I'm revising the questions to suit the session on 12 December. Should be finished in a day or so, competing priorities.
This is the ski dot com link
http://forums.ski.com.au/xf/threads/fal ... 39/page-15Hully on that website posted as follows:
No real new info from the session in Bright today. Some key points I took out:
- been a lot of negative feedback about name, Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing....most likely to revert to Alpine Crossing
- 500mt exclusion zone along the entire track to casual camping will not happen....still likely to be some sort of restrictions around the proposed camp/accommodation areas themselves of say 200mt radius (100mt distance from) as per current bookable platform sites at Cope Hut
- Parks Vic very adverse to any measures to exclude, or discourage, current users
- clearly this is not an exercise in revenue generation on the part of Parks Vic....in fact these types of walks tend to be revenue negative due to an increase in trail managment and maintenance costs
- those present from the consultants were very loose in their understanding of the numbers in the business case and assumptions used, clearly the accuracy of the data is recognised as very questionable....yet being used to justify $23million in spend!
- the project is very clearly Tourism North East driven, with I would suggest Alpine RMB TNE board members pulling the strings. This is a marketing exercise, not a parks management exercise.
My key standout takeout is that the document, even recognising that it is still in draft from, has a huge amount of content that has been very poorly thought out by the consultants. If the public has got any change out of $1/4 million + I would be very surprised, yet content seems to be strong on concepts such as how the rest areas would look ('beautifully constructed masonary benches' to quote the consultant there) but important things such as data accuracy and impracticle, unworkable exclusion zones have been very poorly researched. The consultants also seemed to have a 'scatter gun' approach to what would be developed as accommodation....eg the walk has been rerouted to take in Diamantina and include a camp on High Knob, yet he was talking about how great accommodation developed at Red Robin Mine would be!!
I think that the actual outcome of all of this will be a couple of low impact (visually and environmentally) accommodation facilities, along the lines of Cradle Mountain Huts, which would operate with little real impact on current users. Obviously if popularity grew to a point where they were necessary, people managment strategies woudl be needed.
I think that it is important that people keep up with submissions etc to ensure that they realise people are serious about this. They can tend to have a couple of sessions like today, tick off the stakeholder consultation box and continue on as they please. Parks Vic were very surprised at the turnout today and the passion of the people attending.
*** ends
It seems to me that it's important to turn up at the meeting, ask tough questions, show that the DMP is very poorly written, cast doubt on the maths, and other lesser aspects. Show that a low number do Diamantina Spur because it's hard, and no marekting spin will alter that. State that the OLT et al grew to what they are on merit, not spin. The current Falls-Hotham walk has been heavily promoted and has flopped. Will a few seats and icon markers make a difference? Probably not.
Other posts on the ski forum.
“The companies producing these glossy documents basically survive off being commissioned by public bodies/departments/authorities to prepare such reports. The skill in the business case analysis preparation by the companies is manipulating data etc to arrive at a business case that supports the outcome that the commissioning organisation desires. Failure to arrive at a business case that supports the desired outcome is likely to compromise the company getting further lucrative commissions from public bodies to prepare future reports.
“Why do it under the Tourism North East umbrella? Firstly it distances the report from PV, FCRMB and MHRMB and the obligations for inclusion and equity (plus for PV environmental and natural heritage conservation) that they are obliged to. Also, politically it distances this report from the Minister responsible for all of PV, FCRMB and MHRMB and blurs the lines of responsibility with the Minister responsible for tourism. This use of a third party organisation with blurred responsibilities has been used successfully by the Minister responsible for PV to distance themselves from responsibility for Mt Buffalo Chalet, they have now completely washed their hands of this situation.”
“No one is being excluded from putting on a pack and walking up Diamantina spur, whether rich or poor. The mountain decides who is fit to access it, not a bunch of beard-stroking BC gurus at the trailhead.
“The simple reason for it is that any development begins to undermine the environment itself, which is the defining reason we go to these places.”
“The Alpine Crossing as a named and promoted trail has only been around for a few years. Significant effort and cost was invested in upgrading the track along the Swindlers Spur, Dibbins Hut, Bogong High Plains, Cope Hut (predominantly AAWT) alignment. This included track work, trail head features, interperative signage, camp site upgrades with installation of campling platforms.
“The Alpine Crossing in its current form has been heavily marketed and promoted by FCRMB and to a lesser extent MHRMB and PV. Clearly according to this new report this marketing effort has failed to achieve the desired walker numbers.”
“As someone who receives submissions on major projects on behalf of government for a living, I think he's probably right.
“Use short paragraphs.
Reference page and paragraph numbers.
Minimise emotion.
Concentrate on issues, not anger.
Point out inconsistencies.
Use facts and figures.”
“The walk is optioned to start in different places or not do the hard bits. It is less about the Iconic walk and more about how it can be serviced to cater for their perceived target market. In fact the plan admits the walk would not be iconic unless it includes Jahaitmathung and Feathertop but then admits most of the target market will not do Diamantina spur. This has less to do with preventing any class of person from enjoying what the area has to offer but it is more about changing the conditions so people do not feel scared out there. Environmental impact in conservation zones is supposed to be kept to a minimum. This plan does not suggest minimal impact.”
“The plan indicates dedicated rangers will patrol areas to ensure people pay. These will have compliance officer power. If you do not give you details then they have the option to arrest you. Do you think it will come to that? I will not pay either.
“And as for what Legs suggests. They may do a good job but they also intend to big a whopping big sign at the top of Mt. Feathertop. That again is contrary to the zoning in the Alpine NP management plan. It also gives a pretty good idea of what they think is good. All this to appeal to the cashed up fat and over 50 who need a manufactured experience. I don't want to exclude them from the area but I doubt they will want to do it anyway. It will be just too hard, too hot, too cold, too windy, to sunny, too cloudy, too wet, too dirty, too far, too hilly, too flat, too many bugs and not worth the money they are going to charge.
“The visitor figures this glossy plan spouts are taken from as far afield as Rutherglen.”
