Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area Management Plan

[tastrax]

Hi Folks,

The new draft plan is a huge 100Mb download so I have made a copy of the Executive summary to at least give you a glimpse of the document.



Full downloads from here
http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/conservation/t ... gementPlan

[tastrax]

MMMmmm - Personal powered watercraft (Jetskis) - Permitted in Port Davey (excluding Bathurst Channel and the Davey River) and Macquarie Harbour (excluding the Gordon River) within the Motorised Vessel Overlay. This and a strange "Recreation Zone" around the waters edge of Port Davey has me a little confused.

[stepbystep]

The anti-protest laws will be tested Phil. Last years 'shirtfront' from UNESCO has taught them nothing.

[tastrax]

In theory, they have always been allowed as they are motorised vessels but making all the shoreline a recreation zone (?) I suppose it is to allow them to land on the beaches and elsewhere to dine on fine wines and salmon. Of course all the Overland huts are in Recreation Zones as well so anything is possible.

[stepbystep]

In theory, they have always been allowed as they are motorised vessels but making all the shoreline a recreation zone (?) I suppose it is to allow them to land on the beaches and elsewhere to dine on fine wines and salmon. Of course all the Overland huts are in Recreation Zones as well so anything is possible.

Lake Judd and the New River Lagoon are in their sights also...

[tastrax]

6.8
Overnight, vessel-based accommodation of up to 24 berths per vessel is permitted within the Motorised Vessel Overlay on the Gordon River, Macquarie Harbour and Port Davey-Bathurst Harbour. Any operation above Zone 1 on the Gordon River would need to demonstrate that it meets the sustainable carrying capacity of Zone 2 and/or Zone 3 with regard to the passage of the vessel and any associated support vessels. Zone 3 is currently very close to the carrying capacity limit and any assessment may restrict the use of this zone to only limited passage prior to and following peak season to allow for usage within Zone 4; and

To allow for the development of a commercial overnight walk experience in the Cradle Mountain/Barn Bluff region, provision of appropriate accommodation is allowed for in the vicinity of Lake Rodway within the Recreation Zone. The accommodation may be connected to the Lake Rodway Track by an access track that is up to T1 standard.

[tastrax]

Oh no - unlimited floatplane landings Port Davey and Bathurst Harbour plus limited landings in other places

Choppers at Lake Petrach, Fury Gorge, Frankland Range!

[stepbystep]

Conservation groups are mobilising. This won't stand.

Anybody with really beautiful high res images of the New River Lagoon please contact me if you'd like to help stop development in that place.

[Thornbill]

Doing away with the concept of "wilderness" is worrying.

Also, I'm missing why we can't have sensible developments on the edges of the WHA? Plenty of amazing, accessible places to choose from

[Eljimberino]

I see that the alterations are being put forward by the state government for the federal minister to consider. If the federal minister accepts the changes, which body then must sign off on it? The UN world heritage council?


Ride On

[Scottyk]

In theory, they have always been allowed as they are motorised vessels but making all the shoreline a recreation zone (?) I suppose it is to allow them to land on the beaches and elsewhere to dine on fine wines and salmon. Of course all the Overland huts are in Recreation Zones as well so anything is possible.

Lake Judd and the New River Lagoon are in their sights also...

What are they planning for Lake Judd I wonder?

The problem with all the area on the edge of the WHA is that you keep getting views of these large areas of patchwork clear fell, it's terribly unsightly, all that mess. If we just stop calling it wilderness maybe no one will notice that fact that we have sold it to greedy developers who don't like the view of clear fell moonscapes.

The term "selling the farm" comes to mind.

[tastrax]

Lake Judd gets limited floatplane landings for a start - cant tell from the maps what the zoning is around the Lake but may be Recreation zone which could possibly allow accommodation. I bet any developers would want the track fixed first!

I just wish they would release some details on the expression of interest from developers. Then it will be much easier to comment. At the moment, we are all just guessing.

[icefest]

6.8
The accommodation may be connected to the Lake Rodway Track by an access track that is up to T1 standard.

This is bad. A T1 track is serious business.

[Happy Wanderer]

I have a serious concern about the submission process when I look at the following webpage:
http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/conservation/t ... ement-plan

If you read the section titled 'Process' it says: "...the draft plan may not be amended if a representation... conflicts with government policy."

Call me a cynic, but isn't the whole document based on government policy?

[north-north-west]

6.8
The accommodation may be connected to the Lake Rodway Track by an access track that is up to T1 standard.

This is bad. A T1 track is serious business.

That's wheelchair accessible, isn't it? For that to have any point wouldn't they have to have a track to the same standard all the way from the Dove lake carpark?

edit: second thoughts, they wouldn't bother with a track, they'd put in a tunnel. With an elevator to the top of Hansons so everyone can get the view.

[Nuts]

Sate based conservation groups will do jack to stop this. Indeed, in this perfect storm, those incumbent would argue that they have no right too, 'you wanted tourism of a scale to immediately bridge the gap, this is how it looks!' At best a change of government may slow this down, be sure that to some players doing so will be yet another windfall Should have been properly envisaged 30/40yrs ago, stopped with the Gray government (here in Tas). Perhaps a referendum on what we expect of activity within our parks (never mind WHA)..

Edited for easy reading.

[jmac]

Step By Step, Matt Brain will probably be willing to help with quality images of New River Lagoon. You can contact him via his Irenabyss Gallery website. Cheers.

[stepbystep]

Step By Step, Matt Brain will probably be willing to help with quality images of New River Lagoon. You can contact him via his Irenabyss Gallery website. Cheers.

Thanks jmac. Will do.

The state based group I'm working with was instrumental in stopping the delisting of forests from the WHA they will also be successful in stopping the most destructive proposals in this plan I am quite confident.

[north-north-west]

New River Lagoon in the morning. From the Cavern Camp shore.

[Nuts]

Well, I don't consider any particular project to be the (edit): 'most destructive'. How do you assign that'?

[stepbystep]

Well, I don't consider any particular project to be the 'worst of it'. How do you assign that, 'the worst'?

That's entirely subjective of course....from MY perspective, those that impact most profoundly on the wilderness and/or cultural value of the landscape will get the most attention. Obviously.

[Nuts]

'those that appear to impact most profoundly'? The average walker will be inconvenienced now and then, may not even notice a floatplane here or there (eg. buzzing your second or third Ducane traverse), as a singular operation effectively 'no footprint'.. though (for the worst) 10? 20?.. nothing obvious, some will not reach that reg, other sites under immediate pressure for more.. indeed, worthwhile questioning!

[north-north-west]

Choppers into Petrarch scare me as much as the New River Lagoon stuff. That's a delicate area, you don't want to be bringing numpties in there.

[slparker]

https://theconversation.com/paradise-ga ... ness-36301

You'll see some opinions from academics, left-wing espresso sippers etc.

[Nuts]

Can't keep re-reading, i'd swear there are subliminal messages! Daft management plan?
On wilderness and tourism, it reads more like a sales pitch, sorry. And what a curious caveat, not interested in any public contribution not aligned to government policy? that doesn't accept a re-imagining by default?

Increased protections for and an enhanced acknowledgement of culture I get, is there a specific mention of re-wording (in the draft) of the WWHA title? I don't buy that any diminished protection as a trade off for cultural respect would be desired (by the local people iv'e met and worked with). For a strong view of wilderness, at the least not as a scapegoat.. Something is wrong there.

[Nuts]

(thanks)
'Tasmania’s peak Indigenous community body says it was not consulted in a draft plan to drastically change the management of Tasmania’s wilderness world heritage area, and was denied permission even to see a draft'

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-ne ... -area-plan

[samh]

imho there are plenty of options for development of tourism ventures within and on the border of national parks. If it is the intend of the government to make the parks accessible to all I don't understand how 10 helicopter rides to a destination achieves this. I also hear a lot of people say that access should be for everyone not just for those who are able bodied and can walk to the beautiful places. The same could obviously be said here as not everyone is able to afford a chopper ride into the South West. Don't get me wrong I am not for any of these helicopter rides not for any of the other options listed in the summary either, really.
I also hear many people making comparisons with New Zealand, USA, and Europe. However, a lot of the visitors of National Parks I have spoken to visit Tasmania because it is not like the places just mentioned.
I wouldn't mind to hear what peoples opinions are about redeveloping Strathgordon village as this could in my opinion be a sensible development, in particular since there is already some infrastructure present. Provide accommodation there, offer some day hikes, kayaking on the lakes, abseiling from the dam, a visitor center with the history of lake Pedder.
It is my strong opinion that part of the wilderness experience is to get to the destination by simple basic means, i.e. bike walk kayak. To allow people to take the chopper up the Frankland Range is ridiculous as is a flight by seaplane to lake Judd. How can you discourage people from walking up the North East Ridge of Mt Anne, but then at the same time come up with something like landing a seaplane on lake Judd. Besides how do 10 or 20 flights to those locations help the state economy apart from the chopper and seaplane operator.
In essence I agree that some development in the state needs to happen and Tourism is one of Tasmania's draw cards. However a rush job to make a quick dollar and prop up the economy before the next election is not the way to treat such a valuable resource. The fact that there is very little information and consultation on any of the proposed developments has me worried about the future of the Tasmanian wilderness and the rest of the state.

[north-north-west]

I wouldn't mind to hear what peoples opinions are about redeveloping Strathgordon village as this could in my opinion be a sensible development, in particular since there is already some infrastructure present. Provide accommodation there, offer some day hikes, kayaking on the lakes, abseiling from the dam, a visitor center with the history of lake Pedder.

This is something we have discussed before, and I think pretty well all of us agree with it. The place is perfectly positioned to be carefully developed into a major access centre for the South West, without any major impact on the NP or WWHA.

Agree with everything else you've said, too. The 10 - 20 air landings in these areas are obviously the thin edge of the wedge. The Government wants to work through attrition.

[AndyP]

Hi all
The proposals regarding the number of flights to various locations within the WHA feels a bit like a business plan. My guess is that this is because its basically copied from one of the expressions of interest from developers/tourism operators. However, this particular proposal probably isn't going to result in much in the way of long-term impact on the integrity of the WHA. Some of the other submissions have been covered in the media eg private huts on the SCT, which will be one of the stepping stones for all walkers to have to pay Overland Track type fees for the SCT, but otherwise should be relatively contained.

It is funny that there are many people celebrating that now the WHA will be 'unlocked' for greater access, when all it really means is that you'll have to pay private companies hundreds or thousands of dollars to get to these places. I'm not sure greater access is the government's ultimate goal - its job creation through building a brand which seems to be pitched at the higher end of the market.

Other than being strongly opposed to the privatisation of public space, my other concerns relate to other worst case-type scenarios that may not be mentioned explicitly in the document, ie would they consider any new roads into the WHA, will our iconic walks remain as walks or will they be opened to other modes of transport. Does anyone know if the proposed changes preclude this sort of thing?

[Nuts]

Strathgordon village is under lease from hydro afaik (99yrs most likely). It's also high and dry if we're going to be draining the lake (lol)

Good point though and highlights a question, why on earth start by partnering tourism with parks?
I would have thought hydro and forestry would be a more natural, progressive fit for sustainable tourism enterprise?

Some good contributions (imo)