Parks to pay their way, says review

[maddog]

According to the Fairfax Press, the money-making potential of Australia's national parks, including Uluru and Kakadu, could soon be tapped by a federal government department facing a desperate budget crisis...help from the federal government seems unlikely after Prime Minister Tony Abbott told a gathering of forestry industry executives last month that ''we have quite enough national parks'. National parks could raise money by raising visitors' fees, allowing more commercial tourist infrastructure - like hotels - to be built or even selling naming rights.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/public-s ... z2yEdjXhod

[north-north-west]

There are times when I wish I was so senile I didn't care about this sort of thing any more. Has anyone ever managed to explain the concept of a National Park to these . . . these . . . aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrgggggghhhhh!, there just isn't a word I can use here to describe them.

[maddog]

Sell 'naming rights'. Make the parks sound like football stadiums.

[Drifting]

We could emblazon them with advertising. Corporate sponsorship!

Uluru, brought to you by Uncle Tobys...

[icefest]

Soon we'll be able to sit by the Telstra Billabong under the shade of the Samsung Gum tree in the illustrious Hattah-Ford National park.

Oh and that privilege will cost you 10.50 an hour, extra for a sitting spot.

[maddog]

I would have to agree with icefest, we would get more by doing away with the original names altogether.

Attachments

Palmersaurus_Logo.jpg (132 KiB) Viewed 25452 times

[Giddy_up]

The U.S system is user pays for everything and with nearly 3.5 million visitors a year to this park alone it is a money making machine.

http://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/f ... ations.htm

[Clusterpod]

Hardly fair to compare a Tasmanian, or even mainland Australian park's visitors and thereby potential revenues to Yellowstone or Yosemite when they have national population of 300+million.

[Giddy_up]

Hardly fair to compare a Tasmanian, or even mainland Australian park's visitors and thereby potential revenues to Yellowstone or Yosemite when they have national population of 300+million.

True Clusterpod, we just don't have the population base, but it now seems like $100 million dollars needs to be found if its going to be business as usual in our national Parks. I would like to see another $2-$3-$400 million be found and really get the resources our parks need. Commercialisation may be one way to bring additional capital but that brings a whole other set of factors to the table that probably in themselves require more funding to manage. So the vicious cycle begins......it's sure not win, win that's for sure.

Edit:Vicious not viscous

Last edited by Giddy_up on Tue 08 Apr, 2014 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

[north-north-west]

Hardly fair to compare a Tasmanian, or even mainland Australian park's visitors and thereby potential revenues to Yellowstone or Yosemite when they have national population of 300+million.

True Clusterpod, we just don't have the population base, but it now seems like $100 million dollars needs to be found if its going to be business as usual in our national Parks. I would like to see another $2-$3-$400 million be found and really get the resources our parks need. Commercialisation may be one way to bring additional capital but that brings a whole other set of factors to the table that probably in themselves require more funding to manage. So the viscous cycle begins......it's sure not win, win that's for sure.

Commercialisation, with hotels and kiosks and thousands of kilometres of high-grade sealed roads going everywhere and similar infrastructure, is contrary to the whole intention and purpose of National Parks.

And it's vicious, not viscous, which means something entirely different - if no less applicable to the situation.

[Giddy_up]

Thanks for the grammatical correction nnw. I didn't realise that the National Parks in the U.S are contrary to the intention of their use and purpose.

[maddog]

The possibilities of commercialisation drew the following response from national park trustees in NSW (1902) who were determined to:

'prevent the modern abomination of advertising…so prevalent almost everywhere else; so that here at least Nature's beauties can be enjoyed without notifications concerning So-and-so's soap, or Somebody's Embrocation, or Otherman's Pills vulgarising everything'

National Parks were to be 'safe beyond the reach of plunder, safe from the machinations of ambitious schemers, and secured to the people of this country.'

From White and Ford, 'Playing in the bush - recreation and national parks in NSW'

Cheers

[Pteropus]

I think some kind of cost-benefit analysis would need to be conducted for them to seriously consider this. Some National Parks are suited to commercial activity (on economic grounds, not necessarily environmental), but then again, limited commercial activities already take place in many of these locations. I wonder if these activities bring money to parks that is then sunk back into park maintenance and infrastructure? And then there is the consideration of how much would be too much commercial activity? At what point is the market flooded? Who is paying to use the parks in this way and how much are people willing to pay? Some parks would be winners and others losers...and then small parks that were created to protect threatened species would probably go unfunded while larger popular parks would receive more cash. But likely at some environmental cost...sounds like a double edged sword...

[Giddy_up]

Pteropus I agree, there are a lot of things to be considered in this debate, some good some bad. I found this report to consider, which may be a starting point, nothing more....

100047 Tech Report Econ Value Tourism to National Parks WEB.pdf

(2.08 MiB) Downloaded 604 times

[wayno]

the NZ govt cut 50 million from DOC's annual budget... and DOC were instructed to work closer with businesses to help fund themselves....
So far theres still no charging for entry to parks or walks. other than huts and campsites...
in some cases companies have entered into agreements with DOC, in some ways its like getting free advertising for donating to a charity... Dulux donates paint for huts, Air NZ helps out with ferrying endangered animals around the country to and from various refuges, in return they get a link to their website on DOC's great walks page. and they get to film ads on DOC land, forgoing the normal commercial fee payable to DOC...
its a bit contentious as companies that can be far from environmentally friendly can get to associate themselves closely with clean green National parks....
NZ law guarantees free access to parks, so that's something to keep charging at bay at least for a while...
some argue, charge foreigners since they don't pay taxes , but that idea hasnt gained any traction either..
DOC have allowed the doubling of the capacity of guided overnight walkers on the routeburn, and theres talk of having guided huts on the Kepler... mountain bikers are being let onto various tracks , but that isnt necessarily to do with trying to make more money, but huts on the heaphy have been expanded to cater for the extra numbers...
Doc have tried to remove a lot of huts from the parks, with varying success. its a complicated story, but they prefer to remove any structure they cant maintain to a high standard.... again not entirely related to budget cuts, in part to do with health and safety procedures resulting from the cave creek viewing platform deaths.
so far no great hotels have been built on DOC land. and no naming rights given out yet either....
DOC do seem to be putting in bigger huts on popular routes, encouraging more people to use the tracks...
thers a lot of criticism about how they administer the parks, despite having management plans which limit what activities and development can be carried out in the parks, DOC dish out concessions at the rate of knots to overide the management plans and let commercial interests have their way in the parks...
at the moment the minister has to make a decision on a concession to put in the worlds biggest planned monorail to the east of fiordland, cutting a 40km swathe through virgin forest. he did seriously consider putting a tunnel into the hollyford valley and the end of the routeburn track.

[Mutley]

Sounds great. How about the landroverland track, or the larabingle trail. Maybe even the Great Ocean spray walk.. Give me a break. A few years ago, entrance fees were removed from National Parks, as the guvt wanted to promote health and well being amongst the populous. Now, they are crying wolf, on a user pays basis. At some point, I hope the bureaucrats realise that we pay for National Parks through our taxes, and we entrust the politicians of the day to manage, protect and administer what really belongs to us all. How can anyone consider selling something which does not belong to them in the first place. Its like me selling the verge in front of my house to Macdonalds. Might be handy for Friday night take aways though.

[maddog]

On a similar issue, proposed development within Sydney's Royal Botanic Gardens, Paul Keating holds strong views:

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/royal-bot ... zqsbk.html

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/paul-keating- ... 36baa.html

[north-north-west]

Just to combine arguments on two different problems here: why is it that National Parks are now supposed to be profitable, but the Forestry Industry (at least in Tasmania) is allowed to run at a substantial cost to the taxpayer?

[Pteropus]

Just to combine arguments on two different problems here: why is it that National Parks are now supposed to be profitable, but the Forestry Industry (at least in Tasmania) is allowed to run at a substantial cost to the taxpayer?

Two words: political spin

[north-north-west]

Just to combine arguments on two different problems here: why is it that National Parks are now supposed to be profitable, but the Forestry Industry (at least in Tasmania) is allowed to run at a substantial cost to the taxpayer?

Two words: political spin

YOUR pet cause = bad; MINE = good.
Eric Blair would be spinning in his grave.

[maddog]

NNW,

Different jurisdictions. The Parks for Profits drive is coming from the Commonwealth (Abbott) government at this stage. Tasmanian forests are (largely) outside their jurisdiction. Though I believe the Tasmanian Liberals are determined to cut subsidy to forestry too.

George Orwell (Eric Blair) held a deep and sincere concern for the welfare of working people (he spent a considerable amount of his life devoted to that cause). It is quite a presumption that he would be 'spinning in his grave' over the current malaise felt by environmental activists.

Cheers.

[peregrinator]

Just to combine arguments on two different problems here: why is it that National Parks are now supposed to be profitable, but the Forestry Industry (at least in Tasmania) is allowed to run at a substantial cost to the taxpayer?

Two words: political spin

YOUR pet cause = bad; MINE = good.
Eric Blair would be spinning in his grave.

Schiller is also schpinning. Perhaps even more than George.

[north-north-west]

George Orwell (Eric Blair) held a deep and sincere concern for the welfare of working people (he spent a considerable amount of his life devoted to that cause). It is quite a presumption that he would be 'spinning in his grave' over the current malaise felt by environmental activists.

I was referring to the use of newspeak and current political/ideological hypocrisy, not his personal political beliefs. I am also aware of the jurisdictional issues - you might perhaps benefit from a somewhat greater understanding of the manifold uses and subtleties of sarcasm.

btw, I am assuming it is unintentional, but you really do come across as being patronising and condescending when you go to the trouble of explaining such things. Which is why I'm going to the trouble of explaining just what I was getting at.
It does not do to underestimate someone else's intelligence, education or awareness, just because they disagree with you.

[Hallu]

You don't necessarily need to build hotels to increase tourism. The way I loved travelling in NSW, VIC or TAS was using stayz.com and just stay at holiday rentals. It's greener, as you don't need to build a hotel to support tourism, it's cheaper, and it still supports the local economy, as you buy everything (food, fuel, park passes) locally. I'm not against paying for all national parks, but the problem is they always say that the money will be used to build accommodation instead of caring for the parks...
But I don't understand how can one increase tourism and destroy natural ressources at the same time...

Yeah we have enough national parks but that doesn't mean we don't need more protected areas... Parks need to be merged or made bigger instead of creating new ones, but of course that's not what Abbott meant. There is a totally cheap way to increase tourism, which would be to have a better promotional campaign. As we said in this forum many times before, most Europeans and Asians don't know about Tasmania, while they're all aware of the natural beauty of New Zealand. They don't know about the sapphire coast, Croajingolong, or the Eyre peninsula, while they've seens ads for the surf coast or Kangaroo Island.

Transportation needs to be made easier too, too many roads are unsealed and discourage tourists, especially Asians who are afraid to drive on those roads. I know it's great for locals who then can roam freely in their favorite playground, but more tourists means being under the spotlight and ultimately being more easily protected : that's the American model. They spent crazy money building roads and exciting passion in the heart of Americans so that the parks would be so popular nobody would dare touching them in the future. The plight of the Great Barrier Reef is regularly on the front page of newspapers in Europe, because it's an icon.

[maddog]

I was referring to the use of newspeak and current political/ideological hypocrisy, not his personal political beliefs.

G'day NNW,

Fortunately there was far more to Orwell than 1984. But for environmental activists to accuse others of 'Orwellian doublespeak' is itself, breathtakingly hypocritical. On nature and commercialism, Orwell did write the essay 'Pleasure Spots' (1946), which you may enjoy (and is on topic). It is available here:

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/ ... art41.html

Cheers.

[north-north-west]

But for environmental activists to accuse others of 'Orwellian doublespeak' is itself, breathtakingly hypocritical.

Only if the individuals in question are guilty of using it themselves. And I find myself resenting the implication; it's a highly insulting remark to make.

[Giddy_up]

Interesting little article by David Bowman, Professor Environmental Change Biology at University of Tasmania. He writes that National Parks could be the beneficiaries if tourism is allowed as it brings another group of advocates whom would other wise be disenfranchised by the whole green movement. Its also interesting to note that even some of our scientific community find it difficult to do research in National Parks because of the regulation currently imposed, which is a huge shame. I would have thought that our scientists would have been given preference to the betterment of the community, so they could understand the ecosystems as a whole, not so it seems.

Views on National Parks.pdf

(176.14 KiB) Downloaded 621 times

I guess I just want our parks to be fully funded and resourced for all the future generations...........logging and mining just don't do it for me.

[peregrinator]

Interesting little article by David Bowman, Professor Environmental Change Biology at University of Tasmania. He writes that National Parks could be the beneficiaries if tourism is allowed as it brings another group of advocates whom would other wise be disenfranchised by the whole green movement. Its also interesting to note that even some of our scientific community find it difficult to do research in National Parks because of the regulation currently imposed, which is a huge shame..

If there is any evidence for this, Bowman doesn't provide it in the article. The second half of which does not address the issue of "development" in any direct way.

I'm puzzled about these potential "advocates whom would otherwise be disenfranchised by the whole green movement". They would seem to occupy a very paradoxical position.

[maddog]

some of our scientific community find it difficult to do research in National Parks because of the regulation currently imposed, which is a huge shame. I would have thought that our scientists would have been given preference to the betterment of the community, so they could understand the ecosystems as a whole, not so it seems.

G'day Giddy,

One reason our scientific community (e.g. ecologists) find it difficult to do research are requirements to comply with animal ethics regulations. Quite often ethical requirements are imposed by the Universities that employ them. While some may complain that they cannot just pull legs off frogs like they used to, no matter how interesting they may find it, such cries fall on deaf ears.

See for example:

https://research.unsw.edu.au/animal-res ... thics-unsw

Cheers.

[maddog]

Bob Carr seeks green ban on Royal Botanic Gardens development work. Former premier Bob Carr has asked the NSW union movement to place a green ban on ''repugnant'' development at the Royal Botanic Gardens.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/bob-carr-seek ... 36jzy.html