Parks access under review

[Davo1]

http://www.themercury.com.au/article/20 ... -news.html

Sheesh, how dumb do they think we are????
This is from the Mercury today, link above.
We have untold places of magnificent value to a tourist that are far more easily accessed than what they are talking here and they can't even put in a decent road or bridge to them. Nah they want to go and wreck the untouched.
I better shut up or I'll say something I shouldn't.


"TASMANIA'S wilderness areas could be opened up to tourism development under a Federal Government reform of the way the state's national parks and world heritage areas are managed.

Environment Minister Tony Burke is reviewing the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area Management Plan, which was drawn up in 1984 before eco-tourism took off.

But any moves to make Tasmania's national parks more accessible to the public and eco-tourism developers appear to hinge on the forestry peace deal making its way through State Parliament."

[Happy Wanderer]

Those calling for development in National Parks are supposedly promoting access for people of limited mobility; yet I wonder whether the less able-bodied amongst us would really support the associated removal of the 'wilderness' factor for ALL people. I know I will never climb Mt Everest (or most likely Federation Peak, for that matter), but I would be horrified at the thought of being used as commercial bait to promote the 'opening up of wilderness' to everyone.
It is possible to have development outside National Parks, such as occurs at Cradle Mountain, which can provide a positive pseudo-wilderness experience in a controlled area for general tourists, whilst allowing the core of the park to retain the values for which it was created. We have to be realistic when looking at our reliance on the tourism industry, but it certainly shouldn't mean compromising the very values which attract so many residents and tourists to the state's National Parks.
The developers had better come up with an alternative to the term wilderness, since their very philosophy makes a mockery of the establishment of National Parks for wilderness preservation. Mr Martin says it all with his comment that "[Development in wilderness areas would] underpin the tourism industry in Tasmania, which is so heavily focused on selling our wilderness." At what cost?

[north-north-west]

"The development process for sensitive development needs to be less onerous, as long as World Heritage and natural values are still protected."

How hard is it to understand that some places can't be developed without destruction of their natural values?

[Davo1]

Yep, they really just don't get it.......

[wander]

Well we do have Military Intelligence so why not Development In World Heritage?

[Mervyn]

Hi
Two weeks ago i did the light to light walk south of Eden. There are a lot of recent survey markers. Fishermen told us they were for a new resort. The road was being upgraded. In a NP.
Mervyn

[walkinTas]

Yep, they really just don't get it.......

A little while back there was a series on TV (ABC I think) about the beginnings of National Parks in America. From that series it was clear that right from the very beginning there has always been those who wish to preserver the natural wilderness and those who wish to develop tourist attractions for the sake of a quick buck.

It has taken strong leaders with real vision to protect the natural beauty and keep the development outside the parks.

[stepbystep]

Well we do have Military Intelligence so why not Development In World Heritage?

lol!

[Nuts]

There actually are and can be developments within parks via existing plans (though I thought WHA listing was much more restrictive on new development). Iv'e never been a supporter, those that exist should be removed rather than expanding such a mistake.

That said, I wouldn't be against the park service making non-competitive profit from existing infrastructure where possible. Also it shouldn't be a big deal to give and take around park boundaries when it is of mutual benefit, it's annoying that every management move seems to be becoming a green 'disaster'. I guess its too easy to read a blog or newsgrab for a painless opinion.

Given that the best tourism pickings are location based (rather than random mining deposits or best forestry potentials) Tourism could very easily become the next big smelly industry

[Hallu]

Yep, they really just don't get it.......

A little while back there was a series on TV (ABC I think) about the beginnings of National Parks in America. From that series it was clear that right from the very beginning there has always been those who wish to preserver the natural wilderness and those who wish to develop tourist attractions for the sake of a quick buck.

It has taken strong leaders with real vision to protect the natural beauty and keep the development outside the parks.

Well actually for having seen it and read the book, a balance was needed. It was impossible to keep development outside the parks, because you needed people to see them and care about them in order to protect them (which is why the Tarkine isn't very much protected for example). This is why Stephen Mather build so many roads in the parks, including the famous "going to the sun" road in Glacier NP. The only exception was the Alaskan wilderness, because nobody had the means to go there really so it was never gonna be a big modern developed park anyway.

The most surprising thing though is that until the 1950s, everybody (well, almost) thought that killing all the predators such as wolves or big cats was a good thing. They didn't know they helped balance the ecosystem. They also would feed bears in Yellowstone, tourists could feed them from their car window. Only after the bears would attack people for not giving them enough food did they stop doing it.

Anyway, it is true that if you compare the Tassie wilderness area to American NPs, the road system is pretty poor. Even the road to the Cradle Mountain area is pretty bad for one of the most famous NPs in Australia. But the number of visitors isn't comparable. There isn't even one million visitors per year to the whole island of Tasmania, while there are about 4 million each year in Yosemite alone for example. The walking tracks in Cradle are fine the way they are, same in the Walls of Jerusalem (they're all better than most tracks in Europe). It's really the roads that need better care. But anyway Burke is pretty unclear about what he wants... More ecolodges ? Expensive hiking tour packages ? We're back to the main problem : most people don't know about Tasmania anyway. The ones that do are Aussies and Kiwis. Germans and French people love hiking in the mountains (Germans are highly represented in the NZ tourist population), and they have money, so start here... Another key point : wildlife. Tassie is the easiest place to experience wildlife in Australia, and it's still not widely known.

[north-north-west]

It was impossible to keep development outside the parks, because you needed people to see them and care about them in order to protect them (which is why the Tarkine isn't very much protected for example).

Piffle. Major infrastructure should be just outside the border of Parks, people can be comfortable and still get in to see things.