Secret Bushwalker Business

[colinm]

The matter of keeping tracks secret arises occasionally, in interactions with people, on this forum (e.g. here http://bushwalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3361&p=36849&hilit=secret+business#p36849)

I wrote a blog post considering some of the issues without really coming to any conclusions, http://panchrestomatic.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/secret-bushwalker-business.html ... didn't think the format of the post lent itself to posting it here.

I'm just flagging it because I think the problems are not going to go away, and I need to formulate at least a personal ethical stance and policy on sharing information. Without wanting to start a raging opinion-fire, I am interested to hear what other people think.

Colin.

[Lindsay]

Hi Colin. I think that there is a somewhat unnecessary cone of silence drawn around keeping certain places secret. Anyone who is interested enough in bushwalking to post on this forum for example, is unlikley to be someone who will damage the environment or pass on information to those who are that way inclined.

[Wollemi]

I think that there is a somewhat unnecessary cone of silence drawn around keeping certain places secret.

Didn't we see an argy-bargy about the need for this with respect to canyons in the Sydney region at the OzCanyons yahoo group email - which coincided days later with the release of the hard-copy 5th edition of Canyons in the Sydney Region, with a vast expanse of locations. This very paragraph may add to the valid concerns, even if those places are difficult to reach.

Is the want of keeping tracks and places secret borne of smugness, knowing something that others don't - or of a true concern that a region will be loved to death and despoiled incidentally or otherwise (thinking here of macheted trees along the Camp Fire Creek loop at Glenbrook)?

Anyway, cue those south of Bass Strait. Key words before today is out; 'Tasmania', and 'guide book(s)'.

Anyone who is interested enough in bushwalking to post on this forum for example, is unlikley to be someone who will damage the environment or pass on information to those who are that way inclined.

True - yet many would google for info which leads them to bushwalk.com, or simply do a search at this very website as I did for quite some time prior to ever registering and posting.

[colinm]

Well, one insight I have is that if you were an aboriginal you got to use some parts of the environment if (and only if) you had been initiated into it. If you had a certain totem, you could eat (or not eat, or permit others to eat) that food animal. If you weren't initiated into it, you couldn't enter some areas.

This had the effect of limiting and distributing land-use, and was a rather sophisticated kind of rights management.

So anyway, it occurred to me that the same thing happens with bushwalking clubs, etc. You want to learn about the land in an area, best way is to join a club, have them teach you, allow them to acculturate you, and then you will be taught the secret ways of the country. I can't see much difference between the aboriginal and the modern way, except in the mechanism, insofar as I understand either.

So that's one way ... and maybe it's good. But I think it bears thinking about in this context - as initiation. Because maybe it's not the best way, and maybe it won't survive the internet anyway.

[colinm]

Oh, one more thing ... I'm a [well-known youth organisation] leader, and we have our own kinds of initiations. Most recently, we're apparently required to be initiated into some bizarre Victorian standard for 'outdoor activities.' Someone even suggested that NPWS (or something like them) wanted to restrict access to some areas to people with similar 'qualifications.'

Strange things like this, quite different from when I was a boy and you'd just head off for a walk in the bush, make me want to understand what we do with a little more clarity.

[Gusto]

Oh, one more thing ... I'm a [well-known youth organisation] Most recently, we're apparently required to be initiated into some bizarre Victorian standard for 'outdoor activities.' Someone even suggested that NPWS (or something like them) wanted to restrict access to some areas to people with similar 'qualifications.'.

Victoria lead the way for professional standards. It can be tricky for volunteer organisations to adapt to the comprehensive guidelines. To be more accurate, with respect to staff ratios Victoria actually has two key standards. One for Victorian school students and others for clients that are schools. I also can confirm that there are certain circumstances where by Parks will request information regarding ratios and qualifications/experience of group. That's not a secret, that would be fairly common practice. In fact it's often courtesy to inform key stake holders and other key park users of intentions before entering.

I suppose depending on your background it seems like an unnecessary and over legislated process. But here in Victoria, comparatively to other states we have far more students going out on expedition based programs then any other state. I wouldn't be surprised if we had more than all the other states combined. This is why we have the most comprehensive guidelines.

[davidmorr]

Is the want of keeping tracks and places secret borne of smugness, knowing something that others don't - or of a true concern that a region will be loved to death and despoiled incidentally or otherwise (thinking here of macheted trees along the Camp Fire Creek loop at Glenbrook)?

I can relate a story of how well-meaning dissemination of knowledge to responsible club members resulted in a site being largely ruined.

This was a cave with aboriginal paintings in it in Yengo NP. It was discovered 40 years ago by early members of my club. It was not known outside the club until the 80s when backpacks to the cave were run. People started camping in it since there was a creek ran by the front of it. And the people who went there started telling others about it, and they told their friends, and they told their friends, ......

So where it might have been visited once or twice a year originally, it is now a well-used camping cave.

The vegetation that grew around the edge of the overhang has all gone, exposing the interior to light and wind. People wandering around in the cave have stirred up the dust which has settled on the walls. There have even been candles placed around the walls, depositing wax and soot. And of course the fires lit inside the cave have also deposited soot.

The impact of this is that any archaeological value of the cave has been totally obliterated. The paintings are barely visible now. Any artifacts on the floor have been disturbed or removed.

All of this by well-meaning people who do not wish to damage the site.

[colinm]

I can relate a story of how well-meaning dissemination of knowledge to responsible club members resulted in a site being largely ruined.

...

The impact of this is that any archaeological value of the cave has been totally obliterated. The paintings are barely visible now. Any artifacts on the floor have been disturbed or removed. All of this by well-meaning people who do not wish to damage the site.

I've been watching Ken Burns' docco on the creation of US National Parks, and there's a lot of similar kinds of stories on a larger scale too. We're agreed it's tragic, as there's no replacing the things which are lost, and a few years' trampling by the herd will destroy a site.

I've read here about canyons having climbing aids added, and being degraded by commercial operators - certainly commercial operation can amplify the degradation, but even putatively well-meaning and careful recreational use can destroy a place. It can only get worse, surely, as population pressure increases on the areas we have now.

Minimal impact practice can attenuate the damage per visit, secrecy can reduce the growth of rate of increase of visits, but I think I'm concluding that the outcome of how we do things now is that knowledge either dies out, or that it outlives the sites (as in the case davidmorr recounts.)

An alternative may be that organisations like NPWS place restrictions (as, say, with Monolith Valley and Hidden Valley in the Budawangs,) and grant permits. Do these work? I suspect they may. However, they seem to me to inevitably lead to a kind of regulated regime where you pay $$$ to someone to demonstrate 'core competencies' and get some kind of 'qualification' (as in the Victorian push to standardise everything.) Is the pain worth it - in the end? Unless the bushwalking clubs can step up and assert custodianship, won't the cost and hassle of such regulatory regimes just favour commercial operations? I hasten to add, I'm no great fan of bushwalking clubs, but they appear to be a potentially viable alternative to centralised regulatory regimes.

I am also seeing that modern technology will inevitably (that word again) open these places up: Open Street Map will publish a map in perpetuity, one mention of a sensitive site there will last forever. The currency of bushwalking will be GPX tracks, and every man (and his dog) will be able to find the hidden places.

I don't have any real conclusions, and I'm not trying to be alarmist, but I think it all bears careful consideration.

[colinm]

Just a vague and partially considered idea ... why don't Bushwalking Clubs adopt-a-park? There's precedent for this kind of thing, with (say) the Budawangs Committee and such. If clubs, or groups of clubs, asserted their interests in specific local areas, they may be able to get in before the big regulators (who, we have seen, appear to be favouring commercial operation and even hunting.) I think there would have to be all kinds of safeguards to prevent the inevitable corruption which follows any ownership, but if we explicitly looked at a BWC as a tribe, or totem, then at least we'd be modelling aboriginal land distribution and use, which (we are told) worked for a fairly long while.

[colinm]

we're apparently required to be initiated into some bizarre Victorian standard for 'outdoor activities.' Someone even suggested that NPWS (or something like them) wanted to restrict access to some areas to people with similar 'qualifications.'.

Victoria lead the way for professional standards. It can be tricky for volunteer organisations to adapt to the comprehensive guidelines.
[...]
I suppose depending on your background it seems like an unnecessary and over legislated process. But here in Victoria, comparatively to other states we have far more students going out on expedition based programs then any other state. I wouldn't be surprised if we had more than all the other states combined. This is why we have the most comprehensive guidelines.

Well, one thing that leaps up at me from your explanation: You explain the special circumstances attaching to Victoria (far more students on expeditions, and I'm sure the land use there is different from here too) while you appear to be tacitly asserting that the model created for/by/in Victoria is suitable to be applied to everyone, and even if you are not asserting that, the existence of a model which works in one place is likely to be adopted everywhere.

This, to me, seems like the epitome of the wrong way to do things - creating national standards and seeking their application everywhere is not, I think, going to lead to good use of the land. Standards which apply to one place are not going to be highly relevant to other places, and we therefore risk creating a highly regulated failure.

[Gusto]

I wasn't so much stating any personal view, other than stating the facts that Victoria has the most guidlines relating to safety in the outdoors. Perhaps the term "lead the way'" was a little too emotive and implies that Victoria is better, or that more standards is a good thing.

To elaborate further, Victoria's guidelines relate to both safety and minimal environmental impact. I'm sure these guidelines have been introduced with the best of intentions to enhance safety reduce environmental impact.

It's difficult for me pass judgement on whether that the introduction of these guidelines has actually achieved it's intentions as I have never lived outside these guidelines. I am 24 years old. My introduction to outdoor education was when I was in high school. Similar guidelines already existed then, although I suspect they were quite new then.

The guidelines are written for specific user groups. They are not laws that govern all people, that would be ridiculous. The guidelines also aren't rigid, you don't need to have done an accredited course in everything, you can have experience. I imagine that some insurance companies would be interested to know what practice an organisation follows.

There is no one policing these guidelines either at the entrance of parks etc. It is simply a courtesy to notify and request entry into parks, they aren't bound by law to do it. User groups just don't want to upset Parks and be banned etc.

Some Parks management offices are curious to know who is in there parks is because they are genuinely concerned for the safety of the group. Some managers like to emphasize that if there is any need for an evacuation etc. that they the users aren't relying on calling the local Parks office for help.

In terms of this thread, it is a related topic, but it's the polar opposite of keeping knowledge secret. Perhaps this is an example of what happens when areas become popular.

[colinm]

The guidelines are written for specific user groups. They are not laws that govern all people, that would be ridiculous. The guidelines also aren't rigid, you don't need to have done an accredited course in everything, you can have experience. I imagine that some insurance companies would be interested to know what practice an organisation follows.

As I understand it, they are 'standards' based around enumerated 'core competencies', and while one can gain 'recognition of prior learning', if certification is required, such RPL is a 'service' provided by 'accredited training agencies' for which they will charge a fee. The standards I'm thinking of were written for (and by) commercial organisations providing these 'outdoor activity' 'services.' So it's a fee for service model, backed by creeping legislation and infiltrated (I would say) by stealth.

Once conformance to the externally imposed 'standards' is normalised, it will surely become mandatory.

It may be that Victoria has a higher population density than other states, and so the issues this kind of service-based model is seeking to address are more urgent than elsewhere. I would like to see alternatives considered, though, in the full light of day. Certainly it's worth looking into the standard (but not standardised) process by which 'standards' are constructed.

The notions of skill (whether defined by fiat from a national scope or locally by acculturation) and knowledge (of land, places, techniques) are certainly intertwined. Consideration of whether locality makes a difference is also relevant to both. Delivery of skills and maintenance of knowledge are certainly interrelated.

I don't have the answers

[woody-wood]

Back to secret or not...

I feel that general information on areas and trails should be freely discussed. This information is not something that is hard to come across for anyone who is genuinely interested. The more hikers/walkers that use an area the more become stake holders that will help protect these areas from development and other interests. More users, bigger voice!

I do think that half the fun is exploring where I havent been before. It does help to know how long the trail is to cover, drinkable water nearby, good camp location etc, but the other stuff I like to discover myself. I dont want to be spoon fed.

Too much information and there is the risk that fragile enviroments will be spoilt, as detailed above, but not enough information and encouragement and there will not be adequate users to ensure protection. Trails that are used are enjoyable to hike and neglected ones can become tedious bush bashing.

[doogs]

Here is the document that Tastracks posted on the thread mentioned ^ up top in Colimns' first post http://www.wyatt-family.com/phil/TrackC ... cation.pdf
This sort of answers why Tasmanian walkers not publishing track notes in detail. If you have a look in Chapmans books he seems to stick with these rules too. Not sure about policies in other states though.

[Gusto]

I don't have the answers

Neither do I.

Something else worth adding is that Outdoor expeditions for school students is mostly considered to be an elitist activity amongst schools. A school principal one told me she'd love to have an expedition based program, but 'Outdoor Education has priced it self out of the market'.

John Brumby at his last election had pledges that would have changed this. But alas, he lost.


Being a teacher, I am biased towards seeing the benefits of promoting and sharing knowledge. If there were more users of the bush then yes naturally some areas would be more damaged by hikers etc. But it is also likely that as a wider community there would be a greater level or respect for the bushland. It is less likely to be cleared for housing, farming or mining etc.

[doogs]

Not quite sure what the Victorian school curriculum has to do with folks not sharing information on tracks

[Gusto]

Not quite sure what the Victorian school curriculum has to do with folks not sharing information on tracks

Industry standards and public/private isn't related.

But Victoria having a rich O.E. curriculum is very much related to sharing information and tracks. That's exactly what schooling and education is.

Victoria has a very strong tradition and industry of sharing information already. To some extent, I'm not sure if there really are any secrets. It's very relevant to this discussion as a case study.

Have Victoria's national parks been trashed/damaged more so than any other state?
Are Victorians more or less likely to be interested in environmental issues than other states?
Has Victoria's political environment been affected by this?

I don't know the answers, but what I am saying is that, the secret of Victoria's beautiful park lands is out. People have known for long time. The sharing of skills associated with entering these areas has been shared to countless number of people, regardless of if they wanted to or not.

From my perspective, the discussion isn't about if people should share or not. It's about looking at cases where information has been shared from a Macro level. Not simply looking at the dirt that has been trampled and the plants that have died because of extra foot traffic. It's need to be considered at a state or national level.

[Mark F]

I would have thought that when it comes to tracks (not routes) then somebody or many bodies have created it, followed it and continued trampling keeps it open so I see no reason why information about the track should be kept secret. Routes to "special" places most probably should be kept outside common knowledge or their "specialness" is likely to be threatened by overuse.

The problem of trying to develop a regulatory regime to protect information about certain places is that the information is collected, stored and available to the less law abiding in a single place - you are dealing with human nature. Anybody want to go to a nice grove of old Huon Pine not too far from Hobart? Sorry - not telling.

[north-north-west]

I keep relating things to my diving experiences.

I used to belong to a couple of groups who searched for (and dived) wrecks. We made a point of being very careful about to whom information on locations of new wrecks was given. One chap who came out with us for a couple of days took his own GPS and logged the possie of a new wreck we'd just found, and passed it on. Within two years the thing had been hit by souvenir collectors so badly it was collapsing.

Some areas it doesn't take much access to do a lot of damage. If there's a marked track or route, fine. If not, I'd rather err on the side of protecting the place from being 'loved' to death.

[Ent]

Secrecy is one approach but surely education is the best?

I for example am rather interested in the long lived and very large growth of a single plant. But respect that the area does not need another set of boots rubber necking. More than happy to leave a rare and fragile growth of trees unvisited. Not driven to smash the shortest route between peaks. But honestly most routes are self explanatory with some map reading and it makes no sense to me to have people trudging up and down rivers, cliff lines, etc looking for an elusive crossing point. More often than not such things are marked in some way on the ground anyway.

The big issue is the large number of walkers. Sure you can funnel them into a small number of tracks and harden the tracks to the point that street lighting is the only thing left to do but an alternative approach is spreading the numbers out over many areas. Looking forward to Parks publishing their acceptable tracks just to find out how many kilometres and days can be had doing this. Might be more than enough kilometres to keep the average walker happy.

I suppose the trouble is for more than a few posting hardest, highest, most remote, biggest, smallest, etc encourages them to have to have been there. The smug knowing looks and secret whispers I suppose goes with that package of that personality type. More than happy myself to plot routes between areas and explore. Nice to know the escape routes if things do not turn out as planned so like to see more information on paths up and down from areas. Even happier to take advice on what is the least destructive way.

Regards

[north-north-west]

Secrecy is one approach but surely education is the best?

Some people (all too many, unfortunately) just can't - or won't - learn respect.

[ULWalkingPhil]

Some of my regular haunts I like to go hiking, I've advised by the Rangers not to mention there location. There's 3 area's in particular, One is a cave the other two are secret gardens full of some of the best cycads I think there called I've ever seen.

In the past this particular secret garden was advertised, when Park Rangers returned to check the area, all the large plants where removed. This was sometime ago, the area has had a chance to regenerate. To keep it this way, we choose to keep it secret. It's a hell of a hike to get to, who ever stole the plants must have been very keen. They are very expensive in nursery's, so I guess it would have been for money.

Some places just need to be kept secret, unfortunately not everyone are honest nice people.

[Wollemi]

Phillip - it is more likely you are thinking Xanthorrhoea (Grass Trees) rather than Macrozamia (Cycads/Burrawang). Both slow growing and spectacular, but the former easier to manage whether in or out of the ground, than the hard drooping fronds of the latter - which pose a physical risk to eyes as mature specimens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanthorrhoea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrozamia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycad

[justacouch]

Here's an example of easier access to route/destination information and the impacts it can have.

Stockyard Spur in the Bimberi Wilderness Area within Namadgi National Park was, until early 2012, barely a footpad and unmarked on the Namdgi NP Map and the Corin Dam topo map (at least the copies I have). Knowledge of the footpad was common amongst bushwalkers though, and there were a few points that required some caution, like catching the footpad from the firetrail on the return - it could be easily missed. However, I understand it was fairly frequently used to access Mt Gingerra - the second highest peak in the ACT and nearby Pryors Hut (both also in the Bimberi Wilderness).

In early 2012 a route up Stockyard Spur was cleared, and an 'Australian Standards' compliant track installed, which lead up to a newly cleared helipad at the top of the spur (this work was a recommended by a report into the 2003 Bushfires).

In June 2012 discussion on general Canberra news/opinion (mainly opinion) website the 'RiotACT' (do not mistake its mention here as a recommendation) indicated that a number of inexperienced people were going into the area, seemingly gaining all their information from the internet. See posts here http://the-riotact.com/corin-dam-stockyard-spur-trail/75719 and excerpt below:

Had a go at it today… Packed light as I didn’t expect snow until the very last trail up Mt. Gingera or Ginnia.

Bummer that, because it was FULL-BLOW SNOW COUNTRY. And we’re not talking about “patches” of snow. Snow was everywhere, even in the trees as they threatened to dump their load on unwary travellers.

Fresh snow covered the landscape at a depth of approximately 2~4cm, making trekking somewhat more laborious than when there were no snow.

Stopped over at Pryors Hut (pic here) and decided to change plans as the temperature was definitely below freezing, especially with the wind chill, and I was starting to suffer a very mild hypothermia.

More discussion here: http://the-riotact.com/snow-in-the-canberra-mountains/76037

Sometime in May/June 2012 there were a number of trees cut down and others hacked into in the historic alpine arboretum next to Pryors Hut. The trunks and branches were used to construct bushcraft/survival shelters and tins of food (open but uneaten) and other rubbish was left in the area.

Recently another thread appeared with the poster mentioning mapping Stockyard Spur on Open Street Map (a community sourced online topo map) and his intention to return to the track up to Mt Gingerra and add additional trail markers:

Was a bit dangerous though as I kept losing the track under the snow (and I was on my own), so I’m happy to mark it out a bit better during the spring. Any suggestions? A few posts? String ties? I’d like to leave something fairly durable for others during the winter.

It takes 15 posts in that thread before someone calls the original poster out on installing posts on a trail in a wilderness area, and to this he replies "the trail is already ‘defaced’ to an extent with logs and other trail developments. I don’t see how it would hurt to bang in a few more wooden stakes."

Keeping information about sensitive/untracked areas 'secret' or at least difficult to access online might be the only way to prolong the existence of these areas - because he internet does not teach, and it doesn't provide knowledge - it provides the information that you ask it for. Learning how bushwalking is done through friends or clubs includes the whole thing - leave no trace, navigation and hopefully other skills and attitudes that keep it sustainable. I'm not sure you can get that from the internet.

[Gadgetgeek]

I just joined here, but I would like to add a perspective from having lived in Alberta. There are almost no "free camp" areas left in the province, almost all camping must be done at designated sites even in the back country. Fire wood collecting and shelter building are strictly prohibited, and while it is not a "pack in-pack out" policy (there are composting toilets at the sites) these sites do see a lot of use, especially the single day trails. There are a few spots that are kept under the radar, but they are generally in passes that can go from sun baked 38* granite to under a foot of snow in a couple of hours, so most experienced people don't recommend them, weather changes aren't inconvenient, they are lethal. There used to be an entire network of 4x4 acceptable areas, but too many drunk idiots with chainsaws changed that. Many of the climbing cliffs have been shut down due to erosion by anchors, and pins, but a few are kept open by clubs, as it is better to have maintained areas to climb than have people do more damage making their own anchors every time they go. And yet every time I've gone out there, I've run into idiots with no gear, no respect, and no clue. Once was a cave in a "resource development area" basically a gas field you can hike in. There is a small mountain bike trail in the area, and the club had gotten permission from the operating oil company to use the sealed road to help do tail maintenance. Because the gates were open, about 25 motorcycles drove up (most took their helmets off once off the highway). when we got up there, I asked if they had seen the "no vehicles" sign, and the "leader" of the pack (Ex-mil or wannabe) said that "they can suck it, I go where I want! This is public land they can't do anything!" yeah right, one of the big three oil companies in the world can't shut down a hiking area? So we put up with the idiots, watch the forest rangers waste time putting staircases on mountains so families can enjoy areas they have no business being in, but it gives the bears lots of room to be away from people, lets the kids see some trees and squirrels, keeps the people close so the rangers can fine them for stupidity, (also make them feel horrible for killing the bears, fed bear=dead bear and all that) and the wild spots stay kinda wild. It helps that the terrain is pretty rugged, and actual bush-whacking/trailblazing is very hard work.

On the one hand I like the line of thinking of making better access of fewer areas for most people. Clubs can form up to gain access to private land (not sure how much of that there is here, and clubs have their own problems) and the longer trails will discourage those who are not serious about it. Either that, or have no trails, no signs, and no SAR. you make it back, cool, you don't, oh well. wouldn't take long to thin the crowd. But fewer users means fewer who care, and no voices when $$ hit the table and someone wants whatever resource is there.

Every year we have the same discussion about whether to have SAR, have private SAR (pay-per-rescue) all that.
As much as I don't enjoy more rules, having more enforcement officers does help with the hooligans.

I don't think there is an easy answer, or at least one we'll like.
when asked about the controversy of the new (at the time) aircraft interfering with birds, Charles Lindberg is reputed to have said, "if it comes to me flying, or the birds, the birds can have the sky" or something like that.

all that said, and I don't know if I've really added to the conversation, save to say that its not a local problem.

[roysta]

This is always a contentious subject and frankly I can understand why some people keep nice places under wraps.
The example I'll offer up is a place called Hundred Man Cave in the Kanangra Boyd NP of New South Wales.
For years this huge overhang was a very difficult place to find, even with a GPS coordinate.
The reason for that being that it was attached to a short escarpment on the edge of a plateau.
Many people, including myself, knew how to get there and readily took people on overnight trips.
That all changed when one individual sawed off eucalypt saplings all the way into the place.
Now it's open to the world.
So far it remains "looked after" but whether it remains that way, we'll see.