Fee increases are inevitable, but I worry about what we will get for our money.
We discussed track maintenance in other forum threads, but I thought I'd add 2c worth here. I'm not sure what others expect in the way of track maintenance, but personally, I don't think money should be spend "improving" all tracks to some predetermined "higher" quality track? Where tracks are popular,
maintenance is necessary so that the tracks don't become environmental problems (erosion, mud-holes and the like). In more remote areas, and where tracks are less popular, and when there is no environmental problems, then I support the idea of letting nature take its course. If a track becomes over grown because people don't visit an area, then that's a good thing.
As I have said before (
here), I think the primary concern should be looking after the environment, not looking after the creature comforts of walkers. To that end I think that track maintenance/improvement should be kept to
the minimum maintenance necessary to avoid ongoing environmental problems. The amount of traffic and the environment where the track is located should determine the "minimum" maintenance requirements. So in high traffic areas - popular day walks and frequently used tourist areas - high quality tracks will be essential, but is other areas its neither necessary nor desirable. Sometimes boardwalking is not the best solution - relocating and closing tracks has worked in the past.
I think too it is important to consider aesthetic values when considering track maintenance. It is important surely to maintain the aesthetic appeal of an area. The fewer man made structures and the more natural the track, the greater the visual appeal. After all we go to these places because they are visually appealing.
What do you really want for your money? 17 National Parks and 2000 Km of walking tracks for $66 a year (less than 20c a day). Where would you spend the money?
I don't wish to see every track (any track) replaced with a board walk. Neither do wish to see trimmed shrubs and gravelled walkways every where I go. I don't want every camping experience to be a tent on a camping platform. I don't want my every interaction with a vista, panorama or waterfall to be limited to a viewing platform. I have no wish to walk through the bush with a dunny every few kilometres and a hut and helipad every ten to fifteen K. I do not wish to see every river crossing replace by a foot bridge. I will not die of thirst because I can't find the next tank or tap with fresh water. I do not need and don't wish to see everything in the bush labelled so I can have an "enhanced" experience. I will not get lost because someone didn't erect a wooden sign telling me which track leads to this-or-that feature or how many Ks to the nearest carpark. Yet, so many walks in Tasmania have been reduced to this sort of experience and the
infection is spreading. If this the type of "improvement" we get with higher fees, then I don't want it. And if this is what you want out of your nature experience then can I suggest you go visit and urban park or a botanical garden, please.
Anyway, listening to the news last night it sounds like Park Rangers might be the next endangered species.
Edit: posted this in an old thread last night accidentally, so if it looks familiar it 'cause I moved it? (omg self moderation 
)
