Forum rules
Victoria specific bushwalking discussion. Please avoid publishing details of access to sensitive areas with no tracks.Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Tue 17 Apr, 2018 9:23 am
PCV, oh good, it's not just me with moving huts and frog wombats. A bushfire sounds nice, an easy solution. i do hope that PV builds bunkers for the 5-10,000 people on the walk.
Final management plan comments
I've briefly looked at the latest plans and continue to be unimpressed. It's the same bland ideas, with all of the downside glossed over. It works like this. A government agency commissions a report. The contractor knows what is required, and that the report should reflect this. If it does not, then there will be no more jobs from that agency. It's subtle but pervading.
This is why the old way of public service advice worked very well. If the Minister had a bad idea than he was so advised, with no threat to public servant's job. The new way is that one agrees with the boss or you may be sacked, or miss out on promotions. The new way is barmy.
Here's a few points from the reports.
As before the layouts are not very good, quite faded. As mentioned above, Diamantina Hut has moved north. There's a handful of typos, but far less than before. It seems that my comments about spelling, punctuation and grammar were noted.
Part A page 1 says "In order to maximise the experiences for a diverse array of walkers, including individual adventure seekers, small and self-guided groups, larger educational and school groups and guided tours, a suite of improvements and additional infrastructure will be developed to the highest standards of sustainable planning, design and management. These upgrades will consist of a higher track quality to enable improved engagement with the surrounds, rest stops to fully appreciate the breathtaking beauty of the High Country, interpretation to gain understanding and insight into the landscapes narratives, and a choice of well-designed, low-impact accommodation options that cater to individual levels of comfort along the walk."
This is nearly all BS. These groups manage at present. There is no need for all this expense!
Part A page 5 says "It is estimated that there will be an uplift in visitor spending, both regionally and by means of travel, to the potential total spend of $23.4 million per annum by 2027 when the trail is fully operational."
I cannot see this happening. It's too much.
Part A page 18 discusses the environmental risk assessment "Biosis identified that, at a top level, there were no significant adverse environmental impacts of the track, and that priority risks could be adequately managed by following normal planning procedures and detailed on-ground assessments prior to construction."
Interesting. What about the 5-10,000 bushwalkers on the FHAC? The OLT has pollution problems due to not enough toilets, and is starting to fix this with a toilet at Pelion Gap. The April 2018 plan seems not to mention toilets between nodes.
Part A page 44, they still suggest a jaunt from a Tawonga camp to Jaithmathang to watch the sunset. The writer is insane! It's a tricky descent from the summit, moreso at night. Just after this is a plan for a new track, bypassing pole 333 to go to Westons. madness! There's already a track, Tawonga, pole 333, Westons.
Part A page 48 says "The most physically challenging of all segments provides walkers with a grade 4 track to conquer. Diamantina Spur heaves up from the valley floor, rising 450 m in roughly 1.5 km". No mention of the rest of the climb, and I abhor the word "conquer".
My January 2017 submission about the Draft Management Plan said:
"3.11 There's contradictions. Page 32 in fine print says "Diamantina River Camp-Mt Feathertop 8.5km (sic) - 760m (sic) climb - 7 hours Grade 4". Page 48 implies that the climb is 450 metres. The climb from the valley to Mt Feathertop is about 900 metres."
That is, they took no notice of my advice. The April 2018 plan is still misleading. No surprise.
Part A page 48 says "Walkers can stop on the spur to spend the night in an area protected by snow gums. An add-on is the climb to Mt Feathertop for sunset or sunrise."
Part A page 49 says "Following a sunrise climb to Mt Feathertop, the final day of the trail takes walkers along the Razorback".
They still have these crazy ideas about sunrises and sunsets. It's too far, too dangerous. I raised both of these in my submission, again ignored.
Part B page 56 details tracks. It's scary in places.
Part B page 57 says "Utilise existing trails where possible. Utilise existing infrastructure as much as possible, minimising the need for additional construction."
So why duplicate the track from Tawonga Huts to pole 333? Why add the huts and platforms? Why over-engineer the tracks? Why add seats?
"Ensure the trail is always clearly visible to the walker and use existing fallen tree branches and/or loose stones to clearly mark the direction and edge of the trail (without impeding drainage)."
Gosh! The tracks I have been on generally are defined by people, boots on the ground. There is no need to have branches and rocks at the edges.
Part B page 62 "Elevated camping platforms can improve the camping experience, especially during bad weather, and better protect the surrounding environments. Each Hiker Camp is proposed to offer 12 elevated 3-person platforms, each able to secure one tent or swag."
What a total waste of resources! Grass works fine, and can have more people camped. How many swags have you seen on bushwalks? I've never seen one. Mentioning swags suggests that the writer has no idea about bushwalking, none at all. The possibility arises that swag is a typo and should be SWAG - Stupid Wild-Arsed Guess.
Part B page 64 "Elevated camp platforms. 4 x 4 metres. Hardwood timber decking. 12 x platforms accommodating 2–3 people per platform. Platforms to be located individually and some groups of 3 or 4 to accommodate larger group settings and families."
This will destroy the environment. The platforms have a huge footprint, and will significantly reduce the number of available tent sites. The platforms have a huge amount of dead space.
"2 x drop toilet cubicles over a sealed vault system."
The numbers envisaged require two sets of two toilets, one set in use, one set not, waiting to be emptied. This is the setup at many popular remote campsites.
Part B, page 64 details lodges - there is no other word - with "1 x communal hut. Full weather protection. Tables and chairs for dining. Kitchen for fully catered services. Water provision by roof water harvesting (non-potable water quality). Solar power (for charging of low-voltage devices such as cameras and phones). Outdoor decking for social engagement and relaxation. Integrated lockers and drying room/ area."
This is not what our wild and beautiful places are about. The proposal reeks of privatisation of the mountains at our expense. Ghastly. Note that before (from memory) the huts were temporary. Now they are fixed. How long before they are used in winter? What about the conservation zone on Diamantina Spur?
Part B page 78 "The Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing should meet or exceed the pre-walking standards of other iconic walks."
Not good. Part of the charm of the place is the variety of tracks, obstacles, and challenges. The FHAC proposes to homogenise that, making it one size fits all. This is bollocks.
Part C page 86 says "Recent research undertaken and brought forward in 'Victoria's Nature-Based Tourism Strategy' 2008–2012, shows shifts in consumer preferences from traditional independent multi-day bushwalking trips to a greater demand for soft adventure, comfort and security offered by commercial operators."
This needs to be verified. I suspect it's mainly BS.
Part C page 87 says of the Overland Track "Bookable tent platforms at most overnight nodes. Toilet facilities. Non-bookable basic hut facilities [i.e. no mattress or cooking facilities). $150 per person total".
Can OLT platforms be booked? The OLT costs $200 plus a park fee, $30 minimum.
Part C page 88 "Limited surveys have indicated that current users are of a diverse mix of day walkers, with overnight users tending to seek an adventurous, self-sufficient experience. The nature of the solely tent-based accommodation dictates the current profile of users, with overnight users consisting predominantly of 'adventure seekers' and outdoor educational groups such as scouts and school groups.
"Adventure seekers
"The ‘adventure seekers’ are a market which has been described as valuing the ‘wild’ experience and being self-sufficient. This group consists mainly of experienced to very experienced walkers who are fully independent in terms of drop-off and pick-up and for all equipment. They value solitude and wish to pit themselves against nature while being fully immersed in it, and wish to ‘tread lightly’. This user profile is dictated by the relatively high level of difficulty of trail segments, together with the nature of the solely tent-based accommodation."
I've taken beginners to the Bogong High Plains, summer and winter.
Part C page 90 "According to the visitation numbers outlined in these reports it can be assumed that groups that will take up the opportunity for facilitated walking will be drawn from the following areas:
– Bushwalkers in the High Country
– 7,000 pa international visitors.
– 193,000 pa domestic overnight visitors.
– 93,000 pa day-trippers.
– Total 293,000 bushwalkers."
Right, 293,000 bushwalkers. The BS level is rising.
Part C page 91 says that there are three scenarios for the number of walkers low 5175, medium 7777 and high 10,699. I love the way that they have such precise figures. The OLT has 7-9000 walkers a year. This is a long-established internationally recognised walk, brilliant scenery. How can an upstart like FHAC compete? I simply cannot see even the low figure being met.
Part C page 91 "One approach to estimating the number of walkers who may take up the opportunity for facilitated walks on the proposed trail is to estimate the market share of the number of current bushwalkers in the High Country. As outlined above the estimate is 293,000 per annum. This is increased by the official visitation forecasts to estimate that the number of bushwalkers will increase to 427,000 per annum by 2027."
BS's getting higher. I will attempt to dig out, perhaps with the help of 427,000 bushwalkers.
Part C page 93 "All of the trails mentioned above are one-way only. The Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing will be marketed and managed as a one-way walking experience, although some walkers will inevitably enter the trails from other origins such as Harrietville and Dinner Plain, as well as from the Mt Loch trail head. With a potential diversity of origins, walkers will meet on the trail network over an extended period in the middle of the day."
Nobody, repeat nobody tells me where and how and in what direction I walk. On a recent trip to the region, of the 11 nights I varied campsites for six nights. Too far, too windy, saw an easier way. The route was varied as well.
Part C page 96 "A significant opportunity for the private sector is to tap into the delivery of infrastructure associated with the trailhead locations. These are the Lakeside trailhead at Falls Creek and the Mt Loch trailhead in Mt Hotham. These trailheads would include not only components of the trail infrastructure, such as information boards and maps, trailhead sculpture for photo opportunities and some seating for preparation works, and could also be enriched by the following:
– Cafe/ Restaurant to celebrate 'last and first meals of quality'".
Good grief, they want to put a cafe at Heathy and Loch! If they rely on walkers they will go broke. Even on a main road there will probably be limited custom - drivers will not want to stop that close to Falls and Hotham Heights.
Part C page 103 has a total cost of $34,090,506. I love the fact that they have the cost to the nearest dollar. Page 92 of the DMP had capital costs of $22.4 million. Given that the cost has jumped over 50%, might not a figure to the nearest dollar be a tad silly?
There seems to be no mention of bushwalkers displaced by the new infrastructure, or how our experiences are compromised bt the FHAC. Finally, there is an Australian track standard. In Victoria we walk in tracks, not trails.
If this monstrosity proceeds, let it be. Let it fail, wait for the rescues and deaths, then see who takes responsibility for the chaos. If FHAC is approved I will advise the State Coroner of my misgivings. If there's a death then it wil be on record that it was preventable.
Final management plan comments
I've briefly looked at the latest plans and continue to be unimpressed. It's the same bland ideas, with all of the downside glossed over. It works like this. A government agency commissions a report. The contractor knows what is required, and that the report should reflect this. If it does not, then there will be no more jobs from that agency. It's subtle but pervading.
This is why the old way of public service advice worked very well. If the Minister had a bad idea than he was so advised, with no threat to public servant's job. The new way is that one agrees with the boss or you may be sacked, or miss out on promotions. The new way is barmy.
Here's a few points from the reports.
As before the layouts are not very good, quite faded. As mentioned above, Diamantina Hut has moved north. There's a handful of typos, but far less than before. It seems that my comments about spelling, punctuation and grammar were noted.
Part A page 1 says "In order to maximise the experiences for a diverse array of walkers, including individual adventure seekers, small and self-guided groups, larger educational and school groups and guided tours, a suite of improvements and additional infrastructure will be developed to the highest standards of sustainable planning, design and management. These upgrades will consist of a higher track quality to enable improved engagement with the surrounds, rest stops to fully appreciate the breathtaking beauty of the High Country, interpretation to gain understanding and insight into the landscapes narratives, and a choice of well-designed, low-impact accommodation options that cater to individual levels of comfort along the walk."
This is nearly all BS. These groups manage at present. There is no need for all this expense!
Part A page 5 says "It is estimated that there will be an uplift in visitor spending, both regionally and by means of travel, to the potential total spend of $23.4 million per annum by 2027 when the trail is fully operational."
I cannot see this happening. It's too much.
Part A page 18 discusses the environmental risk assessment "Biosis identified that, at a top level, there were no significant adverse environmental impacts of the track, and that priority risks could be adequately managed by following normal planning procedures and detailed on-ground assessments prior to construction."
Interesting. What about the 5-10,000 bushwalkers on the FHAC? The OLT has pollution problems due to not enough toilets, and is starting to fix this with a toilet at Pelion Gap. The April 2018 plan seems not to mention toilets between nodes.
Part A page 44, they still suggest a jaunt from a Tawonga camp to Jaithmathang to watch the sunset. The writer is insane! It's a tricky descent from the summit, moreso at night. Just after this is a plan for a new track, bypassing pole 333 to go to Westons. madness! There's already a track, Tawonga, pole 333, Westons.
Part A page 48 says "The most physically challenging of all segments provides walkers with a grade 4 track to conquer. Diamantina Spur heaves up from the valley floor, rising 450 m in roughly 1.5 km". No mention of the rest of the climb, and I abhor the word "conquer".
My January 2017 submission about the Draft Management Plan said:
"3.11 There's contradictions. Page 32 in fine print says "Diamantina River Camp-Mt Feathertop 8.5km (sic) - 760m (sic) climb - 7 hours Grade 4". Page 48 implies that the climb is 450 metres. The climb from the valley to Mt Feathertop is about 900 metres."
That is, they took no notice of my advice. The April 2018 plan is still misleading. No surprise.
Part A page 48 says "Walkers can stop on the spur to spend the night in an area protected by snow gums. An add-on is the climb to Mt Feathertop for sunset or sunrise."
Part A page 49 says "Following a sunrise climb to Mt Feathertop, the final day of the trail takes walkers along the Razorback".
They still have these crazy ideas about sunrises and sunsets. It's too far, too dangerous. I raised both of these in my submission, again ignored.
Part B page 56 details tracks. It's scary in places.
Part B page 57 says "Utilise existing trails where possible. Utilise existing infrastructure as much as possible, minimising the need for additional construction."
So why duplicate the track from Tawonga Huts to pole 333? Why add the huts and platforms? Why over-engineer the tracks? Why add seats?
"Ensure the trail is always clearly visible to the walker and use existing fallen tree branches and/or loose stones to clearly mark the direction and edge of the trail (without impeding drainage)."
Gosh! The tracks I have been on generally are defined by people, boots on the ground. There is no need to have branches and rocks at the edges.
Part B page 62 "Elevated camping platforms can improve the camping experience, especially during bad weather, and better protect the surrounding environments. Each Hiker Camp is proposed to offer 12 elevated 3-person platforms, each able to secure one tent or swag."
What a total waste of resources! Grass works fine, and can have more people camped. How many swags have you seen on bushwalks? I've never seen one. Mentioning swags suggests that the writer has no idea about bushwalking, none at all. The possibility arises that swag is a typo and should be SWAG - Stupid Wild-Arsed Guess.
Part B page 64 "Elevated camp platforms. 4 x 4 metres. Hardwood timber decking. 12 x platforms accommodating 2–3 people per platform. Platforms to be located individually and some groups of 3 or 4 to accommodate larger group settings and families."
This will destroy the environment. The platforms have a huge footprint, and will significantly reduce the number of available tent sites. The platforms have a huge amount of dead space.
"2 x drop toilet cubicles over a sealed vault system."
The numbers envisaged require two sets of two toilets, one set in use, one set not, waiting to be emptied. This is the setup at many popular remote campsites.
Part B, page 64 details lodges - there is no other word - with "1 x communal hut. Full weather protection. Tables and chairs for dining. Kitchen for fully catered services. Water provision by roof water harvesting (non-potable water quality). Solar power (for charging of low-voltage devices such as cameras and phones). Outdoor decking for social engagement and relaxation. Integrated lockers and drying room/ area."
This is not what our wild and beautiful places are about. The proposal reeks of privatisation of the mountains at our expense. Ghastly. Note that before (from memory) the huts were temporary. Now they are fixed. How long before they are used in winter? What about the conservation zone on Diamantina Spur?
Part B page 78 "The Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing should meet or exceed the pre-walking standards of other iconic walks."
Not good. Part of the charm of the place is the variety of tracks, obstacles, and challenges. The FHAC proposes to homogenise that, making it one size fits all. This is bollocks.
Part C page 86 says "Recent research undertaken and brought forward in 'Victoria's Nature-Based Tourism Strategy' 2008–2012, shows shifts in consumer preferences from traditional independent multi-day bushwalking trips to a greater demand for soft adventure, comfort and security offered by commercial operators."
This needs to be verified. I suspect it's mainly BS.
Part C page 87 says of the Overland Track "Bookable tent platforms at most overnight nodes. Toilet facilities. Non-bookable basic hut facilities [i.e. no mattress or cooking facilities). $150 per person total".
Can OLT platforms be booked? The OLT costs $200 plus a park fee, $30 minimum.
Part C page 88 "Limited surveys have indicated that current users are of a diverse mix of day walkers, with overnight users tending to seek an adventurous, self-sufficient experience. The nature of the solely tent-based accommodation dictates the current profile of users, with overnight users consisting predominantly of 'adventure seekers' and outdoor educational groups such as scouts and school groups.
"Adventure seekers
"The ‘adventure seekers’ are a market which has been described as valuing the ‘wild’ experience and being self-sufficient. This group consists mainly of experienced to very experienced walkers who are fully independent in terms of drop-off and pick-up and for all equipment. They value solitude and wish to pit themselves against nature while being fully immersed in it, and wish to ‘tread lightly’. This user profile is dictated by the relatively high level of difficulty of trail segments, together with the nature of the solely tent-based accommodation."
I've taken beginners to the Bogong High Plains, summer and winter.
Part C page 90 "According to the visitation numbers outlined in these reports it can be assumed that groups that will take up the opportunity for facilitated walking will be drawn from the following areas:
– Bushwalkers in the High Country
– 7,000 pa international visitors.
– 193,000 pa domestic overnight visitors.
– 93,000 pa day-trippers.
– Total 293,000 bushwalkers."
Right, 293,000 bushwalkers. The BS level is rising.
Part C page 91 says that there are three scenarios for the number of walkers low 5175, medium 7777 and high 10,699. I love the way that they have such precise figures. The OLT has 7-9000 walkers a year. This is a long-established internationally recognised walk, brilliant scenery. How can an upstart like FHAC compete? I simply cannot see even the low figure being met.
Part C page 91 "One approach to estimating the number of walkers who may take up the opportunity for facilitated walks on the proposed trail is to estimate the market share of the number of current bushwalkers in the High Country. As outlined above the estimate is 293,000 per annum. This is increased by the official visitation forecasts to estimate that the number of bushwalkers will increase to 427,000 per annum by 2027."
BS's getting higher. I will attempt to dig out, perhaps with the help of 427,000 bushwalkers.
Part C page 93 "All of the trails mentioned above are one-way only. The Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing will be marketed and managed as a one-way walking experience, although some walkers will inevitably enter the trails from other origins such as Harrietville and Dinner Plain, as well as from the Mt Loch trail head. With a potential diversity of origins, walkers will meet on the trail network over an extended period in the middle of the day."
Nobody, repeat nobody tells me where and how and in what direction I walk. On a recent trip to the region, of the 11 nights I varied campsites for six nights. Too far, too windy, saw an easier way. The route was varied as well.
Part C page 96 "A significant opportunity for the private sector is to tap into the delivery of infrastructure associated with the trailhead locations. These are the Lakeside trailhead at Falls Creek and the Mt Loch trailhead in Mt Hotham. These trailheads would include not only components of the trail infrastructure, such as information boards and maps, trailhead sculpture for photo opportunities and some seating for preparation works, and could also be enriched by the following:
– Cafe/ Restaurant to celebrate 'last and first meals of quality'".
Good grief, they want to put a cafe at Heathy and Loch! If they rely on walkers they will go broke. Even on a main road there will probably be limited custom - drivers will not want to stop that close to Falls and Hotham Heights.
Part C page 103 has a total cost of $34,090,506. I love the fact that they have the cost to the nearest dollar. Page 92 of the DMP had capital costs of $22.4 million. Given that the cost has jumped over 50%, might not a figure to the nearest dollar be a tad silly?
There seems to be no mention of bushwalkers displaced by the new infrastructure, or how our experiences are compromised bt the FHAC. Finally, there is an Australian track standard. In Victoria we walk in tracks, not trails.
If this monstrosity proceeds, let it be. Let it fail, wait for the rescues and deaths, then see who takes responsibility for the chaos. If FHAC is approved I will advise the State Coroner of my misgivings. If there's a death then it wil be on record that it was preventable.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Tue 17 Apr, 2018 10:02 am
I can only picture two or three pony tailed coked up office bound wankers in Italian suits at a consulting firm office making all of this BS up and getting paid for it.
Meanwhile they are paving paradise and putting up a parking lot.
Thankfully the mountains will eventually claw back whatever poo... is built on them because the climate and environment is extreme. Just maintaining all of this pile of poo... would impinge greatly on any profits made.
How many people who have never walked to their local shops have even heard of Mt . Feathertop? Now ask the same Question about somewhere such as Cradle Mountain or Milford Sound.
Meanwhile they are paving paradise and putting up a parking lot.
Thankfully the mountains will eventually claw back whatever poo... is built on them because the climate and environment is extreme. Just maintaining all of this pile of poo... would impinge greatly on any profits made.
How many people who have never walked to their local shops have even heard of Mt . Feathertop? Now ask the same Question about somewhere such as Cradle Mountain or Milford Sound.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Tue 17 Apr, 2018 2:21 pm
Some User pays newbie could have a cardiac arrest going up the Diamantina Spur!.That would be bad for the 'walker/crawler' and his/her near and dear ones but even worse would be the bad publicity it would generate for PV regarding this pile of donkey droppings .
Last edited by paidal_chalne_vala on Tue 17 Apr, 2018 7:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Tue 17 Apr, 2018 2:47 pm
Yes, bad for the family, and bad PR. Donkey droppings is a suitable term. One picture that horrified me is this one:
Part B page 54 "The track design principles reflect two key considerations; the minimisation of environmental and visual impact of any built assets within the park, and the experiential quality of the track for walkers."
The track above is like something for the Botanic Gardens. By their own measure, the track has failed both key considerations. The track works in a city but not at all in a wild and remote place. I find steel boardwalks less offensive as they are necessary. The track above is unnecessary.
The second failure is that my experience would be severely compromised by a track like this. All I need is a track that is about two boots wide, with good erosion control. I can still recall my delight when seeing stone pavers on the main pole line south of Mount Jim, perhaps around pole 290. The point is the variety, the unknown. Nothing serious, just a little uncertainty. What will the track be like? Will I find a good campsite? What will the weather do? The FHAC removes a lot of uncertainties, and thus detracts from the experience.
Pole 290 was down two years ago, and is still down. Pole 286 is also down.
PV have too many competing priorties.
- Part B P 54 track.png (465.25 KiB) Viewed 39000 times
Part B page 54 "The track design principles reflect two key considerations; the minimisation of environmental and visual impact of any built assets within the park, and the experiential quality of the track for walkers."
The track above is like something for the Botanic Gardens. By their own measure, the track has failed both key considerations. The track works in a city but not at all in a wild and remote place. I find steel boardwalks less offensive as they are necessary. The track above is unnecessary.
The second failure is that my experience would be severely compromised by a track like this. All I need is a track that is about two boots wide, with good erosion control. I can still recall my delight when seeing stone pavers on the main pole line south of Mount Jim, perhaps around pole 290. The point is the variety, the unknown. Nothing serious, just a little uncertainty. What will the track be like? Will I find a good campsite? What will the weather do? The FHAC removes a lot of uncertainties, and thus detracts from the experience.
Pole 290 was down two years ago, and is still down. Pole 286 is also down.
- Pole 286 S.jpg (243.46 KiB) Viewed 39000 times
PV have too many competing priorties.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Tue 17 Apr, 2018 7:09 pm
PV have no money at all. How can they install this pile of Donkey droppings let alone maintain it? This could be working in our favour in order to keep the BHP area as it is !
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Wed 18 Apr, 2018 5:07 pm
There's a discussion at
https://www.ski.com.au/xf/threads/fhac- ... st-3556656
In that thread there's mention of a section of the report I missed. Part B page 63 "Subject to weather conditions and servicing access, roofed accommodation may have the potential to operate year-round to cater for cross country skiers and snowshoers. This white season use would be subject to further investigation and consultation with potential user groups and private operators."
This is nasty, defacto privatisation of the mountains. Recall that the Draft Management Plan in December 2016 had huts that would be removed for winter. Now they stay. There's a number of good points in that thread, worth reading.
https://www.ski.com.au/xf/threads/fhac- ... st-3556656
In that thread there's mention of a section of the report I missed. Part B page 63 "Subject to weather conditions and servicing access, roofed accommodation may have the potential to operate year-round to cater for cross country skiers and snowshoers. This white season use would be subject to further investigation and consultation with potential user groups and private operators."
This is nasty, defacto privatisation of the mountains. Recall that the Draft Management Plan in December 2016 had huts that would be removed for winter. Now they stay. There's a number of good points in that thread, worth reading.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Thu 19 Apr, 2018 12:03 am
I knew this was all a Trojan horse for Heli Skiing!. Mt. Hotham resort have wanted to annex the Razorback and Mt. FT for years for their white season operations. If the Ski resorts were serious about green season business then they would be well and truly open for business in green season the way Thredbo seems to be nowadays.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Thu 19 Apr, 2018 11:40 am
PV have sent me an email about the final plans. A small point: they did not use my private email - they used a business email. This is what PV said:
*** email starts
Parks Victoria has released the final master plan for the Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing following a two-year, three stage stakeholder consultation process, developed in partnership with Tourism North East, Regional Development Victoria, Visit Victoria and the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources.
We are incredibly grateful for your support and involvement during the consultation process to shape the concept of the Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing.
The Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing will offer an array of opportunities for visitors to discover and learn about the natural and cultural values of the Alps. The master plan will deliver:
· New and environmentally friendly ‘hiker camps’
· Updates and improvements to existing trails
· 4 new low-impact ‘operator huts’ tailored for walkers who prefer a roof over their head
· Educational experiences through guided tours and interpretive signage
· World-class trail infrastructure constructed with environmentally sustainable materials and design
· Increased visitation into the region, boosting overall tourism activity and regional dispersal of visitors
· The creation of more than 200 jobs in construction, 99 of which will be regionally based, with another 130 full time jobs in the servicing sector
In response to the consultation process, the following alterations were made to the master plan
• A stronger focus on conserving the natural and cultural values of the Alps.
• A review of projected visitor numbers and economic modelling.
• A review of the Diamantina Spur trail feasibility.
• Refinement of the proposal for 4 overnight accommodation sites on the trail to cater for a range of accommodation choices to suit the diversity of walkers. Night one: Bogong High Plains; Night two: Tawonga Huts; Night three: Diamantina River and Red Robin Battery; Night four: Mt Feathertop.
• New Hiker Camps will offer environmentally sound and more convenient platform tent-based camping with new shelters for dining and socialising.
• Dispersed camping is still supported along the full-length of the trail except within 100 metres of designated hiker camps, meaning that independent walkers can continue to walk the new trail free of charge.
• A hiker camp is no longer proposed at the Federation Hut site. The hiker camp for night 4 will be located adjacent to the proposed operated hut site below High Knob, towards the top of the Diamantina Spur.
• Dispersed camping will no longer be available at High Knob but campers can choose from other suitable flat sites nearby, so the full five-day and four-night experience will be available to independent walkers.
• Track upgrades to provide a more achievable walking experience for the greater diversity of walkers, environmental protection and to limit erosion.
Once again, Parks Victoria thanks you for your involvement and we look forward to working with you over the coming months and years to create an iconic walk for North-Eastern Victoria.
For more information and to download the full Masterplan, please visit http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/explore/parks ... aster-plan
**Additionally, there will be a regional drop in information session to be held in both Northern Victoria and Melbourne- details to be confirmed and circulated to you shortly.
Melanie McVey-Di Lazzaro
Communications Advisor- Eastern Victoria
T +6138427 2417 I M 0459 818 451
E melanie.mcvey-dilazzaro@parks.vic.gov.au
W www.parks.vic.gov.au
Parks Victoria
71 Hotham Street, Traralgon VIC 3844
*** email ends
I remain very unimpressed.
The "environmentally friendly hiker camps" are nothing of the kind. The platforms will severely limit the number of tents, and force people to either pay, squeeze in or camp elsewhere. The Cope Hut platforms are quite poorly sited. A few weeks ago it was very windy, and the platforms were quite exposed. No amount of pretty pictures will vary that. Despite tens of thousands of overnight visits, the grass at Federation Hut is fine. There are some bare patches, old fire scars, and these can be fixed over time. Why build unnecessary platforms? The same comments apply everywhere that has high use. At least there will be no camp at Federation. One small victory.
"A stronger focus on conserving the natural and cultural values of the Alps ... New Hiker Camps will offer environmentally sound and more convenient platform tent-based camping with new shelters for dining and socialising." Bollocks. My cultural values are being compromised. The platforms are unnecessary, and thus waste resources. The platforms are very inconvenient. Bollocks to these two points as well.
The "review of projected visitor numbers and economic modelling" still ignores the gross errors in base information, maths and model errors in earlier reports. For example, a few days ago I showed that the current easier FHAC has about 70 walker nights a year. The PV plans said 17,000 walker nights. This is an error of 240 times. Oops.
"Dispersed camping will no longer be available at High Knob but campers can choose from other suitable flat sites nearby, so the full five-day and four-night experience will be available to independent walkers." Gosh. The small sheltered valley near High Knob is brilliant albeit with no water, and they want to take it way. Read my lips: NO NO NO. I'd like to see PV enforce this.
Milford, the OLT and other tracks developed over decades. As the walks gained popularity, management improved the infrastructure, learning in the process. Milford et al have spectacular scenery, drawing in visitors. Much as I love the Victorian and Australian alps, their beauty is of a more subtle kind. PV is attempting to reverse the way that Milford et al evolved - build FHAC and they will come, PV says. Strange, the current easier FHAC has been around for few years and has about 35 people a year. Walking at over 2000 metres above sea level s they advertise may not appeal. The new, improved, environmentally pure, well graded FHAC with huts, signs, Botanic garden tracks, seats and more (but no toilets between stops, and no fire shelters at all) will suffer the same fate. Hardly anybody will come.
The cost is already up over 50% in just over a year. The return on investment looks even more questionable. Once there is an adverse event, probably on Diamantina Spur, the FHAC reputation will suffer, and PV will look rather silly. The PV ground staff are brilliant, love them. The PV staff and others promoting this horrible idea need a little more knowledge about matters bushwalking and economics.
*** email starts
Parks Victoria has released the final master plan for the Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing following a two-year, three stage stakeholder consultation process, developed in partnership with Tourism North East, Regional Development Victoria, Visit Victoria and the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources.
We are incredibly grateful for your support and involvement during the consultation process to shape the concept of the Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing.
The Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing will offer an array of opportunities for visitors to discover and learn about the natural and cultural values of the Alps. The master plan will deliver:
· New and environmentally friendly ‘hiker camps’
· Updates and improvements to existing trails
· 4 new low-impact ‘operator huts’ tailored for walkers who prefer a roof over their head
· Educational experiences through guided tours and interpretive signage
· World-class trail infrastructure constructed with environmentally sustainable materials and design
· Increased visitation into the region, boosting overall tourism activity and regional dispersal of visitors
· The creation of more than 200 jobs in construction, 99 of which will be regionally based, with another 130 full time jobs in the servicing sector
In response to the consultation process, the following alterations were made to the master plan
• A stronger focus on conserving the natural and cultural values of the Alps.
• A review of projected visitor numbers and economic modelling.
• A review of the Diamantina Spur trail feasibility.
• Refinement of the proposal for 4 overnight accommodation sites on the trail to cater for a range of accommodation choices to suit the diversity of walkers. Night one: Bogong High Plains; Night two: Tawonga Huts; Night three: Diamantina River and Red Robin Battery; Night four: Mt Feathertop.
• New Hiker Camps will offer environmentally sound and more convenient platform tent-based camping with new shelters for dining and socialising.
• Dispersed camping is still supported along the full-length of the trail except within 100 metres of designated hiker camps, meaning that independent walkers can continue to walk the new trail free of charge.
• A hiker camp is no longer proposed at the Federation Hut site. The hiker camp for night 4 will be located adjacent to the proposed operated hut site below High Knob, towards the top of the Diamantina Spur.
• Dispersed camping will no longer be available at High Knob but campers can choose from other suitable flat sites nearby, so the full five-day and four-night experience will be available to independent walkers.
• Track upgrades to provide a more achievable walking experience for the greater diversity of walkers, environmental protection and to limit erosion.
Once again, Parks Victoria thanks you for your involvement and we look forward to working with you over the coming months and years to create an iconic walk for North-Eastern Victoria.
For more information and to download the full Masterplan, please visit http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/explore/parks ... aster-plan
**Additionally, there will be a regional drop in information session to be held in both Northern Victoria and Melbourne- details to be confirmed and circulated to you shortly.
Melanie McVey-Di Lazzaro
Communications Advisor- Eastern Victoria
T +6138427 2417 I M 0459 818 451
E melanie.mcvey-dilazzaro@parks.vic.gov.au
W www.parks.vic.gov.au
Parks Victoria
71 Hotham Street, Traralgon VIC 3844
*** email ends
I remain very unimpressed.
The "environmentally friendly hiker camps" are nothing of the kind. The platforms will severely limit the number of tents, and force people to either pay, squeeze in or camp elsewhere. The Cope Hut platforms are quite poorly sited. A few weeks ago it was very windy, and the platforms were quite exposed. No amount of pretty pictures will vary that. Despite tens of thousands of overnight visits, the grass at Federation Hut is fine. There are some bare patches, old fire scars, and these can be fixed over time. Why build unnecessary platforms? The same comments apply everywhere that has high use. At least there will be no camp at Federation. One small victory.
"A stronger focus on conserving the natural and cultural values of the Alps ... New Hiker Camps will offer environmentally sound and more convenient platform tent-based camping with new shelters for dining and socialising." Bollocks. My cultural values are being compromised. The platforms are unnecessary, and thus waste resources. The platforms are very inconvenient. Bollocks to these two points as well.
The "review of projected visitor numbers and economic modelling" still ignores the gross errors in base information, maths and model errors in earlier reports. For example, a few days ago I showed that the current easier FHAC has about 70 walker nights a year. The PV plans said 17,000 walker nights. This is an error of 240 times. Oops.
"Dispersed camping will no longer be available at High Knob but campers can choose from other suitable flat sites nearby, so the full five-day and four-night experience will be available to independent walkers." Gosh. The small sheltered valley near High Knob is brilliant albeit with no water, and they want to take it way. Read my lips: NO NO NO. I'd like to see PV enforce this.
Milford, the OLT and other tracks developed over decades. As the walks gained popularity, management improved the infrastructure, learning in the process. Milford et al have spectacular scenery, drawing in visitors. Much as I love the Victorian and Australian alps, their beauty is of a more subtle kind. PV is attempting to reverse the way that Milford et al evolved - build FHAC and they will come, PV says. Strange, the current easier FHAC has been around for few years and has about 35 people a year. Walking at over 2000 metres above sea level s they advertise may not appeal. The new, improved, environmentally pure, well graded FHAC with huts, signs, Botanic garden tracks, seats and more (but no toilets between stops, and no fire shelters at all) will suffer the same fate. Hardly anybody will come.
The cost is already up over 50% in just over a year. The return on investment looks even more questionable. Once there is an adverse event, probably on Diamantina Spur, the FHAC reputation will suffer, and PV will look rather silly. The PV ground staff are brilliant, love them. The PV staff and others promoting this horrible idea need a little more knowledge about matters bushwalking and economics.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Thu 19 Apr, 2018 7:50 pm
I am ready to stage a civil disobedience action on the High Knob / Diamantina spur campsite if anything is done there to change it one iota.
It is a brilliant place . The fact that it has no water , hut or dunnies keeps the majority of people away. It is wild and scenic with water one can fetch and carry back about one hour away from the spring along the MUMC Hut track.
I would like to see PV staff act like policemen and police women ensuring any hiker who has not paid for their 5 day walk can or cannot 'lay some cable' in one of the new user pays glamper dunnies.
I could walk the new proposed route in 2 or 3 days. Are they having a laugh?
It is a brilliant place . The fact that it has no water , hut or dunnies keeps the majority of people away. It is wild and scenic with water one can fetch and carry back about one hour away from the spring along the MUMC Hut track.
I would like to see PV staff act like policemen and police women ensuring any hiker who has not paid for their 5 day walk can or cannot 'lay some cable' in one of the new user pays glamper dunnies.
I could walk the new proposed route in 2 or 3 days. Are they having a laugh?
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Thu 19 Apr, 2018 8:36 pm
Mass civil disobedience works. Did you know that Australian Consumer Law does not apply to government departments? So you enter into a contract to use a platform, and PV does not guarantee that, cannot do so unless a PV staffer is on site. If you cannot use the platform, short of evicting the interlopers by force, there's no legal remedy.
http://www.crownlaw.qld.gov.au/resource ... a-business
"Under Victorian fair trading legislation, the Australian Consumer Law only applies to that State so far as it carries on a business, either directly or through its authorities."
The rest of the article is interesting. There's an earlier precedent, might be able to find it.
The latest plan says that anyone can walk the track in any direction for free. The platforms and lodges cost, and there's no camping within 100 metres of them, and some other places. While the toilets are going to be for the lodges and platforms, I cannot see PV objecting to non-payers using them.
I noticed at Dibbins Hut the toilet was close to the platforms and somewhat distant from the hut, where there's room for several tents. It was suggested that people camping near the huts may not use the distant toilets, and just go bush, thus polluting the water table for the platform dwellers. Nice. There really should be a toilet nearer the hut.
Off topic, the toilet door at Derrick does not shut, and neither does the hut door. The hut really need an airlock.
I'm advised that PV ground staff do not see their role as enforcing silly regulations. They would have to take a tape measure, pictures, write up a prosecution brief, and, if the matter is defended, come to court. Hint. If it looks like going to court, lodge with VCAT first, set the agenda, make PV defend, let them incur costs. I did this once, lodging with VCAT a day before the other party lodged at a Magistrates' Court. They were really annoyed about this.
http://www.crownlaw.qld.gov.au/resource ... a-business
"Under Victorian fair trading legislation, the Australian Consumer Law only applies to that State so far as it carries on a business, either directly or through its authorities."
The rest of the article is interesting. There's an earlier precedent, might be able to find it.
The latest plan says that anyone can walk the track in any direction for free. The platforms and lodges cost, and there's no camping within 100 metres of them, and some other places. While the toilets are going to be for the lodges and platforms, I cannot see PV objecting to non-payers using them.
I noticed at Dibbins Hut the toilet was close to the platforms and somewhat distant from the hut, where there's room for several tents. It was suggested that people camping near the huts may not use the distant toilets, and just go bush, thus polluting the water table for the platform dwellers. Nice. There really should be a toilet nearer the hut.
Off topic, the toilet door at Derrick does not shut, and neither does the hut door. The hut really need an airlock.
I'm advised that PV ground staff do not see their role as enforcing silly regulations. They would have to take a tape measure, pictures, write up a prosecution brief, and, if the matter is defended, come to court. Hint. If it looks like going to court, lodge with VCAT first, set the agenda, make PV defend, let them incur costs. I did this once, lodging with VCAT a day before the other party lodged at a Magistrates' Court. They were really annoyed about this.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Thu 19 Apr, 2018 11:34 pm
If the plan progresses to a commencement of building stuff on the High Knob campsite then we the people need to mobilize ourselves , go there and stage a sit in to stop them.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Tue 24 Apr, 2018 12:25 pm
Charlie Derrick isn't in the National Park tho and it is maintained by Wangaratta Ski Club. Best bet is to send a letter with a large cheque if you need any maintenance done there, the club is woefully short of funds. Charlie Derrick is in the Hotham ski resort boundary for some obscure reason
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Mon 30 Apr, 2018 3:15 pm
Thanks for for keeping us up to date. I can barely believe this idea is actually progressing. It will ruin the area for those of us who enjoy remote hiking for the remote solitude. I have now read through the current master plan and it's still full of errors, misnamed rivers and roads and overlooking so many issues.
I also note the suggestion to close the West Kiewa logging road to the public so that the walking section along the road is quieter. I also note that the proposal is to service the new huts at high knob using helicopter!
2-3 people accommodated per hut!
They assume that the West kiewa logging road and fainters fire trail will be used to service the other huts, but one is seasonally closed and the other is currently not a vehicle access track (do correct me if I'm wrong!)
I also noticed that all the "excess water" at red robin battery (aka a river) could be used for hot showers. Where is this waste water going to be treated. I presume they will helicopter out all of the sealed void toilet facilities, but what about all the other current long drop toilets at the current huts that would get so much more use by uneducated glamping walkers.
I will join the list of people emailing pv and local\state government. Election years are a good time to make a point.
I will definitely ask them if the huts will meet bushfire refuge building standards and be big enough to hide all the hut occupants and all 36 people who might be on the camping platforms.
Will they manage to prevent all cooking and smoking on days of total fire ban? What about the inevitable gas cookers in the catering kitchens for the managed huts?
It's all just ridiculous. On page 38, they even encourage people to "amend their journey by stepping off the main trail" onto one of the many other trails in the area. Remember these are people who don't currently go hiking and won't have planned to do anything other than walk on an obvious gravel trail. I'd like to see the volunteer SES people raise their objections and a schedule of search fees for operators who lose people or need someone with a twisted ankle removed from the trail.
I also note the suggestion to close the West Kiewa logging road to the public so that the walking section along the road is quieter. I also note that the proposal is to service the new huts at high knob using helicopter!
2-3 people accommodated per hut!
They assume that the West kiewa logging road and fainters fire trail will be used to service the other huts, but one is seasonally closed and the other is currently not a vehicle access track (do correct me if I'm wrong!)
I also noticed that all the "excess water" at red robin battery (aka a river) could be used for hot showers. Where is this waste water going to be treated. I presume they will helicopter out all of the sealed void toilet facilities, but what about all the other current long drop toilets at the current huts that would get so much more use by uneducated glamping walkers.
I will join the list of people emailing pv and local\state government. Election years are a good time to make a point.
I will definitely ask them if the huts will meet bushfire refuge building standards and be big enough to hide all the hut occupants and all 36 people who might be on the camping platforms.
Will they manage to prevent all cooking and smoking on days of total fire ban? What about the inevitable gas cookers in the catering kitchens for the managed huts?
It's all just ridiculous. On page 38, they even encourage people to "amend their journey by stepping off the main trail" onto one of the many other trails in the area. Remember these are people who don't currently go hiking and won't have planned to do anything other than walk on an obvious gravel trail. I'd like to see the volunteer SES people raise their objections and a schedule of search fees for operators who lose people or need someone with a twisted ankle removed from the trail.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Mon 30 Apr, 2018 5:15 pm
Nick, good points. I found the report quite hard to read - poor contrast - and may pursue this avenue later. PV have said that earlier similar reports are acceptable in terms of contrast. Funny, I've got nearly 100% success at challenging this sort of thing, including not paying a utility invoice that was too faded, and a bank on the ropes due to low-contrast statements. They all settle out of court, which is a great shame as I want a precedent.
The typos are a given - the writers have not been there, know nothing. The advice to go to Jaithmathang and Feathertop for the sunset and/or sunrise shows how devoid of scholarship the plan is, and how they are miles outside their level of competence. The High Knob helicopter is a worry, and seems to me to be a clear breach of the conservation zone. Maybe a surface to air missile would resolve the issue. I'm not advocating this, or anything that harms people or property. That said, a bushfire would be nice.
I missed the small number of people in each hut. Ye gods and little fishes, what waste of floor, walls and roof!
Waste water treatment at all places needs to be addressed. The long drop toilets will have to be replaced by four seaters, two in use and two not, like at many popular places such as Federation and Cleve Cole.
Cooking and smoking on days of total fire ban is another point I missed. Without looking up the TFB regulations, I recall that any fire in the open air is proscribed on TFB days. This means that cooking must be in the sleeping huts. This means steel benches, like at Cradle. Smokers - good grief! I have not seen a fag end in the bush for ages. Having smokers is a sort of DIY bushfire kit. Discarding glass containers is another way to get to this end.
I've been seeking access to the submissions via Freedom of Information for nearly six months. PV have dug their heels in, with much PV advice unsupported by the facts. It's getting rather technical, deep inside two Victorian Acts of Parliament. Here's a few simple examples.
PV said that they could not release anything to a flash drive that I would bring to PV in the CBD. PV said:
"distributing documents in electronic formats is deemed to have too high a risk because of the ability to change them."
This is bollocks, as the originals are with PV, who I was advised today are soon to release all submissions for public inspection (bar those marked confidential) online. If the submissions are published online I will ask why the earlier advice was so and why they changed their policy.
PV said that there was advice to people making submissions that submissions would be released after the minister had made a decision. I've sought evidence of this for many months and PV have been unable to provide the evidence. As far as I can see there was no such advice from PV.
There's a number of other examples that does not show PV in a very good light. Please note that I draw a very strong distinction between PV staff supporting the FHAC and field staff, wonderful people.
In summary, PV have delayed and obfuscated my FOI request on tenuous false grounds that do not stand up to scrutiny. I want the submissions to show who said what, that the Final Plan is based more on ideology and preconceived goals than assessing the proposal on merits.
The typos are a given - the writers have not been there, know nothing. The advice to go to Jaithmathang and Feathertop for the sunset and/or sunrise shows how devoid of scholarship the plan is, and how they are miles outside their level of competence. The High Knob helicopter is a worry, and seems to me to be a clear breach of the conservation zone. Maybe a surface to air missile would resolve the issue. I'm not advocating this, or anything that harms people or property. That said, a bushfire would be nice.
I missed the small number of people in each hut. Ye gods and little fishes, what waste of floor, walls and roof!
Waste water treatment at all places needs to be addressed. The long drop toilets will have to be replaced by four seaters, two in use and two not, like at many popular places such as Federation and Cleve Cole.
Cooking and smoking on days of total fire ban is another point I missed. Without looking up the TFB regulations, I recall that any fire in the open air is proscribed on TFB days. This means that cooking must be in the sleeping huts. This means steel benches, like at Cradle. Smokers - good grief! I have not seen a fag end in the bush for ages. Having smokers is a sort of DIY bushfire kit. Discarding glass containers is another way to get to this end.
I've been seeking access to the submissions via Freedom of Information for nearly six months. PV have dug their heels in, with much PV advice unsupported by the facts. It's getting rather technical, deep inside two Victorian Acts of Parliament. Here's a few simple examples.
PV said that they could not release anything to a flash drive that I would bring to PV in the CBD. PV said:
"distributing documents in electronic formats is deemed to have too high a risk because of the ability to change them."
This is bollocks, as the originals are with PV, who I was advised today are soon to release all submissions for public inspection (bar those marked confidential) online. If the submissions are published online I will ask why the earlier advice was so and why they changed their policy.
PV said that there was advice to people making submissions that submissions would be released after the minister had made a decision. I've sought evidence of this for many months and PV have been unable to provide the evidence. As far as I can see there was no such advice from PV.
There's a number of other examples that does not show PV in a very good light. Please note that I draw a very strong distinction between PV staff supporting the FHAC and field staff, wonderful people.
In summary, PV have delayed and obfuscated my FOI request on tenuous false grounds that do not stand up to scrutiny. I want the submissions to show who said what, that the Final Plan is based more on ideology and preconceived goals than assessing the proposal on merits.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Mon 30 Apr, 2018 6:46 pm
The Plot sickens.
This is a crazy load of baloney!
This is a crazy load of baloney!
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Mon 30 Apr, 2018 6:55 pm
Section 05 of the Plan titled Where will visitors stay? (might I answer: at home!), under the sub-heading Provision / Management, has this statement (p.67):
Comply with the requirements of management zones as per the Greater Alpine National Park Management Plan 2016, Bushfire Management Overlay, the National Parks Act 1975 and the National Parks (Wilderness) Act 1992.
Can I ask what may be a stupid question in regard to this? Does this legislation actually permit private operators to build and make profits from structures within the park? I’m guessing from the way this plan has been proceeding that it does, but as I can’t recall seeing this discussed in this thread I thought I ought to ask.
Comply with the requirements of management zones as per the Greater Alpine National Park Management Plan 2016, Bushfire Management Overlay, the National Parks Act 1975 and the National Parks (Wilderness) Act 1992.
Can I ask what may be a stupid question in regard to this? Does this legislation actually permit private operators to build and make profits from structures within the park? I’m guessing from the way this plan has been proceeding that it does, but as I can’t recall seeing this discussed in this thread I thought I ought to ask.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Mon 30 Apr, 2018 10:19 pm
I'm unsure of the details, however, some observations. When a hut owned by the Melbourne BW burnt down a few years ago, my understanding is that PV did not allow it to be rebuilt as it was a private hut. PV will not allow new huts to be built. My reading of the sundry plans is that the lodges on Diamantina Spur and elsewhere will be built by PV and leased to corporations or rented for the FHAC to parties. So PV pays for the lodges, PV staff and maintenance, with corporations and individuals paying for the use of the lodges and platforms. If the demand is there then it will work, full lodges and platforms or nearly so, and I was wrong.
However, the figures I have and calculations I have made show that the return on investment will be small. I made these points in my January 2017 submissions when the PV FHAC cost was $22.4 million, and it's now $30 million, excluding a heap of things like bigger toilets at campsites, toilets between campsites, fire refuges, PV staff and more. When I'm not giving PV a hard time or getting lost in the bush I'm an investor, work with figures most days, usually successful, but not with banks in the last few weeks. I should have bought shares in the Banking Royal Commission.
The figure that continues to haunt me is the utter fabrication that there are 17,000 walker nights on the proposed FHAC now, and I found just 70 walker nights in log books for the easier current FHAC when I was up there a few weeks ago. The Final Plan figure of 293,000 walkers a year in the High Country now is false. Part C, page 90 has the following:
"According to visitation numbers outlined in these reports, it can be assumed that groups that will take up the opportunity for facilitated walking will be drawn from the following areas
Bushwalkers in the High Country
* 7,000 pa international
* 193,000 pa domestic overnight
* 93,000 pa day trippers
* Total 293,000 bushwalkers"
They cannot even add up or use logic! The purported 7000 international may be day trippers, overnight or both, so the total is wrong. Further, the reports cited are proving hard to obtain. The agency concerned will not reply to requests for copies. I suspect that the reports are based on flawed data and logic, which PV used for the 293,000 figure, expected to grow to 427,000 in nine years. I hope that the lodge at Diamantina Spur is big enough for this tidal wave of humanity, and they don't all come at once. It's okay - spread evenly over eight months it's only about 1780 people a night.
A belated thought. There are helicopters between Falls Creek and Hotham. If there are helicopters to Diamantina Spur, how long before helicopters go from there to Falls Creek and back? This is an exercise in attrition, slowly chipping away.
However, the figures I have and calculations I have made show that the return on investment will be small. I made these points in my January 2017 submissions when the PV FHAC cost was $22.4 million, and it's now $30 million, excluding a heap of things like bigger toilets at campsites, toilets between campsites, fire refuges, PV staff and more. When I'm not giving PV a hard time or getting lost in the bush I'm an investor, work with figures most days, usually successful, but not with banks in the last few weeks. I should have bought shares in the Banking Royal Commission.
The figure that continues to haunt me is the utter fabrication that there are 17,000 walker nights on the proposed FHAC now, and I found just 70 walker nights in log books for the easier current FHAC when I was up there a few weeks ago. The Final Plan figure of 293,000 walkers a year in the High Country now is false. Part C, page 90 has the following:
"According to visitation numbers outlined in these reports, it can be assumed that groups that will take up the opportunity for facilitated walking will be drawn from the following areas
Bushwalkers in the High Country
* 7,000 pa international
* 193,000 pa domestic overnight
* 93,000 pa day trippers
* Total 293,000 bushwalkers"
They cannot even add up or use logic! The purported 7000 international may be day trippers, overnight or both, so the total is wrong. Further, the reports cited are proving hard to obtain. The agency concerned will not reply to requests for copies. I suspect that the reports are based on flawed data and logic, which PV used for the 293,000 figure, expected to grow to 427,000 in nine years. I hope that the lodge at Diamantina Spur is big enough for this tidal wave of humanity, and they don't all come at once. It's okay - spread evenly over eight months it's only about 1780 people a night.
A belated thought. There are helicopters between Falls Creek and Hotham. If there are helicopters to Diamantina Spur, how long before helicopters go from there to Falls Creek and back? This is an exercise in attrition, slowly chipping away.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Tue 01 May, 2018 4:24 am
Lops is right in that they cannot accurately determine the number of people actually walking the track now. Figures have been derived from the camping platform booking information and I strongly suspect the numbers provided are the combined Dibbins and Cope hut platforms. If I can get that confirmed then their numbers have halved. The rest of the numbers are speculation also based on a percentage of tourists. I would suggest nobody should argue the point about the damage this plan will do if they get the numbers because that will mean you believe they can do it and gives a strong economic argument for it. I will be arguing their numbers are still wrong which means any economic modelling will also be wrong.
The real agenda has nothing to do with the walk. The entire branding of the walk is conflicting and ambiguous. Make up your own walk, skip sections, just stay in the huts and day walk. The private operators will be allowed to book the huts all year round to people not doing the walk but walkers will be given preference. How can they manage that? Will they cancel a booking because someone doing the walk wants to book? There will have to be a minimum booking number to open the hut so they will not cater for walkins or individuals and most likely all the bookings will come from LTO's. In reality, the low numbers of walkers will mean the private operators will have to take other bookings to stay viable and there you have a new winter resort. The iconic walk is simply the Trojan horse or vessel to obtain the necessary permissions. Anyone looking to invest in this will not be concerned about low walker numbers. It will all be about the potential to book the huts in winter and snippets of that have been exposed in the plan. I am concerned also that there will be a need to change the planning laws to enable the huts to be built. What flow on effect will that have or will the new planning law be specific to this area?
The real agenda has nothing to do with the walk. The entire branding of the walk is conflicting and ambiguous. Make up your own walk, skip sections, just stay in the huts and day walk. The private operators will be allowed to book the huts all year round to people not doing the walk but walkers will be given preference. How can they manage that? Will they cancel a booking because someone doing the walk wants to book? There will have to be a minimum booking number to open the hut so they will not cater for walkins or individuals and most likely all the bookings will come from LTO's. In reality, the low numbers of walkers will mean the private operators will have to take other bookings to stay viable and there you have a new winter resort. The iconic walk is simply the Trojan horse or vessel to obtain the necessary permissions. Anyone looking to invest in this will not be concerned about low walker numbers. It will all be about the potential to book the huts in winter and snippets of that have been exposed in the plan. I am concerned also that there will be a need to change the planning laws to enable the huts to be built. What flow on effect will that have or will the new planning law be specific to this area?
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Tue 01 May, 2018 5:33 pm
Xplora wrote:............. The iconic walk is simply the Trojan horse or vessel to obtain the necessary permissions...............
Very true Xplora. The idea is to break the mould. Once that is done we can kiss our national parks as we currently see and enjoy them goodbye.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Tue 01 May, 2018 7:34 pm
The Trojan horse which Is the FHAC will be used to open the floodgates and allow a steady slide down the slippery slope of the thin edge of the wedge on the road to hell which is paved with good intentions.
;-P
;-P
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Wed 02 May, 2018 10:10 am
I hadn't been keeping up to date with this disaster but have skimmed through the master plan and recent discussion and remain horrified by the prospect. It's astounding that such dreadful ideas can continue to progress with such flimsy business cases behind them. Quite apart from my concerns about negative impacts on the natural environment and my own ability to enjoy it in relative peace, I just can't see this being anything other than a failure on a commercial level.
I would be in for a sit-in. There's no justification for ruining that lovely spot.
If the plan progresses to a commencement of building stuff on the High Knob campsite then we the people need to mobilize ourselves , go there and stage a sit in to stop them.
I would be in for a sit-in. There's no justification for ruining that lovely spot.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Wed 02 May, 2018 11:24 am
I also noticed in the report no mention of a similarly to the New Zealand Alpine Crossing at Tongariro NP.
I did this 22km walk with the side trip up to the summit on NYE 2017.
If you read the information it says that it is a rocky walk, that the weather can change, snow any time of year and sufficient water & food should be taken etc etc.
As it happens we had a perfect day for it, even then at the summit i had to wear gloves to keep dexterity in my fingers. A couple of days before it had been -8C up there and a blizzard. The summit route is no longer signed for good reason.
Because of the accessibility of the walk, and the number of tour operators supplying bus shuttles, there are Hundreds of people doing this route every day, mostly completely utterly unprepared to walk 20km. I saw a chain of 8 visitors from asia all holding hands to try and descend a fairly easy scree slope, a western teenage boy crying because he had rolled his ankle a bit and was scared of the same slope, a couple of (fit & friendly) french 20's who joined me up at the summit wearing jeans, and plenty of people wearing runners or volleys and even 2 pairs of sandals!. Many bags carried were far too small to contain waterproof clothes. I fear there would have been a lot of thin ponchos in use if we had got a change in the perfect weather.
There were very long queues for the toilets, at 4 different locations and consequently waste in other places.
In short it was an apocalyptic vision of mountain hiking.
Sorry NZ.
Please let us not try and repeat that here, even if the bus operators love the $$ the transport monopoly produces (car parking space near each end is now time restricted to prevent personal car shuttles. Ask the locals if they like this...)
Remember this is a 20km hike...
I did this 22km walk with the side trip up to the summit on NYE 2017.
If you read the information it says that it is a rocky walk, that the weather can change, snow any time of year and sufficient water & food should be taken etc etc.
As it happens we had a perfect day for it, even then at the summit i had to wear gloves to keep dexterity in my fingers. A couple of days before it had been -8C up there and a blizzard. The summit route is no longer signed for good reason.
Because of the accessibility of the walk, and the number of tour operators supplying bus shuttles, there are Hundreds of people doing this route every day, mostly completely utterly unprepared to walk 20km. I saw a chain of 8 visitors from asia all holding hands to try and descend a fairly easy scree slope, a western teenage boy crying because he had rolled his ankle a bit and was scared of the same slope, a couple of (fit & friendly) french 20's who joined me up at the summit wearing jeans, and plenty of people wearing runners or volleys and even 2 pairs of sandals!. Many bags carried were far too small to contain waterproof clothes. I fear there would have been a lot of thin ponchos in use if we had got a change in the perfect weather.
There were very long queues for the toilets, at 4 different locations and consequently waste in other places.
In short it was an apocalyptic vision of mountain hiking.
Sorry NZ.
Please let us not try and repeat that here, even if the bus operators love the $$ the transport monopoly produces (car parking space near each end is now time restricted to prevent personal car shuttles. Ask the locals if they like this...)
Remember this is a 20km hike...
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Wed 02 May, 2018 12:28 pm
Good grief! The crossing is not that hard or long, but could turn out bad if the weather gets nasty. I did the start of circuit, then went south around Ngauruhoe. At Mangetopopo Hut I watched two people attempt to put up a tent in very strong winds. They got it about 30 cm off the ground, blown flat, and gave up after 15 minutes. It was cold the next day, with ice being blown up. A few days later I climbed Ruapehu - in runners. I was on a cycling trip and did not have boots. What I really would have loved to have was an ice axe and crampons. I got up, terrifying.
I managed the circuit in runners very well, as I had walked in runners in many places. This is the difference - experience. You could put an experienced person in a place like the Tongariro Crossing with the same gear as the bumblies you describe and the experienced person would cope much better.
The numbers on the Tongariro Crossing and the lack of toilets concern me. This may be the FHAC result. I left Whakapapa at about 4pm, thus missing the hordes. There were about a dozen people in the hut. I was well in front of the hordes the next day, and from memory saw hardly anyone for the remainder of the trip. If I had seen the number of people in your pics it would have been a big negative. Seeing this many people on FHAC would also be a negative.
I managed the circuit in runners very well, as I had walked in runners in many places. This is the difference - experience. You could put an experienced person in a place like the Tongariro Crossing with the same gear as the bumblies you describe and the experienced person would cope much better.
The numbers on the Tongariro Crossing and the lack of toilets concern me. This may be the FHAC result. I left Whakapapa at about 4pm, thus missing the hordes. There were about a dozen people in the hut. I was well in front of the hordes the next day, and from memory saw hardly anyone for the remainder of the trip. If I had seen the number of people in your pics it would have been a big negative. Seeing this many people on FHAC would also be a negative.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Wed 02 May, 2018 4:09 pm
Imagine that many people , all newbies , all trying to crawl up the Diamantina Spur. Jesus wept!. That cannot be what the wise monkeys want for our National Parks?. I have second person ready for a sit in near High Knob 
. Since white season is coming they won't be building anything up there this year.
. Since white season is coming they won't be building anything up there this year.
Last edited by paidal_chalne_vala on Wed 02 May, 2018 11:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Wed 02 May, 2018 4:21 pm
Xplora wrote:Lops is right in that they cannot accurately determine the number of people actually walking the track now. Figures have been derived from the camping platform booking information and I strongly suspect the numbers provided are the combined Dibbins and Cope hut platforms. If I can get that confirmed then their numbers have halved. The rest of the numbers are speculation also based on a percentage of tourists. I would suggest nobody should argue the point about the damage this plan will do if they get the numbers because that will mean you believe they can do it and gives a strong economic argument for it. I will be arguing their numbers are still wrong which means any economic modelling will also be wrong.
The real agenda has nothing to do with the walk. The entire branding of the walk is conflicting and ambiguous. Make up your own walk, skip sections, just stay in the huts and day walk. The private operators will be allowed to book the huts all year round to people not doing the walk but walkers will be given preference. How can they manage that? Will they cancel a booking because someone doing the walk wants to book? There will have to be a minimum booking number to open the hut so they will not cater for walkins or individuals and most likely all the bookings will come from LTO's. In reality, the low numbers of walkers will mean the private operators will have to take other bookings to stay viable and there you have a new winter resort. The iconic walk is simply the Trojan horse or vessel to obtain the necessary permissions. Anyone looking to invest in this will not be concerned about low walker numbers. It will all be about the potential to book the huts in winter and snippets of that have been exposed in the plan. I am concerned also that there will be a need to change the planning laws to enable the huts to be built. What flow on effect will that have or will the new planning law be specific to this area?
Interesting points, especially on hut management. I was intrigued by the statement in the plan that:
The new shelters or huts, although provided for booked walkers, will be available to all walkers in cases of emergency. (p.65)
What, the huts are always open? (By the way, in this plan of a thousand tautologies it's very reassuring to know that the huts will not only be suitable for the alpine climate but also designed for the prevailing weather conditions.(p.67) I'm so glad this has been given such careful consideration.)
Clearly, no one knows what is really going to happen, because among all the speculative clap-trap in the proposal, we are told that:
Management models are to be tested in future planning phases and economic modelling and may include operation by Parks Victoria or by licensed operators. (p.67)
I can't see how Parks Vic, chronically underfunded, would want to be involved in hut management in these circumstances. Licensed operators could go broke due to insufficient visitors, if Lophophaps has got the figures right. Then dump the wreckage on to Parks Vic. Gee, thanks, that's taxpayer funding going down the drain. Of course, the winter visits and the planning law alterations mentioned by Xplora could change all that, but when's the proper strategy for that going to occur?
I'm left wondering whether all of the numerous details in this plan that are subject to further speculation (sorry, future planning phases) are going to be properly accounted for. Based on all of the information so far in this forum, I doubt it.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Wed 02 May, 2018 5:14 pm
Thank you all for sharing further information & NickPom for the apocalyptic vision of our future. All absolute lunacy dreamt up by spring street bureaucrats - leave no trace replaced with leave your mark 
I too am available for the sit in PCV
I too am available for the sit in PCV
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Wed 02 May, 2018 6:34 pm
While opposing a build with a sit-in is nice in theory, the details need attention. Even with
thousands of people and hundreds of arrests the Franklin Dam was proceeding nicely until Bob
Hawke was elected Prime Minister. Tree sitters have not stopped logging in many places. If PV
is determined to go ahead with this inane plan, all it has to do is wait for people to vacate the
build site for food or to get back to work. Or PV can have people arrested. While those arrested
may look good in court, by then the lodges will have been built. Will there be enough people to
have a meaningful sit-in? I suspect not. If all else fails let the lodges be built and see them lie
unused, or hope for a bushfire.
So it's far better to stop the build in the first place with disinterested factual representations to
PV and agencies. Like others I've been doing this for a few years. The current one looks like
bearing fruit fairly soon, and PV will be held to account for this. I'm also seeking reports.
Part C, page 90 "The High Country is one of the premier nature-based tourism product areas in
Victoria. The key statistics (year ending June 2016) in regards to visitation for this region are
drawn from the two documents, 'Tourism North East High Country Snapshot Visitation Year
Ending March 2017' and 'Nature Based Tourism to Victoria Year Ending December 2016'."
If the agency will not give me these reports I go to the State Ombudsman, and get a copy at the
State Library anyway.
Apart from fairly trivial errors like the ever-mobile Diamantina hut and the frog-wombat, the
reports are mostly BS, ideological bollocks based on a pre-conceived solution for which facts and
figures must be found. Destroy the facts and figures and the economics vanishes. While warm
green values are nice, hard financial such as likely uptake, return on investment and economic multipliers are
what I am looking at.
thousands of people and hundreds of arrests the Franklin Dam was proceeding nicely until Bob
Hawke was elected Prime Minister. Tree sitters have not stopped logging in many places. If PV
is determined to go ahead with this inane plan, all it has to do is wait for people to vacate the
build site for food or to get back to work. Or PV can have people arrested. While those arrested
may look good in court, by then the lodges will have been built. Will there be enough people to
have a meaningful sit-in? I suspect not. If all else fails let the lodges be built and see them lie
unused, or hope for a bushfire.
So it's far better to stop the build in the first place with disinterested factual representations to
PV and agencies. Like others I've been doing this for a few years. The current one looks like
bearing fruit fairly soon, and PV will be held to account for this. I'm also seeking reports.
Part C, page 90 "The High Country is one of the premier nature-based tourism product areas in
Victoria. The key statistics (year ending June 2016) in regards to visitation for this region are
drawn from the two documents, 'Tourism North East High Country Snapshot Visitation Year
Ending March 2017' and 'Nature Based Tourism to Victoria Year Ending December 2016'."
If the agency will not give me these reports I go to the State Ombudsman, and get a copy at the
State Library anyway.
Apart from fairly trivial errors like the ever-mobile Diamantina hut and the frog-wombat, the
reports are mostly BS, ideological bollocks based on a pre-conceived solution for which facts and
figures must be found. Destroy the facts and figures and the economics vanishes. While warm
green values are nice, hard financial such as likely uptake, return on investment and economic multipliers are
what I am looking at.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Wed 02 May, 2018 11:16 pm
LOPS you may well be right. I can't sit up on the Diamantina spur campsite staging a protest forever. Where is the madman who burned down Maddison's hut when we really need him?
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Thu 03 May, 2018 6:32 am
Lophophaps wrote:
Part C, page 90 "The High Country is one of the premier nature-based tourism product areas in
Victoria. The key statistics (year ending June 2016) in regards to visitation for this region are
drawn from the two documents, 'Tourism North East High Country Snapshot Visitation Year
Ending March 2017' and 'Nature Based Tourism to Victoria Year Ending December 2016'."
If the agency will not give me these reports I go to the State Ombudsman, and get a copy at the
State Library anyway.
I may have mentioned this earlier in the discussion but it is worth bringing up again. Tourism NE figures for the High Country include places like Rutherglen. They lay claim to High Country on many flat lands so when someone is recorded visiting Beechworth they have also been to the High Country. Many people will visit Bright, which is pretty close to the mountains, but will not take the drive up the hill. Omeo, which is actually the middle of the great divide, is not considered High Country by the tourism organisations. They are part of the East Gippsland Lakes which does very little to promote the mountains within their area, one of which is Mt. Bogong. Tourism figures are dodgy but PV did have some counters in a few of the tourist hubs on BHP and there are a lot of people visiting the easy to get to locations.
I also noticed the new plan has now recognised BHP road (as the draft forgot about it entirely). This was something else I brought up at the Bright meeting but my concerns have been ignored because it would be too costly to include. This plan will rely on BHP road to take the extra visitation created by the overall marketing of the walk. It is already on the Federal blackspot list and the Alpine shire has done nothing more than put up some temporary speed restrictions signs where the road is falling apart. East Gippsland have done better. A reliable source of mine in VicRoads told me they were going to take the road back but we are still waiting. It will need ripping up, widening, resealing and adequate drainage installed before it would be suitable to carry the numbers touted in the plan. It is already having trouble with the current numbers. You can add about $25M to the plan for BHP road upgrade.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Thu 03 May, 2018 9:36 am
Xplora, you mentioned the coverage of Tourism North East. Excluding Omeo makes some sense based on shires but not if the word "High Country" are to be accurate. Omeo is 685 metres above sea level. Wodonga is 152 metres above sea level. Reliance on shire boundaries for the High Country is flawed.
Your points about Rutherglen and Beechworth are spot-on.
I mentioned the High Plains Road in my submission and cited a figure of over $20 million to fix it. My concerns were dismissed. Being a federal black spot may lead to federal funding.
1 I found the report about the High Country.
https://corp.rdp.tourismnortheast.com.a ... Mar-17.pdf
2 The coverage of the report is the High Country. The report says "High Country is composed of: Alpine (S); Benalla (RC); Indigo (S); Mansfield (S); Strathbogie (S); Towong (S); Wangaratta (RC); and alpine resorts." "S" means Shire and "RC" means regional city. See
https://www.tourismnortheast.com.au/about-us/
"Tourism North East (TNE) is the tourism board that represents the north-east of Victoria, which is the region known as the ‘High Country’. This region includes six shires – Alpine, Benalla, Indigo, Mansfield, Towong and Wangaratta – and the three major alpine resorts of Falls Creek, Mt Buller and Mt Hotham."
The map is not good – no towns, rivers, roads or anything to assist the user to locate the boundaries. The High Country seems to include Wodonga, which is 167 metres above sea level. Mmm, this is Netherlands high country
3 Due to the massive area outside the Bogong High and nearby towns, figures for the FHAC and Bogong High Plains
bushwalking cannot be determined, and the PV Final Plan is fundamentally flawed. My best estimate is that the High Country in the Feathertop-Hotham-Bogong High Plains-Bogong region that is above 1500 metres is 5-10% of the TNE High Country region.
4 A few posts up I cited hard evidence: 70 walker nights doing the current FHAC up Swindlers Spur in one year.
5 TNE says that 23% are aged 45-54, and 18% are aged 65 and over. So a significant 52% are aged 45 and over, and that excludes ages 55 to 64. The report does not give details of ages except as shown above. On balance I suggest that 60-70% of visitors are aged over 45. It's entirely possible to go bushwalking in older age. Look at moi! With support, starting bushwalking at age 45 with an overnight walk across the Bogong High Plain is also possible. However, the chance of misadventure in any group that has such people is towards the risky end of the spectrum. Add Diamantina Spur and in my view the risks are too high. Add a non-guided party and the risks are off the scale. Some parties will manage, but too many will not, caught by weather, terrain, lack of gear, inadequate mental readiness, lack of water, inability to navigate and lack of stamina. The NZ pics above show the sort of people that will be attracted to FHAC by advertising that shows blue skies and happy people. All that is necessary is for a party to lose the track in low visibility and/or scrub (like a tree across the track) and they are in trouble. A tree across the track leads to short pads that often peter out before rejoining the track. Will a bumbly walker have the smarts to look for the track? Add a bend where the tree falls and it gets hard.
6 TNE says that 24% go on bushwalking or rainforest walks. Take my area high figure, 10%. TNE says there are 3.1 million visitors a year. At best this means that there are 310,000 people a year above 1500 metres in the Feathertop-Bogong region. This report
https://www.ausleisure.com.au/news/rese ... e-resorts/
says that in 2016 there were 263,242 visitors at Falls Creek and 178,456 at Mount Hotham, total 441,000. So if 24% of 3.1 million visitors by 10% is 74,000 go bushwalking above 1500 metres. Some of those are day trippers – Feathertop, Derrick, Wallaces, Heathy, Pretty Valley and Cope – and the rest will be overnight. How many? TNE does not say and I do not know. Only a detailed analysis of hard sources will determine the figures.
7 For the moment, suppose that 50,000 people a year go to the Feathertop-Bogong region on overnight trips. A lot of these people will be on standard routes – Bungalow Spur, Razorback, Dibbins, Kellys, Nelse and Bogong. Some will be on less travelled paths. Some will be in winter. This leaves hardly anyone to do the current FHAC, as I reported, and very few to do the proposed FHAC, which is too hard for 90% of bushwalkers.
8 The TNE report says that "High Country received almost 1.5 million domestic overnight visitors ... 31,400 international overnight visitors ...over 1.6 million domestic daytrip visitors - up by 16.0% on YE Mar 16." All well and good, but "day trip" is not defined. Does this mean a day trip to the region or within the region? The report does not say. This is a total of about 3.1 million visitors, by 10% equals 310,000, less Falls Creek and Hotham 441,000 … does not add up. I have not included Buller and Stirling.
9 Nowhere in the report is there mention of bushwalking except 24% go bushwalking. This 24% could be a day walk around Beechworth, a 4WD party climbing The Bluff, or a family walking to The Horn at Buffalo. The lack of details is a matter of concern.
10 "On average, visitors spent $95 per trip to the region - up by 16.9% on YE Mar 16." Nice but meaningless. Going into the GFC stock market investors made a lot of money. During the GFC they lost a lot of money. After the GFC they made a lot of money. These short time-frames are unimportant. A better key metric is annualised post-tax profit. Annualised is the average of several times, say 10 years. That is, the percentage needed to get from the start amount to the end amount over 10 years. For most investors a figure of 8-10% is very good. A bushwalker goes slow up a hill and faster down. These times are not that important. I look at how long it took to do the day's walk, an average of up and down. The 16.9% figure needs to be seen in the context of the last 10 or more years to determine the trend. Was the year ending March 2017 average, an outlier, high, low? I do not know. The missing information in this report is very disappointing.
11 There are a number of other reports cited in the TNE report and I am attempting to obtain them.
Your points about Rutherglen and Beechworth are spot-on.
I mentioned the High Plains Road in my submission and cited a figure of over $20 million to fix it. My concerns were dismissed. Being a federal black spot may lead to federal funding.
1 I found the report about the High Country.
https://corp.rdp.tourismnortheast.com.a ... Mar-17.pdf
2 The coverage of the report is the High Country. The report says "High Country is composed of: Alpine (S); Benalla (RC); Indigo (S); Mansfield (S); Strathbogie (S); Towong (S); Wangaratta (RC); and alpine resorts." "S" means Shire and "RC" means regional city. See
https://www.tourismnortheast.com.au/about-us/
"Tourism North East (TNE) is the tourism board that represents the north-east of Victoria, which is the region known as the ‘High Country’. This region includes six shires – Alpine, Benalla, Indigo, Mansfield, Towong and Wangaratta – and the three major alpine resorts of Falls Creek, Mt Buller and Mt Hotham."
The map is not good – no towns, rivers, roads or anything to assist the user to locate the boundaries. The High Country seems to include Wodonga, which is 167 metres above sea level. Mmm, this is Netherlands high country
3 Due to the massive area outside the Bogong High and nearby towns, figures for the FHAC and Bogong High Plains
bushwalking cannot be determined, and the PV Final Plan is fundamentally flawed. My best estimate is that the High Country in the Feathertop-Hotham-Bogong High Plains-Bogong region that is above 1500 metres is 5-10% of the TNE High Country region.
4 A few posts up I cited hard evidence: 70 walker nights doing the current FHAC up Swindlers Spur in one year.
5 TNE says that 23% are aged 45-54, and 18% are aged 65 and over. So a significant 52% are aged 45 and over, and that excludes ages 55 to 64. The report does not give details of ages except as shown above. On balance I suggest that 60-70% of visitors are aged over 45. It's entirely possible to go bushwalking in older age. Look at moi! With support, starting bushwalking at age 45 with an overnight walk across the Bogong High Plain is also possible. However, the chance of misadventure in any group that has such people is towards the risky end of the spectrum. Add Diamantina Spur and in my view the risks are too high. Add a non-guided party and the risks are off the scale. Some parties will manage, but too many will not, caught by weather, terrain, lack of gear, inadequate mental readiness, lack of water, inability to navigate and lack of stamina. The NZ pics above show the sort of people that will be attracted to FHAC by advertising that shows blue skies and happy people. All that is necessary is for a party to lose the track in low visibility and/or scrub (like a tree across the track) and they are in trouble. A tree across the track leads to short pads that often peter out before rejoining the track. Will a bumbly walker have the smarts to look for the track? Add a bend where the tree falls and it gets hard.
6 TNE says that 24% go on bushwalking or rainforest walks. Take my area high figure, 10%. TNE says there are 3.1 million visitors a year. At best this means that there are 310,000 people a year above 1500 metres in the Feathertop-Bogong region. This report
https://www.ausleisure.com.au/news/rese ... e-resorts/
says that in 2016 there were 263,242 visitors at Falls Creek and 178,456 at Mount Hotham, total 441,000. So if 24% of 3.1 million visitors by 10% is 74,000 go bushwalking above 1500 metres. Some of those are day trippers – Feathertop, Derrick, Wallaces, Heathy, Pretty Valley and Cope – and the rest will be overnight. How many? TNE does not say and I do not know. Only a detailed analysis of hard sources will determine the figures.
7 For the moment, suppose that 50,000 people a year go to the Feathertop-Bogong region on overnight trips. A lot of these people will be on standard routes – Bungalow Spur, Razorback, Dibbins, Kellys, Nelse and Bogong. Some will be on less travelled paths. Some will be in winter. This leaves hardly anyone to do the current FHAC, as I reported, and very few to do the proposed FHAC, which is too hard for 90% of bushwalkers.
8 The TNE report says that "High Country received almost 1.5 million domestic overnight visitors ... 31,400 international overnight visitors ...over 1.6 million domestic daytrip visitors - up by 16.0% on YE Mar 16." All well and good, but "day trip" is not defined. Does this mean a day trip to the region or within the region? The report does not say. This is a total of about 3.1 million visitors, by 10% equals 310,000, less Falls Creek and Hotham 441,000 … does not add up. I have not included Buller and Stirling.
9 Nowhere in the report is there mention of bushwalking except 24% go bushwalking. This 24% could be a day walk around Beechworth, a 4WD party climbing The Bluff, or a family walking to The Horn at Buffalo. The lack of details is a matter of concern.
10 "On average, visitors spent $95 per trip to the region - up by 16.9% on YE Mar 16." Nice but meaningless. Going into the GFC stock market investors made a lot of money. During the GFC they lost a lot of money. After the GFC they made a lot of money. These short time-frames are unimportant. A better key metric is annualised post-tax profit. Annualised is the average of several times, say 10 years. That is, the percentage needed to get from the start amount to the end amount over 10 years. For most investors a figure of 8-10% is very good. A bushwalker goes slow up a hill and faster down. These times are not that important. I look at how long it took to do the day's walk, an average of up and down. The 16.9% figure needs to be seen in the context of the last 10 or more years to determine the trend. Was the year ending March 2017 average, an outlier, high, low? I do not know. The missing information in this report is very disappointing.
11 There are a number of other reports cited in the TNE report and I am attempting to obtain them.
© Bushwalk Australia and contributors 2007-2013.