The VNPA has come out with their comments and they are pretty critical.
http://vnpa.org.au/page/publications/na ... ement-plan1. PROTECTION OF NATURE SHOULD CONSISTENTLY BE THE PRIME OBJECTIVE OF PARK MANAGEMENT
The draft plan gives ample lip service to the prime purpose of national parks – protection of the environment – but then makes increasing concessions to user groups.
It is hard to find any clear management action that actually increases the long-term wellbeing of the parks’ flora and fauna, especially the many threatened species and communities in the park. For example, while horse riders are not allowed through wetland areas such as peat beds, fens, or mossbeds, these areas are inadequately mapped in the plan.
Horse riders should be excluded from all areas where wetlands/mossbeds are common, and any other sensitive areas. Horse camps, which inevitably bring weed invasions, should be very carefully sited. For example there should be no horse camp at The Playgrounds, at the headwaters of the Buchan, where threatened plants are found. All current horse camps need urgent weed control programs.
2. CATTLEMEN SHOULD NOT HAVE PRIVILEGED ACCESS TO PARK MANAGEMENT PROCESSES
Alarmingly, the plan proposes a formal ‘collaborative working relationship’ with the Mountain Cattlemen’s Association in management of the Alpine National Park, even though the cattlemen have consistently argued against the establishment of the park. There is no such relationship proposed with any other organisation.
The plan also supports the infamous alpine cattle grazing trial, even though scientific studies clearly show there is no need for the trial. Decades of evidence show that cattle grazing has done great damage to alpine and sub-alpine ecosystems in many ways, and that grazing does not significantly reduce the spread or severity
of fire across the region. Bizarrely, this important information is not mentioned in the plan.
3. SCIENCE SHOULD BE VALUED MORE HIGHLY BY PARK MANAGERS
The rich and valuable history of alpine science was celebrated in the National Heritage listing of the Australian Alps National Parks, but science is not given great credibility in the management plan. Indeed, if anything, it is overridden by ‘local knowledge’, and ‘cattlemen’s traditional knowledge’.
Many classic scientific studies and important recent studies have been completely ignored. The complexity of managing ecosystems today means management actions must be consistent with scientific studies and advice.
Anecdotal ‘information’ should be tested for its accuracy and relevance. Park management must not be based on hearsay or prejudiced advice.
4. PEST PLANTS AND ANIMALS NEED CLEAR AND EFFECTIVE ACTION
Some aspects of pest management are given welcome prominence in the draft plan, but there is little clear commitment to workable solutions. The significant
and growing impacts of around 10,000 feral horses, for example, are at last given clear acknowledgement, and a range of treatment options are discussed. However, the plan states that ‘the success of feral horse management will largely depend on whether effective control methods are acceptable to the community’. But under the National Parks Act, managers are required to ‘exterminate or control exotic fauna in the park’.
The final management plan must outline how feral horse numbers will be controlled, and also outline an education strategy to inform the public about feral horse (and other feral animal) management in the park.
Similarly, the plan makes it clear that deer are causing widespread and growing damage to the park, but goes weak at the knees when proposing solutions. Deer cause considerable damage to rainforest areas, especially in Errinundra and Baw Baw national parks, but there is no strategy to account for deer in the rainforest section of the plan!
5. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS DO NOT BELONG IN NATIONAL PARKS
Commercial developments are flagged for some parks, without any apparent concern that they will cause impacts, or present future problems for park managers.
In Mount Buffalo National Park, for example, ‘Wilderness Retreat’ roofed accommodation is flagged, presumably leased to private operators, and a similar option is opened for the Falls Creek to Hotham walk. And while the Mount Buffalo Chalet will have its current very large footprint reduced when dysfunctional buildings are demolished, options for rebuilding on the old footprint should be ruled out.
On page 77, a new Victorian Alps Centre is flagged for the edge of Rocky Valley Dam at the Falls Creek Alpine Resort. The land identified for this was removed from the Alpine National Park recently to allow a small, unobtrusive building by the lake to support summer recreation at the resort. However, the plan now proposes an ‘inspiring space’ there that will also include: a Traditional Owner’s Cultural Centre and Keeping Place; a place to learn about alpine ‘exploration’, mountain cattlemen families, the history of recreation, the development of hydro electricity and environmental conservation.
It will also support alpine ecology field studies and research etc. Add in a café, and this would result in a massive building on the edge of Rocky Valley Dam, visible from many places in the national park.
The idea of a visitor centre is admirable, but it must be more sensitively sited, and any building at the edge of the lake (if necessary at all) should be as unobtrusive as possible.
6. NO NEW TRACK NEEDED AROUND ROCKY VALLEY DAM
A previously abandoned proposal for an ‘around the lake track’ on the southern shore of Rocky Valley Dam, inexplicably, makes a return in this plan. This shared bike/walk track will take visitors into areas around Rocky Knobs, where many of the most intact peat beds and moss beds are found. There is no compelling reason to bring large numbers of visitors to this sensitive area.
7. FIRE SHOULD BE MANAGED WITH GREAT CAUTION
The recommendations for fire management are very confusing. Given that almost the entire planning area has been burnt in recent years, and alpine and sub-alpine areas are known to not need fire for regeneration, it is extraordinary that the draft plan’s ‘Vision’ calls for ‘extensive planned burning’.
There is no clear strategy to manage fire under the park’s ecological imperatives, even though the scientific knowledge to enable good fire management in the high country is readily available to park managers.
Apparently planned burning is seen as the only tool available to reduce severe bushfire. However, building a rapid attack capability for bushfire fire management would be far more effective in a region of steep hills and tall wet forests where planned burning is both difficult, and ill-advised.
The plan makes no mention of the current damaging practice of removing old hollow-bearing trees, the habitat for many birds and mammals, before fuel reduction burns take place.
8. CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS NEED CONSIDERATION
Although climate change impacts in the alpine region of south-eastern Australia are already evident (shrinking snow seasons, increased severe fire, and increased storm events), the future management problems climate change will bring are given little consideration in the plan.
9. IS THE DRAFT A FAIR DINKUM MANAGEMENT PLAN?
Victoria’s National Parks Act asks for a management plan for each national and state park. And those plans should say what actual management actions will be taken in each park to ensure the prime purpose of the Act – the protection of the natural environment – will be achieved.
This ‘plan’ gives precious little detail and covers not one park, but one third of Victoria’s park estate in one slim volume. Parks Victoria plans to produce further plans (an implementation plan and annual work plans), but we see no evidence that these are likely to appear in public.
HOW TO MAKE A SUBMISSION
Please use your own words to frame your submission to Parks Victoria. (If you want your submission to remain confidential, remember to state that.)
Submissions must be received by Monday 25 August 2014 and sent to:
alpsplan@parks.vic.gov.au or to:
• Manager, Park Planning and Procedures, Environment and Heritage Division, Parks Victoria
Level 10, 535 Bourke St
Melbourne VIC 3000
MORE INFO
Parks Victoria’s full draft Greater Alpine Parks Management Plan, and a number of background documents, are available on the Parks Victoria website, parkweb.vic.gov.au.
A printed copy of the draft plan, including all of the maps, can be viewed during normal business hours at the VNPA office: Level 3/60 Leicester St, Carlton. The maps give detailed information on which areas are available for horse riding, deer shooting etc.
(Note: names of people who make a submission
will be listed in the final plan, and their submissions available to the public at a later date, unless marked ‘CONFIDENTIAL’.)