Bushwalk Australia

After reading a few bush bashing adventures for the area, I have just heard that a new Scenic Rim Trail has opened. It runs from Cunningham's Gap up to Spicer's Retreat as a 3 night walk using the old non-official trails. Good on Spicer's retreat, letting the National Parks connect the trail to a trail head on their private land.

Anyone done this walk?

No but I'm very keen to give it a try. I'll probably aim to do it in September. I'd be keen to see the possibility of connecting it to the Main Range traverse since you can start from Spicers trailhead (Thornton) and end at Cunninghams. For anyone curious you can find more about it here: https://parks.des.qld.gov.au/parks/scenic-rim-trail

The trick would be getting from Spicer's Gap to Cummingham's gap. Looking at AllTrails, you should be able to walking to the Cunningham Highway via Governor's Chair and there may be a way via an unofficial trail that follows Gap Creek along the Cunningham's highway, so that you don't have to walk along the verge. Good luck with that.

The precedent that this trail set is nothing short of disgraceful and disheartening: Leasing National Park property to build private huts on, changing conservation legislation to allow clearing of trees (the legislation was meant to be in perpetuity), rejections throughout the EIS process, no public consultation, back-door bribes and political sway, the list goes on.

Spicers has a massive responsibility to uphold and considering their business model is to serve the rich, I have low hopes.

dalehikes wrote:The precedent that this trail set is nothing short of disgraceful and disheartening: Leasing National Park property to build private huts on, changing conservation legislation to allow clearing of trees (the legislation was meant to be in perpetuity), rejections throughout the EIS process, no public consultation, back-door bribes and political sway, the list goes on. .

Any news stories supporting this for the spicers retreat in question here?

The offending legislation https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view ... -2019-0004

What good is protective legislation if a Tourism Minister has the power to change it for development?

The bribe: https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2017 ... -centre-uq

The QLD government refused to bankroll this UQ initiative so Skroo Turner saw it as an opportunity to get in the good books, but only if it was built on his property... which is the trail head for the walk! QLD gov do not care enough for the environment to commit the money. So now all the 5 day hikers will be told about the philanthropy of the business and how they established the wildlife centre... The $18.5 million donation came right in the middle of the approval process...

NPAQ concerns: https://npaq.org.au/2018-2-15-the-sceni ... -concerns/

NPAQ were a consistent critic of this proposal and followed the process each step of the way highlighting the downfalls of the proposal.
"NPAQ’s own consultations shows that information about this proposal was hard to find, hard to understand, lacked clarity and under-represented impacts."
Gainsdale were notoriously unresponsive during the whole approval process.

You will find it hard to track down many articles against the trail as Spicers/Flight Centre et all have used a soft handed marketing campaign for years by buying positive articles in many well established media outlets. They handed out free 2 day hikes to journalists who in turn would write positive articles about Spicers and have them published: All with the inevitable paragraphs talking about the future 5 day hike and how amazing it would be.

And while the whole process may have ironed out lots of issues the overlying and major concern: that being the unprecedented private development on national park land - paves the way for lots of future overturning of conservation legislation, all for the right price of course. What an awful bar to set.

I love your belief that it was all about bribery and media conspiracy. The media love a good "this proposal will destroy the wilderness story." But they would need more than vague concerns and people who hate public/private partnerships to run a story on this. I mean, I have been hearing about this proposed hiking trail for years. Look forward to walking it at some time.

I'm not the only one who believes it. The paid articles were obvious. The massive donation for brownie points was obvious.

It's less about the company and more about the unprecedented overturning of conservation legislation in favour of private business that is the main concern.

All the other things i listed are incidental to the whole story.

The fact that NPAQ were vocal in their opposition to the proposal is grounds enough to know that Spicers didnt start the process off on the right foot.

Are you concerned with the precedent set? You should be if you value national parks.

dalehikes wrote:I'm not the only one who believes it. The paid articles were obvious. The massive donation for brownie points was obvious.

Nope, none of the things say match up to the links that you sent me.

Private/Public funding is not a bribe
NPAQ raised concerns and made a submission. They were not a vocal opposition.
Travel writing is not journalism and travel articles are not held to journalistic standards. The newspapers didn't hold off for years on covering this story so that they could send a couple of journalists on a walk.
Truth is not a democracy. If other people believe something that is wrong, it doesn't make it true. It sounds more like you have read a few angry blogs and are repeating this here.

Please stick to the forum topic, which is, have you walked this trail?

How about manicured hikes Spicers to Teviot, with glamping and champagne at Huntley Saddle and Lizard Point? BTW yes should be a good easy hike...

CBee wrote:How about manicured hikes Spicers to Teviot, with glamping and champagne at Huntley Saddle and Lizard Point? BTW yes should be a good easy hike...

I so love a hike where you get to stay in a hotel with a spa bath at every stop and get lovely meals and people carry your luggage for you so you have clean clothes at every stop without any effort.

As far as I know, you don't have to join the guided walk to do this hike though.

As far as I know, you don't have to join the guided walk to do this hike though.

No, no. I want porters. And with smiles and happy attitude...

CBee wrote:No, no. I want porters. And with smiles and happy attitude...

....and gourmet meals helicoptered in from only the best restaurants in the area.

best restaurants in the area

Oxymoron.

CBee wrote:

best restaurants in the area

Oxymoron.

You obviously never eaten at the Spring Creek Mountain Cafe, not far from the start of the track above Teviot Falls, basically in the middle of nowhere (but you still need to book in advance on weekends). There are so many amazing high end restaurants in the countryside.

flingebunt wrote:Nope, none of the things say match up to the links that you sent me.

Private/Public funding is not a bribe
NPAQ raised concerns and made a submission. They were not a vocal opposition.
Travel writing is not journalism and travel articles are not held to journalistic standards. The newspapers didn't hold off for years on covering this story so that they could send a couple of journalists on a walk.
Truth is not a democracy. If other people believe something that is wrong, it doesn't make it true. It sounds more like you have read a few angry blogs and are repeating this here.

Please stick to the forum topic, which is, have you walked this trail?

If you want to naively think a private company can build on national park land without 18.5 million brownie points then go right ahead.

It wasn't until just a few months ago that the public walking options and QPWS campsites were made public knowledge. They were never part of Spicers grand plan, they wanted monopoly. Spicers will be responsible for the environmental impact of the walk but how can you hold a private company liable for impacts in a national park area that will inevitably be walked by the public more than their guests? This very thing is the force majeure clause that Spicers will use when they fail their contractual EIS obligations in the years to come.

There are more smells to the approval process than there will be from the perfumes of the wine drenched monocle wearing hikers that will walk the now former wilderness area.

Once again, the precedent is horrific.

dalehikes wrote:
Spicers will be responsible for the environmental impact of the walk but how can you hold a private company liable for impacts in a national park area that will inevitably be walked by the public more than their guests? This very thing is the force majeure clause that Spicers will use when they fail their contractual EIS obligations in the years to come.

You are claiming now that Spicer's retreat will be responsible for people walking in a national park? Do you have a link that describes the governance of this trail?

flingebunt wrote:

dalehikes wrote:
Spicers will be responsible for the environmental impact of the walk but how can you hold a private company liable for impacts in a national park area that will inevitably be walked by the public more than their guests? This very thing is the force majeure clause that Spicers will use when they fail their contractual EIS obligations in the years to come.

You are claiming now that Spicer's retreat will be responsible for people walking in a national park? Do you have a link that describes the governance of this trail?

Yes. Their opening up of this trail will increase traffic in some sections of the national park by more than 5000%. I said they would be responsible for the impact but also described why they wont be held liable.

Also dont forget that they have just built cabins IN NATIONAL PARK LAND. They have already had direct negative impact.

Private enterprise building on National Park Land = BAD.

dalehikes wrote:What is your opinion on the legislation change?

Well, unlike your belief that the law shouldn't and couldn't be changed, I believe that governments have a responsibility to update laws to meet changing needs and demands. The move towards public/private partnerships in Queensland is important to maintain infrastructure. The record debt that Queensland is the result of necessary public works, while NSW and Vic have ignored such developments to the detriment of the function of those cities is a big concern.

When it comes to national parks and nature, a move to increase direct revenue or private investment in these areas are important, hence the develop of ecotourism ventures. If handled properly, these approaches turn nature into a revenue generating item that can more fund itself.

What you called bribery, was not. The question that needs to be addressed is whether such agreements are in the public interest or not? Calling them bribery means you are opening yourself up to defamation law suites. Instead it is a commercial agreement that benefits, like all business arrangements, should benefit multiple partners. That is the question to be addressed. We need to find ways to improve funding for the areas national parks while also allowing for public access.

As a hiker/bush walker, who enjoys visiting national parks, I find it immoral to oppose keeping some public resources inaccessible to most people when I visit other areas. Making them out of site makes them more likely to be damaged, changed or sold off.

Your argument "They changed things, they are not allowed to change things." is funny. Care to provide a more detailed financial, economic, social and moral discussion on this?

Looks like the Spicers SRT is booked out until October. I'd rather spend $4680 on some good equipment than a 7 day hike (with the bells & whistles). I can see the appeal to some though.

The trail map is a bit vague. Trying to follow it with Take a Hike & Secrets of the Scenic Rim book maps. The SRT state it must be walked North to South as the first 6k is on private land. Only trail markers pointing that way. Looks like it takes a right hand turn after Sylvester's Lookout to a new camp Banshee. What I'm interested in going South to North as per Take a Hike book but to only the Ramparts South remote area bush camp. Is the Ramparts Camp still there? Stay over night then return to Cunningham's Gap Crest carpark. Eventually with more experience I would like to tackle a longer walk.

It won't be long until GPX files to be uploaded to the usual Garmin/Strava/Wikiloc sites to follow.

flingebunt wrote:Care to provide a more detailed financial, economic, social and moral discussion on this?

The notion that national parks exist to make money out of is incorrect. National parks are protected to preserve the eco system, biodiversity and natural heritage. Every little piece of forest that is cut down in favour of buildings is putting further strain on the already overused environment. If we have to lock people out of these areas then so be it. We need forests to survive, we don't need eco huts for rich people to hike in comfort. Allowing a precedent to overturn protective legislation is incredibly dangerous and opens the gate to a slippery slope.

Happy hiking Roy. The scenic rim trail looks like an amazing hike despite its questionable approval.

dalehikes wrote:

The notion that national parks exist to make money out of is incorrect. National parks are protected to preserve the eco system, biodiversity and natural heritage. Every little piece of forest that is cut down in favour of buildings is putting further strain on the already overused environment. If we have to lock people out of these areas then so be it. We need forests to survive, we don't need eco huts for rich people to hike in comfort. Allowing a precedent to overturn protective legislation is incredibly dangerous and opens the gate to a slippery slope.

It is good that you believe that National Parks don't exist to make money, but that was never my argument. You are putting words in my mouth. My argument is that the economy drives things. When the ecosystem is an economic drain, governments can choose to neglect them. When they make money, it is harder for the government to do this. Neglect is a greater threat to nature than commercialisation.

Allowing governments to pass legislation is the job of governments. Whenever people argue like that, it is always insane. Laws you like shouldn't be changed, laws you don't like should be changed.

I don't care about the eco huts. What I care about is the lack of amenities and options for independent hikers. You can only hike the trail one way and you can only hike the whole trail, you can't hike in stay one night and hike out. There are only 3 campsites for independent hikers and I am not sure of the limit on independent hikers, but it might only be a maximum of 3 people in total. Why not 6 spaces like other hiking locations. What about people who want to hike two sections in one day. Many hikers could do 30 kms in the first day, but you still have to book the other campsite in advance.

Why aren't you talking about this, which is the topic of the discussion. Not defamatory statements about bribery and claims that the government is not allowed to change laws. Things that are definitely in the ranting and raving categories.

What I care about is the lack of amenities and options for independent hikers. You can only hike the trail one way and you can only hike the whole trail, you can't hike in stay one night and hike out.

The answer seems to be; because they say so.

The trailhead and first 6km traverse private land, and the agreement with the property owners is for the public to enter, not exit, through their property.

https://parks.des.qld.gov.au/parks/scen ... -questions
Presumably, as a commercial operator they'd like you to stay at their accommodation and do the whole thing as a package. The O'Reillys have done this for years with their guided one day Stinson walk; one of the conditions is that you book accommodation with them (not a campsite) before and after the walk. If you don't want to do that then you're free to walk it yourself and organize your own bus transfer. Are the three campsites on the Turner land or in the national park? I couldn't work it out from the websites.

dalehikes, as you know, I agreed with you two pages ago and I agree with you now. I'm a member of NPAQ, sent them feedback as requested and supported their final submission. Unfortunately, that horse has bolted. The legislation has been lawfully amended and the approvals given. I believe other Scenic Rim tourism operators are interested in the outcome and have their own proposals to make, so that's the way it is. If someone submits plans for a water slide down Springbrook it will have to be opposed at the community level, because the legislation is as it stands and Joint Ventures are the new normal. Similar things have recently happened in Tasmania and New Zealand, with similar opposition that was similarly overruled. As Ned Kelly said, such is life.

I would much prefer to see the government manage their own national park developments than get involved in joint ventures, but there isn't a brass razoo in the state budget for that sort of thing at the moment. They only had about three brass razoos before the current debacle, and all three will have gone towards keeping the hospitals open and the lights on . Additionally, TMR have spent about 15 million dollars rebuilding the Springbrook Road, Lamington National Park Road and Binna Burra Road over the past year, so in practice I suspect that's the Scenic Rim national park budget blown for the next decade or so. My understanding is that NPAQ have recently been told by the government not to bother proposing anything new wrt national parks that involves spending government money, because there ain't none.

You obviously never eaten at the Spring Creek Mountain Cafe

Thanks for the tip, I'll check it out. My Scenic Rim dining experiences have largely been similar to CBee's (cool pies and warm sandwiches) so if there's a great place to eat that's good to know.

Lyrebird wrote:If someone submits plans for a water slide down Springbrook it will have to be opposed at the community level, because the legislation is as it stands and Joint Ventures are the new normal.

That sounds fun. But the current one that is coming up is a funicular railway (cable car) up Mt Tamborine for tourists to get access to the mountain. I mean, they could just put a bus up the mountain for both tourists and locals, but that sounds crazy.

Personally I think it is better to work with these developments rather than just oppose them. The result is either a yes or a no. If we actively engaged rather than opposed developments, we would get better results for the public.

As I understand from the website, it's the Trailhead & the first 6km across private land that is one way. Their land their rules.

The rest is within the Np, so off track circuits from Glen Rock or Mana Gum campsite, section hiking along the Winder track to Mistake Mts, Blackfellow falls, Amphitheatre or from/to Bare Rock & Cunningham's Gap are all still options in any direction...Nothing has changed there.

I mean, they could just put a bus up the mountain for both tourists and locals, but that sounds crazy.

I know, right? Public transport is terribly unfashionable. Same with the Numinbah Valley, which has bus stops but no bus service. Given the teeming hordes that descend on Natural Bridge you'd think there was a case for a weekend service, but yeah. I'll wait with interest wrt the funicular; call me a spoilsport but I'll hold off on buying shares in the venture just yet.
Thanks for the clarification, ofuros. I'm glad there are no additional restrictions to the national park land. If the Turners want to offer heated organic bathrobes to people accessing their land at $400 a night then that's their prerogative.

Geographical error, make temporary camp, reevaluate and exit in the morning.

Geographical error, make temporary camp, reevaluate and exit in the morning.

This sounds like a variation on the "Oh, I'm terribly sorry, is this private land? I didn't see any signs, and I"ll head straight back the way I came" theme.
Not that I'd ever do that, of course. Manners and all...

ofuros wrote:As I understand from the website, it's the Trailhead & the first 6km across private land that is one way. Their land their rules.

The rest is within the Np, so off track circuits from Glen Rock or Mana Gum campsite, section hiking along the Winder track to Mistake Mts, Blackfellow falls, Amphitheatre or from/to Bare Rock & Cunningham's Gap are all still options in any direction...Nothing has changed there.

But to book a campsite, you have to book all 3 at the same time. You can't book an individual site, only the Scenic Rim Trail. Or that is how it seems to me. I would be interested in learning more.

Is that on the NP booking site?