Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing

[Drew]

Great work guys. I've just emailed MPs Tim Bull, Bill Tilley, Tim McCurdy, environment minister Lily D'Ambrosio and Premier Daniel Andrews. Now that we have more time I'll leave my submission for a bit so I can spend some more time on it.

I've also emailed Environment Victoria to alert them about the proposal. They do a lot of great work and could potentially be interested in this.

[paidal_chalne_vala]

I just spent nearly 2 and half hours talking with PV and the bearded German chap from the Consultancy firm at the Melb. meeting about the DMP. They filled up about 2 pages of points that I made. Some of the answers I got were bull excrementicus maximus. The look on the 'caring and sharing / I am a hiker too !' consultant's face when I asked many questions (that LOPS has posted here initially ) made him seem to be at a loss of words to explain the errors and fanciful figure and nature of the scheme.
Got Him !!!
The two chaps from PV were quite good value. At least the three of them knew the area. The people who put the DMP together don't seem to have been there at all.
I will now spend more time on my submission now that the deadline has been extended.

[Lophophaps]

PCV, thanks for that. I was trapped in front of a computer. I now have enough ammunition for formal complaints and legal action.
1 The DMP does not contain enough information to make an informed opinion. Further and better particulars are needed.

2 The quality of the DMP is so bad that it needs to be totally rewritten, this time with verifiable facts, not waffle.

3 The promised business case and EIS need to be supplied. Advice was that they would be provided with the DMP.

4 Public funds have been wasted, and this is something that the Auditor General can look at, with a view to legal action for recovery.

5 There's a few more buttons I can push.

DS is hard, and this will add to the negative reviews, so I want to stop this horrible plan before it kills someone. As I've said, if there's a death then I'm looking at laying charges of criminal negligence and being a total pain against those responsible, mainly McGregor Coxall. The disclaimer will not stop this action, as the disclaimer is contrary to law. Several parts are contrary to law. This is no surprise from an entity that cannot spell "the" or "adequate", and confuses a tree with a hill. Today I picked up another one. Page two describes the history and use including ... "cattle ranching". Gosh, will the roofed shelters be Little home on the prairie?

[paidal_chalne_vala]

The condition of the BHP road was something I raised. The bi annual installation and removal by helicopter of demountable water tanks and toilets at the High Knob hut has not been costed or quoted in as far as I can tell.
How can that structure and helipad be in accordance with the Nat. Parks act?.
There is no business case. They wriggled in their chairs over that one!.However I asked some very hard questions about the facts, figures , wobbly thinking,flawed maps, wasteful expenditure ,imaginary hoardes of cashed up tourists predicted to appear en masse and pay a top dollar , likelihood of annual repeat visitors, depreciation of infrastructure and related costs, maintenance costs, fire safety, logistics , staff costs, water catchment issues, toilets every 2 hours en route, management of potential monopolization of user pays campsites by tour operators, abandonment of the present FHAC routing and its related expenditure up until present, lack of patronage of the current FHAC etc.

e.g. If the planned structures on top of the Diamantina spur are to be demountable then so too would be the necessary rainwater tank and the toilets. How is that cost effective? . Take into consideration the helicopters needed to facilitate such an annual decampment of such proper infrastructure. How will that fit into conservation zone laws as laid out in the National Parks act and achieve cheap low environmental impact eco tourism? etc. etc.
I did say this seems all be a Trojan horse ruse for the incremental commercial annexation of The Razorback and Mt. F.T by Mt. Hotham's ski resort people for white season activities.The people have not yet swarmed up there the way they have at The Prom ,ergo, Build it and they WON'T come. If they do , it will take a decade to build up that feeding frenzy of glampers lining up day and night , 5 months of the year to have crack at this trek. No new Business has full patronage from day one of commencement.
I will write a report about this whole episode soon.

[paidal_chalne_vala]

The DMP summary brochure has a picture of Wallace's Hut .Then it has the caption COPE HUT and the same photo of Wallace's hut is used for that caption. This is indicative of the slip shod approach that the consultants have taken with this whole scheme.
They have not been there otherwise they would pick this and a squillion other errors up and rectify them. The auditor general should be contacted to make a formal complaint regarding the waste of tax payers money used in making this glossy brochure which is full of twaddle passing itself off as marketing spin and wrong photos and geographical errors
e.g. it says that the Diamatina horse Yards are situated on the West Kiewa River. They are not . They are situated on the Diamatina river .

[Lophophaps]

PCV, thanks for that. I had not read the summary until; the DMP is enough. Due to the poor scholarship in the DMP, implementation will be delayed. If the FHAC goes ahead and there's a significant delay due to the poor quality of the DMP, delay, then I think it reasonable to seek opportunity costs from McGregor Coxall. A million dollars should fix it. I will be so advising the Auditor General. I'm also wary about McGregor Coxall getting any more government work, and for existing jobs to be closely scrutinised. The AG can look at this as well.

This can wait. My focus now is on the DMP and a submission. Mine is largely finished, and i'm adding snippets like your summary comments, brilliant observations. I can understand a typo. I make enough of them. But how can there be two pictures of Wallaces with one meant to be Cope? Are they blind?

Here's what I have written due to your observation:
17 Page 46 shows Overnight node 3 south of Blairs Hut, about two kilometres from the proposed location on the Diamantina River.

35 The DMP Consultation summary (sic) is just as bad. For example, the map at page five shows Cope and Wallace (sic) Huts, with the same picture, Wallaces Hut. Page nine says "Overnight Node 3: West Kiewa River". It isn't. The proposed camp is on the Diamantina River, and is correctly named on page 46 of the DMP. The DMP summary has a small faded body copy, quite hard to read, and in breach.

The summary title is wrong. It should be something like
"Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing Draft Management Plan Summary"

[paidal_chalne_vala]

In the DMP summary booklet ,The photo of the area near pole 333 looks nothing like the terrain on the Pole line from Cope Hut to Pole 333. The photo used has a distant valley view , looking down , with wild flowers in the foreground.
The real vista is undulating and no discernible valley view can be had from that section of the BHP .
Indeed when Heading towards pole 333 and Mt Jim, the track climbs slightly but steadily up .I am also doubtful that the photo of the so called Diamatina river is bona fide because the Valley floor sits a long way down so that one cannot see the sky merely by looking above the height of the trees on the banks of the said river at The Diamantina Horse yards. I have not been there since Jan. '16 but again they seem to have used any old photo of a river in the bush .
On Page 9 of this booklet they imply that a visitor may sense "The possibility of an undiscovered gold seam" ( Ya Khudaa! :-0 ).
How?
Now prospecting without a permit inside a Nat. park is at variance with the Nat. parks act. Neither a walker nor a tour operator may prospect for gold without permission.
Since the proposed route does not pass by the Red Robin Mine on Machinery spur , this is just garbage designed to fill up the paragraphs with twaddle and spin.
Page 11 mentions "Long Distance walking". This is not a long distance walk. The AAWT is a long distance walk.What a joke. This brochure must have cost quite a bit to make on its own. It is just bull excrement.

[paidal_chalne_vala]

I am now picking the 115 pages apart. I have done a professional editing course so I know proof reading!.
Cop this!
FHAC
http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/assets ... P-2016.pdf
2nd page after the cover photo.
The disclaimer is so small and fuzzy it can hardly be read at all. This is contrary to laws pertaining to these things
Page 19
“. The mountain ranges of the Alps are characterised by their high plateaus and gently rolling slopes,”
The steep sides of the Western fall of the Main Range and those of the Mt. Bogong Massif suggest much to contradict this assertion.
Page 20
“The major changes in elevation mean the climate of Australian Alps is generally characterised by extremes. Annual patterns of temperature and precipitation bring seasonal variation in visitation. While the Falls Creek and Mt Hotham alpine resorts are most popular in winter, and Alpine National Park in warmer months, all destinations have the potential to extend their popular seasons through the Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing and particularly through the types of accommodation offered along it.”
Please explain how this makes sense in plain simple correct English language. This is garbled nonsense.
Page 21. The sentence is not completed underneath the photo.

[Lophophaps]

PCV, I picked up most of those. Here's my disclaimer comments:
6.3 The inside cover is page ii, although it is not so marked. The Disclaimer on page ii is in a small, faded font, quite hard to read and contrary to law, hence invalid. The Disclaimer says "In preparing this Study we have relied upon information concerning the subject property and/or study (sic) area provided by the client and we have not independently (sic) verified this information except where noted in this Study." That is, McGregor Coxall wrote this entire report without checking everything. As shown in my submission and the comments of nearly everyone else, this intellectual laziness has made the DMP quite useless.

The words you cite from pages 19 and 20 are quite suss, and like many parts are devoid of scholarship.

I too am taking the DMP apart one page at a time. I cannot recall such a sloppy piece of writing so ... words fail me. Polite words. the idea is to use the simplest shortest form of words commensurate with conveying the intended meaning to the intended reader. The DMP is full of words that sound impressive but on analysis mean very little. Combine this verbal avalanche with fabricated numbers and inept economic models and it's clear that the DMP may be listed in the fiction section of a library.

[paidal_chalne_vala]

I Agree LOPS , but the crew on SKI DOT COM , well some of them, suggest that nit picking the whole DMP will make the work easier for the mob who will knock together the next edition and the consultants will still pocket their fee while we do their work for them.
The scheme will go ahead in some shape or form but arguing to change the route is what I did yesterday in person and maintain the existing infrastructure on the current FHAC route .
I suggested at the meeting that a better ,easier and safer route should work with what is already there in place. That is Cope Hut/Pole 333/ Basalt Temple/ Dibbins Hut/ Swindlers spur/ Mt. Loch/ Mt. Hotham/ The Razorback / Mt. FT/ The Bungalow spur/Harrietville.
I suggested putting another hut at the Old Federation hut lodge site to take the load off Fed. hut and to keep The top of the Diamantina spur free and wild and undeveloped.The Bungalow spur is an easier gradient as are Swindlers and the Basalt temple spur than the Dimantina spur is and they are all more sheltered by trees than the Diamantina Spur is .If they are going build a whole load of crap then make it at Dibbins Hut .
If we have to sacrifice Dibbins to save Mt FT and the Razorback then so be it. Dibbins is closer to Mt. Hotham which has all the soft boy thingy services that glampers allegedly want.
Moreover from Pretty valley and /or Tawonga huts in Green season it is not too far to walk down to Dibbins in a day .The tour operators could shuttle these glampers into Pretty Valley and send them off from there as a soft boy thingy option.
The Diamantina spur with endless hand railed , hand carved stone mosaic tiled switchback tracks would still coax people to attempt an ascent that is tough for fit and experienced people. The lure of a hut at the top is no guarantee of safety.
Without Mt. N****** Head and Mt. FT in the proposed scheme there is not a lot in terms of WOW! scenery that compares with walks in Tas. and /or NZ or even the Prom. That is why the wise apes are trying to annex Mt FT by incremental commercialization and development that will scar the environment and exclude self guided low environmental impact hikers and skiers.
The DMP is so crappy and poorly put together as a document that a detailed word by word/ map by map / diagram by diagram demolition of it cannot be in the proponents' interest at all.
In any event they will have to go back to the drawing board and do another DMP. This will delay the process and allow opponents to the whole FHAC DMP to add more facts and figures to our arsenal with which to fight this scheme.
I told them I don't oppose private guided walking tours in the ANP. What makes my blood boil is HOW it is done if it detracts from the reason why we have an Alpine national park in the first place.

I did say they should not be operated at the cost of the conservation of the flora, fauna and alpine environment and that the mountain decides who can and cannot go up there. Even fit and experienced people are turned back by treacherous weather and everyone should be free to access the ANP without a charge and interact with nature on nature's terms.
The cost and the dangers of the Dimantina spur route re: building work and gradient , the monopolization by private interests in a Nat. park and the fire/hypothermia risks are three points that could be used as arguments that could gain traction in addition to how expensive it is. The ANP is fine as it is now , that is why people go there !!!!.

[Xplora]

This DMP is more like a concept plan than a management plan as it has too much that cannot be answered without further reports. The environmental study should have been done before the DMP was released as it could throw much of it out the window as to the cultural and heritage studies. I read the response to the consultation release again and it does not really respond to much apart from the suitability of Diamantina Spur which they believe can be mitigated. This makes me think they really do not want to listen. The DMP is also written more like a tourist brochure and a poor one at that. I have picked it apart page by page but my focus is not on the spelling or grammar. Instead I have pulled apart the idea and highlighting the lack of thought in their planning. I will not post it on the forum. No real need to do that as I have included my major points and people really should find their own objection or otherwise. Mine is close to being finished but I was waiting to see if there was anything new to come out of the Melbourne meeting. Nothing enlightening or new? I'll have a read of the ski forum as well.

[Nuts]

I Agree LOPS , but the crew on SKI DOT COM , well some of them, suggest that nit picking the whole DMP will make the work easier for the mob who will knock together the next edition and the consultants will still pocket their fee while we do their work for them.

Only a casual observer, I admire the tenacity of those playing this game but this ^ is always an underlying concern. Projects then pop up in one form or other now benefiting from being made watertight to opposition argument?

A token representation of conservation experience on the various boards I see?

This ingress needs to be opposed on a national level and on being incongruous to what traditional park users expect of parks, especially wilderness, but 'parks' generally.

You'll fight variations of prospective projects only to aid proponents, or be faced with the next one to battle? meanwhile, such incursions are happening across the country, much of the opposition appears to be similar, 'not good enough, how about this alternate'? Any suggestions of agreement with better/altered plans will be the only words filtering through the blinkers?

[Nuts]

Page 7 details industry comments, including "Travelling public are looking to reconnect with nature, to have an authentic experience. They are also looking to do so in comfort, with all the modern conveniences."

Which completely ignores the fact that 'authenticity' and 'comfort with all the modern conveniences' are mutually exclusive.

+1

[Lophophaps]

The main objections are:
1 The DMP is rubbish, scant basis in facts or good maths.
2 The FHAC is dangerous for the target market, which cannot do the walk easily or safely.
3 There are zoning breaches.
4 There’s no EIS or business case.
5 On the available information, there will not be much if any decent return on investment.

One of my main aims is to show that the DMP is rubbish. If this is done then it must be that the DMP needs to be done again, which gives more time. I’m very happy for PV to use the errors I have picked up.

A year ago I suggested Dibbins-Swindlers. My DMP submission states this again. This route would attract more people than the current route, at much lower cost. If PV wants a high hut then build behind Derrick, and walk Tawonga Huts-Derrick, taking about the same time as the seven hours cited to Razorback. After a short day at Hotham the punters have a last day with light packs, Diamantina Hut-Razorback-Feathertop-Bungalow.

So an option that costs less, attracts more people and still goes to Mt J. and Feathertop with less environmental impact was not adopted. Odd.

I’ve looked at the DMP Diamantina Spur day. The height and distance are wrong. The height is the difference between the valley and The Razorback, but the distance is to Feathertop. The DS camp is perhaps 100 metres altitude below the ridge, so a sunrise from Feathertop will take perhaps 1.5 hours. Sunrise at 6am means leaving at 4.30am, and getting up at 4am. Then they have to go back to the DS camp and climb the 100 metres the next day. Or is it full packs to Razorback in the morning and day packs from there to Feathertop? Nothing makes sense, nothing is safe, nothing is viable.

Sunset on Feathertop means a descent in the dark, arriving at DS camp at about 9.30pm. Where do they cook dinner? Descent at night is hazardous, and if it’s wet …

[paidal_chalne_vala]

My next step is to type up my formal submission. We are not going to be able to stop this scheme full stop per se , as far as I can tell ,so we need to lobby for a change in the route and placement of extra infrastructure so that we can save Mt . FT and the Razorback esp. the top of the Diamantina spur from a ghastly fate.
Build a pile of junk at Dibbins hut/ Cobungra Gap , but leave the Diamatina spur alone and do not develop/modify Mt. FT or the Fed. hut site one jot !!.

I said at the meeting putting another hut 2 km down the Bungalow spur at the old site of the Feathertop lodge , not far from the Bungalow hut ruins would be a win win for all park users in white and green season. There is a water source near by and tour operators and their parties could stay there instead.I also suggested that they rebuild the Bon Accord spur hut with a water tank and a drop loo. This would make the BA spur/ Razorback/ Mt. FT / Bungalow spur loop far more accessible to less experienced and robust hikers. The kind of people this DMP is aimed at .

[Earwig]

There is an update on PV's website.
----
Correction and clarification regarding camping and fees

From discussions at recent consultation sessions in Bright and Melbourne we’ve realised that the section of the plan where camping is described contains an error, and is confusing. The following information should provide clarification on this issue.

What the master plan currently states:
Page 59 of the draft Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing Master Plan incorrectly states that “Dispersed camping will be prohibited within 500m of the trail. All camping facilities will require a booking and fee, open to licensed tour operators (LTOs), independent hikers or groups.”

What the master plan should state:
Page 59 of the draft master plan should state: “Dispersed camping is permitted except within 100m of a designated Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing hiker camp”. As the level of service at defined hiker camps will be significantly improved, it is likely that fees will apply for camping at these specific locations based on their level of service. Fees for designated hiker camps will be calculated in accordance with Parks Victoria’s Fees and Charge Schedule.

The draft master plan provides a conceptual layout for each camp ground. Further detail planning including environmental and cultural assessments will be undertaken as part of any future implementation program.

We have heard from a number of people who want to be able to continue to walk the trails free of charge, and to be able to camp (dispersed) free of charge. No new charges for these basic activities are proposed in the draft master plan. Any changes would be subject to further consultation.

Also noted during consultation is the walkability of the Diamantina Spur, in its current condition. Better trail construction and regular rest points are proposed to enable access to people of varying levels of fitness. This level of difficulty is not significantly different to other similar walks across the world, or even within the Victorian landscape.

The submission period has been extended and will now close on Friday 27 January 2017.

[neilmny]

Thanks for that Ian.
Can be seen here under "Correction and clarification regarding camping and fees" - http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/explore/parks ... aster-plan
The original statement was giving a 1km wide x overall length swathe of ANP to commercial interests.

[Lophophaps]

The DMP is still very unwell. Walkers currently camp at Federation Hut where they can, sheltered by the terrain and to a certain extent by trees. The DMP proposes to have camping on the exposed north slope. Due to platforms there will be less places to camp, as tents cannot be put close together. Or maybe they are putting the platforms on a slope where tents cannot be safely pitched. This is a significant lowering of the quality of camping. All we need is water, flat ground, and shelter. A toilet is nice for popular places. No flash seats, no signs, no platforms. What exists is enough. I will never pay. Also, it's bushwalker, not hiker. I detest this Americanisation of our language. I'm a bushwalker, have been for decades. Lets give visitors taste of bushwalking, something different. In NZ it's tramping. UK is hiking. Every area may have their own word. Celebrate the difference, not adopt a McDonald's approach. Bushwalking is wonderful way of making our places stand out. Where did you hike? US, UK ... Bushwalking? Australia, nowhere else. The lack of marketing scholarship regarding nomenclature is astounding.

I hope the further detail planning sees that most of what has been suggested is bad.

PV has missed the point about Diamantina Spur. No amount of construction will vary the 800 metres or so of climbing, much of it steep. Regular rest points will just slow people down. "This level of difficulty is not significantly different to other similar walks across the world, or even within the Victorian landscape." True, but this is irrelevant. Diamantina Spur is a hard climb.

I'd also like to know how it was that the DMP was so wrong in the above aspects. It was obvious that the 500 metre no camping zone was silly, including the AAWT. And yet nobody at McGregor Coxall or PV spotted it.

[Xplora]

The iconic walk brand hinges on the inclusion of Mt. Feathertop so there is no way they are going to give it up easily. That would be admitting they were wrong and all the effort (money) to date would have been a waste. OK though to admit very few will bother with that part of the walk. Clutching at straws they are. I will have to review some aspects of my submission but at least they listened to me at Bright and changed some aspects. The German guy seemed genuinely surprised about the errors. Shows they did not read it very well.

[peregrinator]

. . . Shows they did not read it very well.

Maybe you can't blame anyone for that. It's not easy to read such a poorly written spiel.

[paidal_chalne_vala]

Much of the DMP is gibberish.

[Lophophaps]

Much of the DMP is gibberish.

Very true I've got about 12 pages identifying a huge number of errors. Some are beyond belief:
cattle ranching and the Red Robin Battery homestead
many place names spelled incorrectly
geographic features incorrect
contradictions
dangerous night ascents and descents
altitudes out by up to three times
times out by up to 50%
distances that do not make sense in the context
saying down when it should be up
vague pictures that could be anywhere and are badly labelled or mislabelled
confusing a tree with a hill

I could go on. It's not possible to make an informed comment without the source information, business case and EIS. These have to be provided and time allowed to review them. Action in this regard is under consideration.

[overlandnoob]

Did the walk Falls > Hotham during the week and didn't see a soul. The platforms are great when it rains but it is hard to put the tent up when all of the pins you are supposed to use have been removed / lost. As others have pointed out the brochure and map are near useless and could be dangerous in the hands of someone totally inexperienced.

Overall I think it's a great walk but I can't see how it could attract anywhere near the numbers they seem to think it will. Plenty of other options closer to Melbourne without the need for an expensive or tedious shuffle.

[paidal_chalne_vala]

The Bearded chap at the Meeting on Monday said there is a plan to organize a user pays shuttle bus to take people from A to B once they complete their paid glamping trip.

[Lophophaps]

My submission is finished. There were a few changes due to PV policy shifts after the two meetings, I'll be resuming activity on this in January. At this stage, suffice to say that McGregor Coxall's credibility is in tatters. They cannot spell, use correct forms of words, use the same words to describe a single concept, make maps that meet a decent standard and more. Figures are out by 3-40 times, the maths makes no sense, sources are not cited.

The DMP is full of Orwellian doublespeak. Significant costs are not cited and are not included in the maths. For example, the OLT has about 8000 people a year and needs toilets between huts. The DMP says there will be 15,000 people a year and no toilets between the campsites. Groundwater pollution does not concern McGregor Coxall. The toilets are not in the costs.

Page 67 details the Diamantina River Camp. This advises that "Camping platforms will be installed ... to take advantage of viewing opportunities. Adaquate (sic) placement and construction techniques will be required to withstand flooding scenarios." This is just babble, a mangling of the English language by a writer who uses complicated forms of words and too many of them to attempt to impress. The writer's role model could well be Sir Humphrey in Yes, Minister. Note that the platforms must withstand scenarios, not floods. There's no mention of safety. So a bushwalker could be on a purpose-built platform in a flood zone that withstands scenarios (and presumably floods) but the bushwalker is washed away and drowns. The writer cares more about the platform than the users. What a horrible value. Why not put the camping platforms above the 100 year flood level? Page 47 has a picture of a river with a caption "Diamantina Horse Yards". Oh dear. This explains why the camping platforms must be able to withstand scenarios, and presumably floods.

Quite a few parts are contrary to law, and remedies exist. I'll be writing the briefs later. See you in court.

The risky night descents after the sunset show scant regard for safety. Taking seven hours to climb Diamantina Spur show that the walker is unfit, should not be there. McGregor Coxall do not care about safety. Around May 2016 I advised the coroner about a possible death due to medical negligence. This happened in early November, and I'm instructing my lawyer to take action. See Hotham and die.

Later I'll be advising the Auditor General and other agencies to investigate this waste of public funds with a view to recovery, including opportunity costs.

[Nuts]

I tumbled through the thread on ski.com this morning, witty bunch.
I recalled that i'd visited (this draft plan) previously when following the precedents spawned from Cradle Mt Huts.
Anyhow, there, like at 3C project discussions here, cost to users matters, as does traditional use/movement being limited.
The distance you'll need to camp from paid sites is shrinking. I can't help thinking..
How derelict the concept of MIB quickly becomes.. If the end result is camping- just away from hardened/protected sites- for strictly revenue purposes. The purposes don't co-exist at all.

And (along similar lines to pre-reading that thread) the range of responses cover so much ground that project proponents don't really need much advocacy. Throw a nutty idea up and let those that care, to varying extents, sort out the 'minor' details.

[paidal_chalne_vala]

The VNPA have now given their opinion on this issue in their latest online newsletter. They are not happy at all and have urged members to read the DMP and make individual submissions.

[Xplora]

The VNPA have now given their opinion on this issue in their latest online newsletter. They are not happy at all and have urged members to read the DMP and make individual submissions.

Perhaps they should get their finger out and put something on their web page and maybe a press release. Tim Bull suggested they send him their objections as well. Organisations such as the VNPA can have a significant impact on politicians where one voice cannot. A link to the newsletter would be good and I can send that off or you can. But it needs to go to all 3 pollies listed. VNPA are dragging the chain and should have been onto this a long time ago.

[paidal_chalne_vala]

http://vnpa.org.au/page/publications/na ... thy-people

[paidal_chalne_vala]

I agree that the softly softly approach taken by the VNPA has been disappointing. Phil Ingamells from the VNPA has met with PV about this scheme. PV knows what he, a major VNPA figure thinks about it all. As a rank and file member and volunteer of the VNPA I don't always agree with every campaign strategy that they use to try to save the National Parks. With the ' Save the Prom' campaign they raised a great hue and cry .However with this issue the silence has been deafening and few present Park users know anything about it.