Keep it ''hard".

[juxtaposer]

"As any outdoorsman can readily see, with regard to rough country, we should keep it "hard", not make it "easy" to penetrate. We should take no notice of the "old people" argument: primarily the right environment for bushland adventure (and it is priceless for the young). The right type of the old already have had a fair share of the good things that will cease to exist all too soon before the forces of "improvement". (Myles Dunphy)

[Miyata610]

It's a shame his son Milo didn't win the seat he contested in the 1983 federal election... it would have saved us all a lot of pain.

Anyway.... yeah I agree... but it's not keeping out the elderly as much as the unfit modern youth.

[Gippsmick]

Yeah I couldn't agree me. That is one of the main attractions of hiking for me.

[Mark F]

Hi juxtaposer

It is an interesting quote from an old style conservationist. Could you provide a proper reference for the quote (source, page number etc) so it can be read in context. Without a context it is impossible to comment on it other than with a high degree of uncertainty as to what he is opposing - roads, walking tracks, encroaching suburbia, ... what?

[juxtaposer]

This statement by the man has not been made public before. It is from a private correspondence when as an older man he had long since retired from bushwalking. The "old people" argument he refutes attacks the wilderness concept on the basis that it denies, among others, the aged and infirm, vehicular access to remote places. This argument depicts wilderness enthusiasts and advocates as privileged elites who want to keep it all for their greedy selves. It has been reguarly used by pro development lobby groups to win wider public sympathy for road construction and other projects in remote natural areas. The Lake Pedder and Franklin projects come to mind, as well as the Bloomfield Road through the Daintree Coastal Wilderness in the 1980's. Myles of course introduced the wilderness concept to Australia and campaigned vigorously against road intrusions in the Blue Mountains and elsewhere. He also took a dim view of what he considered to be excessive route marking of old trails such as the Boyd Range Track.

[Nuts]

Old school view.

Use it or loose i say! (I stop short of private huts though...)

[ollster]

There is also a counter-argument that opening up wilderness areas to a degree gives more people an appreciation of what there is to lose by over-development or outright "rape and pilliage" style abuse of the areas (ie: old growth logging, open cut mines etc).

There are many that see wilderness areas as a money making opportunity. Surely it's better to make some small concessions to tourism style ventures to make the areas accessible than it is to rip massive holes in the ground for a quick buck?

[MrWalker]

If the vast majority of the population cannot possibly get to most of these places it is reasonable for them to ask why we need any Wilderness. We need to have some areas that are reasonably accesible with only moderate effort in order to keep the rest.

[Ent]

I chuckle with the hard old men adage.

Yes, the old timers were tough nuts, but by necessity, not by choice. In Tassie a lot of the alpine areas were accessed by horse, with huts built and equipped with a remarkable array of equipment carted in to make life more comfortable. Also, you can pick an old timer's track compared to a modern bushwalking club approaches by how it follows the contour lines with skill. Modern bushwalking tracks are rather up and down by comparison.

It is one thing having to be tough and another seeking to prove that you are. The Bear aside, it does not make much sense, at least to me.

When wilderness was remote and difficult it was considered the enemy to economic growth to be trashed. The more people walk in areas the stronger the understanding becomes that remote areas need to remain. I agree that there is a trade off but without the wheel chair access to Russell Falls in National Park people that vote might not understand the need to preserve such areas miles away.

The challenge is to balance infrastructure with access. Annoying, as it might be to some, a boardwalk over a sensitive bog is often a better option. The mistake is some people see such infrastructure as only making it easier for the great unwashed. Well, yes it does, but what is the lesser of two evils?

The only other option is quota systems to access and that is where the “elitist” claims can be made. I much prefer the approach of spreading people over a wide area than funnelling them into increasingly restricted areas.

People are people and unless they understand then they are less incline to preserve things, and bog doggers exist, so tracks are a natural thing. Heck, following animal pads is a common approach to avoiding scrub belts.

Cheers

[jacko1956]

There can always be places to go that are hard, but I am a believer in having well maintained, accessible trails to allow larger numbers through and landcare and forestry agencies to get the funding to look after them. If it gets too busy for you on a trail, take a right angle turn for a couple of km.
No numbers through the "turnstiles" and no money to run the show. Sad but true.

[stepbystep]

There is also a counter-argument that opening up wilderness areas to a degree gives more people an appreciation of what there is to lose by over-development or outright "rape and pilliage" style abuse of the areas (ie: old growth logging, open cut mines etc).

There are many that see wilderness areas as a money making opportunity. Surely it's better to make some small concessions to tourism style ventures to make the areas accessible than it is to rip massive holes in the ground for a quick buck?

Bingo! It's the mentality of 'locking up' area's of wilderness that turn joe public against the creation and expanding of WHA and Nat Parks. There's plenty of area's to be 'hard' if you need it but there also needs to be access points and areas that are given up to tourism. We need people operating on the fringe and in corridors of our parks, and making a quid doing so! Personally I was on Hanson's Peak the other day and I was watching a young Asian couple stumble by in absolute wonder at what they were seeing, now they won't ever go on a trip to The Spires or The Propstings but they will go back to Tokyo with an appreciation of their 'wilderness experience' it's all relative....

If you want to be 'hard' I eagerly await your trip report from Greystone Bluff.

[sailfish]

It's not an old vs young issue, it’s a mobility issue. There are plenty of younger people with conditions affecting mobility. My wife for example has no cartilage in one ankle after a bad break. I believe such people should be given a fair go too. There are many tracks that are far harder than they need to be simply because they do not follow the terrain well. Certainly there needs to be challenging tracks and trackless places but there is not nearly enough accessibility for mobility challenged people, at least not to interesting places.

Regards,
Ken

[Son of a Beach]

As with most things it appears to come down to getting the balance right. There's the issue of making some remote areas accessible to those who are not able to reach those areas due to mobility issues, versus the issue of keeping the wilderness wild, for the sake of those who can get there, and who's reason for going there is because it is wild. Ie, in providing access for some, we ruin the experience for others. In preservice the wilderness experience for some, we deny access to others.

Neither side is right nor wrong, but of course both sides have different ideas on where the line should be drawn.

I can't define where the line should be drawn, but I can suggest one thing...

There must logically come a time when 'enough is enough' in terms of building roads, boardwalks, etc and eventually it has to be stopped completely. Logically, if this were not the case, there would be no land left that was not covered by bitumen, gravel or duckboard. Clearly this is ridiculous, but there is a lesser extreme where there is no wilderness left from which a road, boardwalk, etc cannot be seen. I'm not pretending this is likely to happen soon, I'm just saying that this is a logical extension of the the concept that there is always somewhere else that a road/track must be built.

Therefore, to have any wilderness left at all, there does eventually have to come a time where enough is enough, and no more tracks/roads are permitted to be built into the wilderness.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to suggest that time has come. But just that theoretically, it must come.

(note to self: prepare to be flamed)

(of course it gets further complicated in some areas - and eventually in all areas? - by issues of so many people getting into the wilderness that their own foot-falls and camp sites ruin the wilderness anyhow)

[sailfish]

Really, I have in mind some existing short tracks near urban areas that are just too hard for walkers with joint problems. The problem is not the length of the track nor the terrain but simply that the track takes a more difficult than necessary path in that terrain. Take Lockyers track Mt Victoria NSW for example, pretty easy grade for the most part until the decent at the spur. If your reasonably average fitness, no problem but with missing cartilage, no way can you do this. You could however do it if at some point along the saddle the track began to slip down the contours with as good a surface as the rest of the track. It isn’t about opening up more wilderness, it’s just about picking consistent grades for existing selected tracks. I am talking about unassisted walkers here, wheelchairs etc are another complexity to the issue of course.

Ken

[eggs]

I have little sympathy for the need to make everything fair.
One of the key lessons I drill into my children is that life is not fair - and they should stop complaining, take things on the chin and get on doing what it is their duty to do.

As regards wilderness then - the key word that comes to mind is not fairness, but stewardship.
To not treat anything we have as something we own and therefore we have the right to trash it.
But that everything is on loan, and must be treated as something we will give an account for.

This should result in some of the balance that has been expressed in the comments.
It avoids the view that nature is something to be worshipped, while enforcing the view that it is to be understood and appreciated, wisely used and nurtured, and not abused.
I do think that some forms of argument about the use of wilderness seem to reduce to "wilderness is for me and a few of my friends to enjoy, and everyone else should be kept out."
We may not say that, but if we are honest, that can get pretty close to the mark.
We are lucky in Australia and Tas to have a lot of areas where we see and experience wilderness, primarily because few people go there.
I know I often wonder when at a particularly beautiful spot what I would feel if a lot more people had exactly the same desire and opportunity that I have had, and there was a whole crowd there as a result.

One part says "keep them out", but the other part says, "why should they miss out on what I enjoy".
But the answer for me lies in stewardship. If too many people at the same time damages a place, then restrictions are reasonable.
And, as folk have argued, realistically this results in a graduated response - where some areas are built up, others have good access, while still other areas are left in a very wild state.
That is the balance of population pressure and stewardship of wilderness.

As for older folk - this approach means there are a few places that they can easily get to - and the rest they enjoy by proxy. Like the great video we have of the Fiordlands of NZ. Not the same as being there, but still an amazing experience.
So at the end of the day - it would be good if we can mingle with the crowds at Cradle Mt and get a buzz with them of the grandeur of the place instead of being annoyed with them being there.
And still get to go hard yackka for days at a time to find a place where few have been to.
I would say we have a pretty good mix of these elements. Now to visit Africa and see how it works out there.

[Ent]

Everyone one has a different view on the balance. For me, board walking that protects the environment is the right balance. I admire the engineering and hard work of the souls that constructed the “stairway” up Solomon’s Throne in the Walls area. Sure to a puritan this is an assault on nature but to me it is a wonderful piece of art. I see huts when well placed as excellent additions to the experience but not so keen with poorly placed ones.

What gets forgotten in Tassie much of the Wilderness had tracks cut from the earliest days. And I am sure that the people thousands of years before me had paths and preferred routes. Indeed, it is likely that some of the open areas were made by fire stick farming.

The trouble with Tassie is the success. Cradle Park was a place that you drove to and if lucky would find more than two cars in the carpark. Now it is grand central station. I accept that and enjoy meeting people wandering around. But the Walls have now been swamped by the overflow of tourists unwilling or unable to get a paid place and fear that I will be forced out by some bureaucratic system. At least the boardwalks and nature of the country means no massive disgregation but at Frenchmans I was struck by the deep paths cut by endless boots. This is sad.

And as for hard, turn left off just about any track and make for some point and you will experience all the pain that you want. Yes eventually you will strike a road or two within maybe less than thirty kilometres in most places in Tassie but you probably will be bending down to kiss it.

I like the idea of joining national parks together by “rights of access” and judicious land buy backs but we cannot turn any part of the world back pre man without destroying people’s lives. But we can with care and persistence work to preserving what we have and if that means making trades with the economic devil then so be it. Nature will recover given half a chance so I think the view what is lost can never be recovered rather overstated. Yes, it can, but it will be different. An ice age is a much bigger destroyer than anything that man has inflicted upon Tassie but it recovered to be what it is now. When sitting at Pelion remember that it was once summer farm land and probably was that many years before history was written down.

I find as mention hard rather a weird concept. We humans when given a choice seek to make things easy. If you want hard then swim the Strait and walk to the starting point of Wilderness.

Cheers

[Son of a Beach]

Eggs - that was spot on, I reckon. Much better than I could have said it if I'd tried.

[north-north-west]

I have little sympathy for the need to make everything fair.
One of the key lessons I drill into my children is that life is not fair - and they should stop complaining, take things on the chin and get on doing what it is their duty to do.

As regards wilderness then - the key word that comes to mind is not fairness, but stewardship.
To not treat anything we have as something we own and therefore we have the right to trash it.
But that everything is on loan, and must be treated as something we will give an account for.

This should result in some of the balance that has been expressed in the comments.
It avoids the view that nature is something to be worshipped, while enforcing the view that it is to be understood and appreciated, wisely used and nurtured, and not abused.
I do think that some forms of argument about the use of wilderness seem to reduce to "wilderness is for me and a few of my friends to enjoy, and everyone else should be kept out."
We may not say that, but if we are honest, that can get pretty close to the mark.
We are lucky in Australia and Tas to have a lot of areas where we see and experience wilderness, primarily because few people go there.
I know I often wonder when at a particularly beautiful spot what I would feel if a lot more people had exactly the same desire and opportunity that I have had, and there was a whole crowd there as a result.

One part says "keep them out", but the other part says, "why should they miss out on what I enjoy".
But the answer for me lies in stewardship. If too many people at the same time damages a place, then restrictions are reasonable.
And, as folk have argued, realistically this results in a graduated response - where some areas are built up, others have good access, while still other areas are left in a very wild state.
That is the balance of population pressure and stewardship of wilderness.

As for older folk - this approach means there are a few places that they can easily get to - and the rest they enjoy by proxy. Like the great video we have of the Fiordlands of NZ. Not the same as being there, but still an amazing experience.
So at the end of the day - it would be good if we can mingle with the crowds at Cradle Mt and get a buzz with them of the grandeur of the place instead of being annoyed with them being there.
And still get to go hard yackka for days at a time to find a place where few have been to.
I would say we have a pretty good mix of these elements. Now to visit Africa and see how it works out there.

Post of the year. Well said.

The whole 'access for those with limited mobility' thing drives me up the wall. How about loudspeakers on every tree so those with hearing problems don't miss the birdsong?

[Nuts]

I doubt anyone would ask to make 'everything' fair. A bit of accessable boardwalk here and there isn't a big deal and not an extreme infrastructure effect??
What other components are there to 'keeping it hard'? Gagging guidebook authors and web reports?? Do away with beacons a good alternative?? Seems to me that most (especially raised in cities) are at a disadvantage to start/at some stage... everyone has differing abilities. While minority group numbers should be kept in perspective national parks are as much about providing access to wilderness as preserving it.

Perhaps it is an ideal to take people from the equation but (to me) very much the opposite will ensure the long term preservation of something resembling wilderness.

[rcaffin]

There must logically come a time when 'enough is enough' in terms of building roads, boardwalks, etc and eventually it has to be stopped completely.

Logo of the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA):
One planet, one people, one asphalt.


Mind you, providing *some* access for the generral public is probably essential if conservation is to get the votes. Pragmatism.
So the Q is can we keep it public-funded access (rather than private developer) and only on the periphery.

Cheers

[JohnM]

Everywhere will be easily accessible by everyone, just as soon as we're all using those flying cars and jetpacks that 1960's science-fiction promised.

[eggs]

Ahh - we await the future then.

But I would like to go a bit off topic in supporting Nuts comment about long term preservation.
I supported Dr John Wamsley's Earth Sanctuaries for a time - till it collapsed financially.

John built his business case around the idea that people will only conserve what they value. And they will only value something which costs.
So he proposed that his eco-tourism model was highly dependant on the ability to sell the animals that his unique establishments were allowing to return in numbers.
He was opposed by governments and parks people in particular - on the basis that native animals should never be allowed to be sold.
John argued that without the ability to sell them, people in general would never value them - and hence not really care if they became extinct.
If people could trade in animals. then their numbers would grow as people then had a vested interest in their conservation.
Because of this irreconcilable difference with government and conservationists, his earth sanctuary model could never become self supporting.

This is not to say that some people would not work hard at conservation and preservation of animals without reward, but it recognises that for engagement of a critical mass, there must be some trade in items of "conservation".

Another way of illustrating is to ask what the difference is in the way someone who owns a home treats it - versus the way someone treats it who is given a place that they never own. I have been to communities where this is the all pervading case, and its not pretty. Certain reformers amongst them are arguing passionately for the ability of the people to own their homes.
What is vandalism about, if not partly fuelled by a complete sense of detachment from the objects being vandalised?
So I think Nuts is right about the need to give sufficient access so that people then have an interest in the preservation of wilderness.

[Ent]

Everyone one supports motherhood until they have to pay for it. Rhodes made the comment that Britain supported Empire providing that it do not have to pay the bill. Solution, get the colonies to pay for it. Let the rivers run free was undoubtedly a trendy saying around Brisbane Cafe Latte scene but when the water ran out who gives much thought for the rural locals rights and the rare tortoise that breathes through it bottom as opposed to the common politician that talks through it. The Brisbane City Council and the State of Queensland did not. Fortunately the Federal Court did.

Most, is not all, private conservation schemes have or will fall over once the person with the deep pockets leaves the organisation. Sad and negative this must seem it is the reality. When was the last time that you checked that the latest bargain did not come from a slave labour shop or from the destruction of native habitat somewhere in the world. It is very noticeable when travelling in Germany that they care more about their environment than we do and also can balance this with economic development. We in Australia appear to have complete stop or complete development approach. Even the Chinese are understanding that massive environment consequences can out weigh the economic gains unless consideration and balance is give. Curious is many of their new laws and infrastructure spending is more "green" than majority Australia is prepared to accept. One can only hope that this thinking has not come too late for China and we actually accept that we must do our bit even if other countries are not prepare to.

Preservation of the wilderness cannot be a noble purpose in its own right. It must have value to the population in general, or with much hand wringing the general population will vote for policies that support their interest, not the rural communities, nor the environment. In the case of Australia this means that the few major cities have immense political power.

As for "keeping it hard". Sorry remote isolation and rugged terrain is no longer a barrier to development. If there is gold in them hills, roads and rail lines will be cut to get it to keep the like of Collins and Swan Street crowd in the lifestyle that they have become accustom to. The approach must be for balance, and that does not mean selling local communities down the drain and turning them into wealth-fare regions. Nor banning local communities from access to parks either by decree or by insidious fees and quotas.

As for teaching kids the world is not fair, is it not better to teach them ways to make it fairer and give them the drive to do better than what we have instead of passing on a depressive slogan from someone closer to the grave than the cot?

Regards

[igor]

Really, I have in mind some existing short tracks near urban areas that are just too hard for walkers with joint problems. The problem is not the length of the track nor the terrain but simply that the track takes a more difficult than necessary path in that terrain. Take Lockyers track Mt Victoria NSW for example, pretty easy grade for the most part until the decent at the spur. If your reasonably average fitness, no problem but with missing cartilage, no way can you do this. You could however do it if at some point along the saddle the track began to slip down the contours with as good a surface as the rest of the track. It isn’t about opening up more wilderness, it’s just about picking consistent grades for existing selected tracks. I am talking about unassisted walkers here, wheelchairs etc are another complexity to the issue of course.

Ken

why go there if it is too hard? There are plenty of other places. I'm sure if someone would have decided to "fix" that one track, there are going to be people complaining of other hard tracks. You simply choose what is suitable for you. You adjust your routes not routes adjust to suit you