pass?

[matagi]

Do people actually browse the Parks website randomly to check for news like this?

No

Do people still buy newspapers?

Yes (although not as often as I used to)

[Nuts]

Do people actually browse the Parks website randomly to check for news like this? Do people still buy newspapers?
Why couldn't they just email everyone who has an annual/biannual Parks Pass?

just for anyone not following the more recent conversation.. 'an invite (ie. to interested parties... bushwalking clubs/publishers/here..) on the parks website to be included as those who would like an update (if not an attempt at an explanation/discussion)' ie to avoid leaving groups out.. as has been mentioned.

Yes- simple notifications to pass holders would be better than just meeting obligations through obscure sources though.

[Son of a Beach]

Do people actually browse the Parks website randomly to check for news like this? Do people still buy newspapers?
Why couldn't they just email everyone who has an annual/biannual Parks Pass?

This is the best suggestion yet, for PWS to engage with the parks users and to solicit feedback. They must have email addresses for a large percentage of them these days, and it would certainly not show favouritism to one group or against another.

I certainly haven't bought a newspaper for a very long time, and don't browse the PWS site unless there is something I'm specifically looking for (perhaps once a year?).

[tastrax]

Why couldn't they just email everyone who has an annual/biannual Parks Pass?

I suspect because you would have to give us permission to actually do that otherwise it would be considered as spam. When you give us your email address as part of your park pass purchase we only ask if you would like to receive the Buttongrass Newsletter. You also tell us how you would like to receive the newsletter.

Capture.JPG (25.7 KiB) Viewed 6087 times

Spam Act 2003 - http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/ ... /sa200366/

[sthughes]

Just reading quickly through the Spam Act it seems to only ban commercial electronic messages. Are you trying to sell stuff/services etc. in Buttongrass?
Were the plans for the Walls mentioned in the last Buttongrass? I must have missed it (or not seen the last publication at all more likely!).

[walkinTas]

Why couldn't they just email everyone who has an annual/biannual Parks Pass?

I suspect because you would have to give us permission to actually do that otherwise it would be considered as spam.

I'm no lawyer (obviously) and I would happily defer to anyone who understands the act, but I think you'll find that "commercial" means much more than selling. It includes advertising and it includes services. It is spam if you advertise a service. So then you need to read the Competition and Consumer ACT 2010 to work out what constitutes a "service". It includes the use of facilities. So, is it spam if one were to advertise the use of facilities? Probably! What is the legal definition of facility? Is publicise and advertise the same thing? Can soliciting an opinion about the facility be seen as advertising the facility? Is there an exception somewhere that exempts government agencies? Basically, before you'd send out the emails you'd be visiting your legal team. These things are sometime more effort than they are worth. Which is why many of these things get tossed in the too-hard basket.

>>Do people actually browse the Parks website randomly to check for news like this? Very occasionally.
>>Do people still buy newspapers? Hardcopy - No. I read The Australian, online.
Would I be more likely to see it if it was advertised on this site? Absolutely. That's how I found out.

So what is the best way to advertise something like this so that you reach the maximum audience? Anyone know?

I think we need to remember that these parks are not maintained for our pleasure alone. They serve as biodiversity refuges and so this is should be the priority over people who want to 'go bush'. People want access for their own enjoyment and so those people need to be managed.

So the trick is to manage people in a way that is least obtrusive. I think it would be best to leave the area as natural as possible. I'll go right back to my first post in this topic - "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.".