Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area Management Plan

[tastrax]

i think we'll need to agree to disagree tastrax because i think that the zoning etc. that you talk about in a plan applies to the Director of National Parks and Wildlife not the minister of the day. So under the current plan Parks can't build public huts on the SCT as such infrastructure is prohibited by the plan in the SW national park but could do under the draft plan which allows for it but only in the rec zone, the minister however could issue a lease for commercial huts under either plan and in any zone. This is why I think the table of use in the draft plan shows that commercial accommodation etc. requiring a lease or licence is possible in all zones, this is not a policy position but simply a statement of fact. Anyway...
PS Nuts suggests the plan was penned by the minister and i reckon that's true in a way because all plans require ministerial approval according to the information available on the process so of course it's going reflect what the government wants where ever possible as the the minister is effectively the author (and ultimately responsible for the outcomes).

Whilst the minister might think he can approve accommodation in a remote recreation zone I doubt very much if any proposal would get through the Commonwealth EPBC process in such a zone.

Maybe they are just using weezle words here to say to people "we are opening the place for development" when deep down they know many projects would have no chance of getting past the Commonwealth approval processes.

[Nuts]

going to reflect what the government wants where ever possible as the the minister is effectively the author (and ultimately responsible for the outcomes).

It's the outcome that matters.

Leaving aside the fact that there is no ongoing advertising budget from Tas P&W or their tourism partners (other than the opportunity for involvement in paid promotions) and already little attempt at ensuring equity between competing operations, with a total of $6 mill prescribed in their policy 'mandate' all seemingly for one track project.. not to mention staff and funding cuts within the department I think the outcomes are blindingly obvious. A few people will do very well indeed from this, I doubt it will be much of a win for the Tasmanian public and all for a fundamentally questionable (even a point surely obvious for non nature-lovers), ongoing/open-ended cost.

Some vision is sorely needed, the big money simply given away while 'the people' receive a pittance, then P&W left to battle the public with booking systems, permits & regulation just to scratch enough for maintenance.. There are likely few issues that would benefit more from elected officials being reactive imo.

I'm highlighting your summation for the Labor representative dropping by. Perhaps thinking more about giving that 'in principle' support for the EOI's (basically an admission that they could or should have done the same).

[corvus]

What about the proposed Private Huts on the SW track and the possible booking system and fee a la OLT??

[Mechanic-AL]

I hope this isn't getting too far off topic but can anyone tell me what happened to the 'Eagles Eyrie' venture in Maydena? I went up there one day a few years ago with my parents and we had a really good day. So what if it wasn't in a W.H.A. It still showcased an amazing area of the state. It seemed to me that a lot of time and effort (not too mention money) had been put into getting it up and running and providing a memorable day out for people who weren't likely to get out and do some of the walks in the region. I was surprised to see that it appears to have folded.Anyone know what's become of the Eagles Eyrie building on top of the peak?
Before any new venture gets the go ahead anywhere it would be good to have a solid understanding of why something such as the Eagles Eyrie couldn't make a go of it.

AL

[wander]

Mechanic-Al, now do not let logic and past experience get in the way of a good opportunity.

[Nuts]

The EPBC process is no longer commonwealth or national is it?, iirc there was a recent move to have the approvals (as well as EIS) handled within state? Maybe that didn't hold up? If the process is sate based maybe it's easier or will get easier to get such approvals passed? (maybe not) (sorry, vague, appears semantics to me.. didn't mean to dismiss that part of the discussion).

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasma ... 7022374386

Good point AL!

Loads of great locations, over the last few years Iv'e spent a few nights here and there, car camping with short walks, on Maggs Mt (the one to the west of Rowallan that everyone drives straight over). It's a prime example, lake below and the walls opposite (with one awesome view), arm river 10mins away and over-nighters into the park. Mtn biking, zip lines, watersports on the various rivers and lakes, adrenaline, adventure, NZ style.. Forestry tenure (could be rezoned- rec zone/conserv. area.. something 'new', anything but NP or wilderness) that has been well managed, the older growth is largely intact (enough) in many areas. The wildlife on the plateau is remarkable, if you want to see wombats and wallabies they are abundant in the open country to the west and bird life is great when the swamp hollows are full, there's diversity in rainforest on the western slopes and gullies that I hope to explore further. Without even stepping into a park there is so much for the casual nature based tourism experience. All the elements are there. Such areas a focus for tourism infrastructure would placate all sides.

But no, why a row of houses on Old Kent Road when offered Mayfair for a song.

Last edited by Nuts on Wed 18 Feb, 2015 8:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[corvus]

Would that be Maggs Mountain ?

[Nuts]

Sorry, yes Maggs Mountain. If anywhere else it would be some valuable real estate alone.

Screen Shot 2015-02-18 at 9.16.07 PM.png (200.69 KiB) Viewed 25413 times

So many perimeter locations the same... as i'm sure we (nature lovers) all know
promote These areas and facilitate business start-ups .. in places where we insisted jobs were taken from.. (rather than make one pay for another!)

[Thornbill]

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasma ... 7230704362

A "lodge walk" in the Walls. Any idea what that means? Is it just people staying at a nearby lodge that come and walk there? Or are we talking about putting a "lodge" in the Walls?

[Nuts]

It's not all bad, I hear service staff are getting complimentary new uniforms from this particular partnership? :

Screen Shot 2015-02-20 at 5.47.55 PM.png (66.86 KiB) Viewed 25349 times

[corvus]

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/tasmanian-government-reveals-next-wave-of-wilderness-projects/story-fnj4f7k1-1227230704362

A "lodge walk" in the Walls. Any idea what that means? Is it just people staying at a nearby lodge that come and walk there? Or are we talking about putting a "lodge" in the Walls?

Thornbill,

Sad thing It means a private Hut/Lodge in the Walls.
I believe they also want to put one in the Lake Rodway area so they can do Cradle Mt circle walks.

[stepbystep]

They are getting more and more audacious....

http://www.cg.tas.gov.au/?a=98614

Serene Malbena, no more....

http://riverfly.com.au/hallsislandmedia/

[Nuts]

But these are tourism companies, this time that the government is helping out (and/or up)..
They are nothing like the shree's of the world.. just look at the language they are using, they want to help us and are driven by altruism, guided by wilderness ethics. Employment (the sole 'benefit'.. remember.. ) is all sorted, plenty of staff from those they manage to displace, partnerships to bring on side those they can't.

[Nuts]

A "lodge walk" in the Walls. Any idea what that means? Is it just people staying at a nearby lodge that come and walk there? Or are we talking about putting a "lodge" in the Walls?

Description of proposal
Tasmanian Walking Company proposes a new four–day guided hut and lodge-based bushwalk within the Walls of Jerusalem National Park.

(another 6 OLT huts, "standing camps" at Rodway, four on the Frenchman's walk)

Wilderness is such an old school, dated concept anyway.
They are going to employ an aborigine though, surely that's a good thing!?

[corvus]

I suspect that the employment proposed will only be replacing those it will edged out and not create many new jobs ,to my way of thinking there is a rich greedy bugger that wants to control most if not all of our wilderness areas with the complaisance of our Gov ??

[tastrax]

Three days to go and still 3 proposals (maybe 5) that have not been listed on the Coordinator Generals website.

http://cg.tas.gov.au/?a=98614

You then have just 9 days to write your submission to the Management plan review

http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/conservation/t ... ement-plan

[Maigaard]

Hey all
I am a video journalist from Denmark doing a story on the new WHA management plan. I am looking for a hiker for an interview about how it is to hike in the wilderness, what makes it special. I would prefer someone who has traveled from another country (a tourist) to bushwalk in the WHA, but an engaged local would do too.
Let me know asap if anyone would be interested in participating, and I will give you more detail.
Thanks a lot for your help!
All best,
Helle

[wander]

The more I think about it the more the issue is are National Parks / WHA for A) the benefit of the flora, fauna, geology and geography or B) for wholesale exploitation for people. And this is a pretty fundamental starting point.

And there are obviously 2 extremes with zero access at one end and something like the Milford Sound experience at the other.

And there are positions in between and the management plan is an effort to find this.

If you take the position that the purpose of the National Park / WHA is for A) the benefit of the flora, fauna, geology and geography it does suggest that minimising all impacts or possible impacts should be done. This does not preclude access but does mean it is tightly selected and controlled as is the current situation.

Many of the proposals in the current draft management plan including a multitude of helicopter access options appear to be very driven by adopting position B) for wholesale exploitation for people in lieu of Option A.

I do not think National Parks / WHA are about people and any access at all is a privilege, not a right.

[Mountain Rocket]

Radio National hosted a good talk on this issue. http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programitem ... ?play=true

Also not sure if this has been posted but the Wilderness Society have put together a submission guide: http://www.wilderness.org.au/articles/s ... -part-plan
It highlights some of the issues with the draft management plan.

[icefest]

The works heritage committee are not happy:

UN calls for ban on logging and mining in Tasmania's world heritage area

http://gu.com/p/4aaj6?CMP=Share_Android ... _clipboard

[Nuts]

Tourism gets a mention, i'd put forward the notion that it should in fact be front and centre. Not only an incursion into WHA but into parts of the estate that define our understanding of the word pristine. The return from Tourism as an industry should really be quantified, in the cold light of day not seen as anything other than another impact (like Forestry and Mining) yada yada

[weetbix456]

Sorry to bring up an old thread...but a distanced anxiety has got the better of me. Does anyone have any recent updates on the status of the WOJ hut based walk, or the "hidden" Rodway lodge proposals?? Did any of these actually make it further than the proposal stage?? I've also heard a few rumours of future SCT hut developments?? Public opinions?? I guess I'm just hoping this new found high end tourism obsession doesn't get too out of hand...

[Nuts]

Those mentioned are existing concessions, some have ten year's in which to start (or sell).
In terms of wilderness, and it's protection, time-frames and custodianship by any particular generation, their mere existence is a disaster.

[tastrekker]

This issue has just gone through a Tasmanian Government Planning Commission review: http://www.iplan.tas.gov.au/Pages/XC.Track.Assessment/SearchAssessment.aspx?id=337

On 6 July 2016 the Commission issued a report which has gone back to the Director of Parks and Wildlife and the Minister. The report can be found here:
http://www.iplan.tas.gov.au/Temp/TrimDownload_811538.PDF

Here's a couple of key sentences from the Conclusion (p27):

The Commission noted that, for some highly contentious matters raised in multiple representations, the Director proposed substantial amendments to the Draft Plan. ... Whilst the Commission found that the vast majority of representors’ issues had been addressed, there were some omissions, or inadequate responses to individual comments, as set out in the discussion above.

The topics with inadequate responses were:

2.2 Omission of ‘Wilderness Zone’ and attributes, 2.7 Commercial activities and 2.12 Other*

*The inadequate response under "Other" relate to, "...retaining the current presentation and community engagement management objectives, decision makers in the WWHA, the apparent downgrading of stewardship opportunities and a comment on human waste management."

The Minister and Director have some homework to do.

[Nuts]

The Minister and Director have some homework to do.

It would seem so from all the submissions and recognition of failings.
Does the report suggest much intent to reconsider though?
Lots of discontent surrounding commercial activities but no backing down, capping development numbers after the current EOI
suggests that the cap is a random figure, suggests that less in fact could have been appropriate in the first place, or none.


Good idea to bring the EOI under the umbrella of the management plan, why on earth should it not be
Yet it's not likely to happen.

I'm impressed with the number of submissions, at least developers may realise they have more to consider other than 'leaving it up to the regulators' (in this case insert 'politicians'.. of the day..).