Official statement on Cape Pillar / Three Capes Camping

[b_goat]

I recieved the following official email from DPIPWE after a request for further information about the Three Capes costs and overnight camping.
Given the interest I thought it was appropraite to share. Names have been removed, but the rest is verbatim.

"Thanks for your enquiry regarding the Three Capes Track. The following points are provided in answer to your question.

• Tasmania’s national parks remain open and accessible to all Tasmanians.

• The Tasman National Park will continue to provide a wide range of experiences to users from picnickers and boaters, to campers and walkers – all accessible for the cost of a parks entry fee.

• For the cost of a parks pass Tasmanians can continue to enjoy an array of experiences in the Tasman National Park including day walks to Cape Hauy, Cape Raoul and Shipstern Bluff.

• Again, for $24 Tasmanians will be able to enjoy an overnight Cape Pillar camping experience which includes access to a spectacular segment of the brand new Three Capes Track.

• Camping will be permitted in designated sites.

• Planning is underway for a camping facility to support the overnight walk to Cape Pillar and this will be available by the time the Three Capes Track opens on 23 December.

• We will ensure the facilities are sufficient to meet anticipated demand.

• The Three Capes Track experience itself is a dedicated world class walking experience which includes:

Access to the historic Port Arthur World Heritage Area;
A 75 minute Pennicott Wilderness Journeys boating experience;
All park entry fees;
Three (3) nights’ accommodation in state of the art, eco-friendly huts;
Access to dedicated host rangers and;
Transport from Fortescue Bay back to Port Arthur and a guidebook on the area

• Because of the anticipated popularity of the Three Capes Track, it is a regulated walk with numbers constrained in order to manage environmental impacts while ensuring it remains a world-class nature based experience.

• There are also discounted rates for concession holders, children and student groups.

• In addition, the State Government is considering a range of options that will afford as many Tasmanians as possible the opportunity to enjoy the extraordinary Three Capes Track experience.


Best wishes
..., on behalf of


Three Capes Track
Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment
134 Macquarie Street, Hobart 7000 | GPO Box 1751, Hobart 7001
"

[walkon]

I'm still waiting for a reply though it seems now I know what the response will be

[Hallu]

This is the same statement they released everywhere, on their website and facebook, nothing new.

[b_goat]

This is the same statement they released everywhere, on their website and facebook, nothing new.

True, but it is the departmental policy as required by the Right to Information Act, rather than a press statement by the social media team. It also seemed to be more specific about the campsite opening at the same time as the paid accommodation, which seemed to be clearer than the Facebook statements which just indicated this would be at an unspecified time and place ... but I could be wrong.

On another note, we were out that way about a fortnight ago and noticed the trailhead to Arthur's peak has been blocked and the signs removed. I have asked for further information about whether the Arthurs Peak track is to be closed for good.

[north-north-west]

So where is this campsite going to be and how many people will it take? And what about the anti-socialists like me who'd rather pitch a tent somewhere away from the madding crowd?

[Lophophaps]

It's a bit unclear as to what is happening. One would think that the locations of the campsites would have been determined when the overall plan was devised. Other major walks have huts and camping, and it can work for Three Capes. Perhaps there should be a certain percentage of walks for families, and if these are not taken up by a certain date they bookings are open to all, like the OLT.

Is an anti-socialist a communist or a democrat? I too prefer a quite campsite. In 11 days at Kosciuszko at Christmas I met about 12 people and camped with four. Happy.

[Strider]

One would think that the locations of the campsites would have been determined when the overall plan was devised.

There is a reason for this. There were none planned but PWS have since done some serious backpedaling in response to all the negative feedback.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

[bohwaz]

I'm going back to Tas in february, and Cape Pillar is on my bucket list, but I want to do the track as described in my Lonely Planet guide from 2006 (that is camping at Bare Knoll), seems a better option and I don't care about fancy huts and hate boat trips (me sick on a boat), so this new "great walk" stuff is clearly useless, but from what I gathered Parks & Wildlife is forbidding people to camp on the track am I right? It's not quite clear, and it seems quite hard to get informations.

I might probably just walk there from Fortescue Bay just like the guide describes, I don't see why I should care about a commercial operator doing guided tours. Are maybe the place will just become too crowded? Doesn't sound good.

[north-north-west]

Currently the Cape Pillar track is open only on weekends. Whether that will still be in effect in February I don't know. You'd need to check the TasPAWS website at the time.
As far as I know, the track from Denmans to Pillar is completed, and the old track to the junction near Tornado Ridge is fine. They are currently working on the Mt Fortescue section - so I'm baffled as to why they still feel the need to close the entire track during the work.

The Bare Knoll campsite no longer exists. When I was last there the old Hurricane Heath site was still usable if you knew how to find it. There are also usable sites on Tornado Ridge and the Cape itself. The little site by Lunchtime Creek is marginal, and bypassed by the new track alignment - as is Bare Knoll, but access would depend on whether they close off the old track for rehabilitation.

Camping will be permitted (according to the latest public announcements), as will free public access to parts of the track. As it is still a work in progress we have to wait and see what the final guidelines are.

[wayno]

$24 for a campsite? you can get a bunk in a hut in NZ for $15 for that money, including a great walk outside of summer.

[north-north-west]

I assumed the $24 is for the Parks Pass.

[wayno]

I assumed the $24 is for the Parks Pass.

don't you pay for the parks maintenance in your taxes in the first place?

[RonK]

I assumed the $24 is for the Parks Pass.

don't you pay for the parks maintenance in your taxes in the first place?

Apparently not. Haven't you heard that the age of entitlement is over? The user pays.

[whynotwalk]

don't you pay for the parks maintenance in your taxes in the first place?

Yes, but you don't ... and nor do the majority of park users, who are not Tasmanian tax payers. Nobody loves paying park entry fees, but they have been around in Tassie since the early 1990s. And they do allow PWS to do things that wouldn't otherwise be done,

cheers

Peter

[wayno]

don't you pay for the parks maintenance in your taxes in the first place?

Yes, but you don't ... and nor do the majority of park users, who are not Tasmanian tax payers. Nobody loves paying park entry fees, but they have been around in Tassie since the early 1990s. And they do allow PWS to do things that wouldn't otherwise be done,

cheers

Peter

if you want to be that short sighted.
you dont either when you come to nz and enter NZ parks for free, but the money you bring into the local economy and taxes gathered from your trip contributes to the maintenance of parks. and nz manages to do a hell of a lot that way..

[whynotwalk]

A plausible argument wayne, but one that was put forward and rejected back when the decision was made. I'm not arguing it was right, but I think the economic rationalists had the upper hand then, and probably still do.

It's fair to say though that DoC does gain some of its revenue through facility fees (mainly hut fees). And there's also a more permissive - and lucrative - system of concessions to tourism operators (eg private huts, helicopter flights, adventure activities, jet boats etc). Different histories lead to different approaches. Vive la difference!

cheers

Peter

[wayno]

DOC also allow commercial sponsorship arrangements to gain revenue. Air NZ for instance are allowed to advertise on DOC's website and AIRnz promote the great walks as well and fly staff and endangered animals around the country..
brochures have advertising in them.

[Orion]

Maybe so, but NZ doesn't have all of those hopping creatures. And no platypus!

[Strider]

DOC also allow commercial sponsorship arrangements to gain revenue. Air NZ for instance are allowed to advertise on DOC's website and AIRnz promote the great walks as well and fly staff and endangered animals around the country..
brochures have advertising in them.

As the only airline in NZ, what other options are there?

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

[wayno]

as a sponsor they are flying around on the cheap with air nz. jetstar fly around the country to the main centres, theres various other regional airlines.

[vicrev]

Sound argument,Wayne....the NZ model could work for Tassie....but......

[wayno]

Sound argument,Wayne....the NZ model could work for Tassie....but......

it blurs the lines, DOC is supposed to be a govt conservation organisation, but to get enough funding they are now reliant on money from big business. technically a mining or forestry company could sponsor them.
DOC is becoming a tourist business actively promoting walks with air nz. DOC have been pushing to dismantle large nos of their huts and have stopped maintaining large no's of tracks over the years and poured massive resources into a few tracks instead, tracks which often have limited no's available to walk them.
private organisations are encouraged to take over the maintenance of huts and have been maintaining some tracks. but to maintain a hut you have to sign a massive legal document that effectively binds you to commit to being responsible for maintaining the hut to a set standard, you may get some funding from DOC but its not guaranteed.
so privatisation is going on, and meanwhile the govt have been pushing to mine on prime DOC land, down playing the effects but not mentioning about how they will deal with all the mine tailings from the mines that would have to be permanently stored nearby. with high rainfall and a high risk of major earthquakes its hard to contain mine tailings in dams in NZ indefinitely

[north-north-west]

DOC is becoming a tourist business actively promoting walks with air nz. DOC have been pushing to dismantle large nos of their huts and have stopped maintaining large no's of tracks over the years and poured massive resources into a few tracks instead, tracks which often have limited no's available to walk them.

This has been happening with tracks in Australia too, particularly the High Country and Tasmania.

On the mainland, especially in Victoria, walking tracks are ignored except for the well known & more heavily used ones, while public funds go into maintaining 4WD tracks, because that fraternity has a very loud and politically active membership. And then they say they have to have private money to develop tracks - or charge obscene amounts for publicly funded tracks a la the OT and Three Capes.
It's all about making money rather than protecting the environment and promoting careful, responsible use.

[vicrev]

DOC is becoming a tourist business actively promoting walks with air nz. DOC have been pushing to dismantle large nos of their huts and have stopped maintaining large no's of tracks over the years and poured massive resources into a few tracks instead, tracks which often have limited no's available to walk them.

This has been happening with tracks in Australia too, particularly the High Country and Tasmania.

On the mainland, especially in Victoria, walking tracks are ignored except for the well known & more heavily used ones, while public funds go into maintaining 4WD tracks, because that fraternity has a very loud and politically active membership. And then they say they have to have private money to develop tracks - or charge obscene amounts for publicly funded tracks a la the OT and Three Capes.
It's all about making money rather than protecting the environment and promoting careful, responsible use.

Right on NNW , in State & Fed parliaments the bushwalking fraternity has zilch lobbying power,the petrol heads,developers,so called entrepreneurs have the lobbying & money power to dictate policy to gutless governments to satisfy their own interests...stuff the environment.......

[RickyF]

Any Hobart bushwalkers who are upset at the price of the Three Capes Track package (or any other aspects of it) and want to be part of a photoshoot for the paper this Thursday down at the track please message me.

[Senji_Man]

I went out to Cape Pillar last week. I ran into some parks people at the new Lunchtime Creek Hut and had a good chat about walkers wanting to do just Cape Pillar. We camped at a nice spot just off the new track at Corruption Gully. This is the preferred site for the new campsite according to BWT. Currently PWS is putting in tent platforms at another site further back near the junction with the old Cape Pillar track, apparently this site already had planning approval so it will be only temporary (fingers crossed - about a 200m decent from the track to the tent sites) until they get approval for a permanent site.

[Thornbill]

Just realised I accidentally posted this question in the wrong thread the other day. Wondering if anyone has heard anymore about alternative camping sites to Wughalee Falls?

Just because I'm curious, and because its a nice part of the world, I'm planning on heading out to do the "Free Capes" track sometime over winter. I've done the walk from Fortescue a few times before, but camped at Hurricane Heath or Perdition Ponds (I have fond memories of a cracking sunset from atop the nearby cliffs). I've also camped at Wughalee Falls, where the new walkers campsite is and, to be fair, its not the greatest spot. Cold and wet. For a leisurely 2-3 days walk, I'd much rather camp elsewhere. Does anyone know the latest situation regarding walkers camping on the capes? Are we restricted to Wughallee Falls? I did hear rumors on this forum of perhaps a second walkers campsite?

TIA

[GPSGuided]

don't you pay for the parks maintenance in your taxes in the first place?

Yes, but you don't ... and nor do the majority of park users, who are not Tasmanian tax payers. Nobody loves paying park entry fees, but they have been around in Tassie since the early 1990s. And they do allow PWS to do things that wouldn't otherwise be done,

if you want to be that short sighted.
you dont either when you come to nz and enter NZ parks for free, but the money you bring into the local economy and taxes gathered from your trip contributes to the maintenance of parks. and nz manages to do a hell of a lot that way..

Just came across this thread/post again and in view of the latest proposal for DOC to surcharge foreign users of NZ's NPs (viewtopic.php?f=59&t=23239), it's an agreement on this Australian revenue model, right?

[Lophophaps]

Care is needed when applying taxes and costs to those on lower budgets, who may be labelled - somewhat incorrectly at times - as backpackers. If the extra costs are too high, backpackers will stay away. See
http://www.backpackertradenews.com.au/s ... owerhouse/
http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-econ ... miucp.html

Backpackers add significant economic input by the length of their stay. From a bushwalking aspect, if one walk is $500 and another similar walk in another place is $200, the $200 walk will usually be the one taken up. Note that it's not just the money spent that counts. Say a bus to get to the start of a walk or reach a destination costs $50. Portion of that $50 will pay the driver, be used for fuel, and employ bus office staff. These people will spend that money. The process is known as the multiplier effect.

Geographically close locations need a range of attractions to make tourists want to visit. If a keen bushwalker can do a number of walks in succession then it's a better reason to visit a region. A walker is not going to come from Brisbane to Tassie to climb Mt Field and go home. Add the OLT, Three Capes, Port Arthur, and Freycinet and the fixed costs are spread over more days, making the cost per day lower.

[Xplora]

I recieved the following official email from DPIPWE after a request for further information about the Three Capes costs and overnight camping.
Given the interest I thought it was appropraite to share. Names have been removed, but the rest is verbatim.

"Thanks for your enquiry regarding the Three Capes Track. The following points are provided in answer to your question (edited for the sake of brevity).

• Tasmania’s national parks remain open and accessible to all Tasmanians.


• For the cost of a parks pass Tasmanians can continue to enjoy an array of experiences in the Tasman National Park including day walks to Cape Hauy, Cape Raoul and Shipstern Bluff.

• Again, for $24 Tasmanians will be able to enjoy an overnight Cape Pillar camping experience which includes access to a spectacular segment of the brand new Three Capes Track.

• In addition, the State Government is considering a range of options that will afford as many Tasmanians as possible the opportunity to enjoy the extraordinary Three Capes Track experience."

What about the rest of us? Do we have to pay more?