Linking RNP to Morton

[Swampy460]

I doubt that i will see it in my lifetime. But I could see it being a good thing if they can get around the fact that a lot of the top of the escarpment is water

http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/stor ... ck/?cs=300

Swampy

[madmacca]

What's with the obsession for "world class walking trails". It will take a lot longer to find the grants and money to fund that kind of infrastructure (steps, wide benched trail, shelters, toilets, etc) - and to maintain it once built.

Why not just start with surveying a route, negotiating access with landowners, and just roughly cutting back the vegetation, and letting it become established by usage?

The infrastructure can be added later.

[GPSGuided]

Would be nice. But given current govt thinking, there may well be a commercial angle in it. Will see.

[Hallu]

What's laughable is the World Heritage proposal for Royal NP... It's basically a man-made park, with introduced flora and fauna... even though the fast regenerating native vegetation masks that. It's been heavily logged, foxes rabbits and deers have been introduced for sport hunting... Mudflats and mangroves have been replaced by grass parkland... Totally the opposite of what's needed to get World Heritage status... Yeah in some areas it looks good and wild, and yeah it's hugely popular, but that doesn't make it World Heritage... Otherwise we could also declare Mortington Peninsula WH, or even Phillip Island... That's totally wrong. World Heritage is something like Croajingolong, or Shark Bay. It should be vast and unspoiled. Not tiny and riddled with human activity and nefast influence...

[icefest]

What's laughable is the World Heritage proposal for Royal NP... It's basically a man-made park, with introduced flora and fauna... even though the fast regenerating native vegetation masks that. It's been heavily logged, foxes rabbits and deers have been introduced for sport hunting... Mudflats and mangroves have been replaced by grass parkland... Totally the opposite of what's needed to get World Heritage status... Yeah in some areas it looks good and wild, and yeah it's hugely popular, but that doesn't make it World Heritage... Otherwise we could also declare Mortington Peninsula WH, or even Phillip Island... That's totally wrong. World Heritage is something like Croajingolong, or Shark Bay. It should be vast and unspoiled. Not tiny and riddled with human activity and nefast influence...

Less than a third of all World heritage sites are 'vast and unspoiled'. (759 cultural Cultural site, 193 natural Natural site and 29 mixed Mixed site properties)
Even the Sydney opera house is World Heritage.
Read the criteria: http://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria/
This is a map of all world heritage areas. Yellow is Cultural, Green is Natural, half each is mixed.

EDIT: Red are the places at risk of being removed from the list.

[GPSGuided]

What's red?

[icefest]

What's red?

The places listed as being in danger of being removed from the list.
http://whc.unesco.org/en/danger/

[GPSGuided]

Thanks. Interesting how these sites can come in and go out.

[Hallu]

What's laughable is the World Heritage proposal for Royal NP... It's basically a man-made park, with introduced flora and fauna... even though the fast regenerating native vegetation masks that. It's been heavily logged, foxes rabbits and deers have been introduced for sport hunting... Mudflats and mangroves have been replaced by grass parkland... Totally the opposite of what's needed to get World Heritage status... Yeah in some areas it looks good and wild, and yeah it's hugely popular, but that doesn't make it World Heritage... Otherwise we could also declare Mortington Peninsula WH, or even Phillip Island... That's totally wrong. World Heritage is something like Croajingolong, or Shark Bay. It should be vast and unspoiled. Not tiny and riddled with human activity and nefast influence...

Less than a third of all World heritage sites are 'vast and unspoiled'. (759 cultural Cultural site, 193 natural Natural site and 29 mixed Mixed site properties)
Even the Sydney opera house is World Heritage.
Read the criteria: http://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria/
This is a map of all world heritage areas. Yellow is Cultural, Green is Natural, half each is mixed.

EDIT: Red are the places at risk of being removed from the list.

There's no argument there, unless you're calling Royal NP a "cultural site" ? Of course I know they're not all parks, but you can't call Royal anything else... The matter of fact is this : nobody in their right mind would put Royal NP at the same level as Shark Bay, Uluru, Iguaçu, Yellowstone, the Dolomites, SW NZ, or Ha Long Bay... And everybody on the selection committe at the UNESCO would laugh at the proposal... A new one in Australia who would stand a chance would be if Alpine, Kosciuszko and Namadgi were to conglomerate into one giant NP. Croajingolong would stand a chance too, as it's already recognized as a UNESCO World Biosphere Reserve (Kosciuszko too). The Victorian Mallee would be a candidate as well if the 4 Mallee parks were connected and farmland between them was bought back. But Royal ? No way in hell.

[icefest]

Did you read the criteria for selection?

2. to exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design;

Royal NP is the second NP in world history. That in co


I'm not saying Royal NP is a hothouse of virgin landscape, I'm saying that it is not necessary to be be like that to get WH status.
Muskauer Park is a non natural park that also has WH status. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1127
I just think that defining WH as " It should be vast and unspoiled. Not tiny and riddled with human activity and nefast influence" is not at all in keeping with the actual reasons of selection.

[Hallu]

Being the 2nd NP in the world doesn't mean anything culturally, and it wouldn't mean anything to the selection committee. You can have parks that are selected for their cultural significance, but even then Royal doesn't match the criterias. You'd need a great concentration of significant aboriginal artefacts, such as in the Willandra lakes.

[GPSGuided]

Curious Hallu. Why are you so against RNP attaining that status? If they could, what's the down side for Australia and fellow walkers?

[Hallu]

The downside would be that people who think Royal is a good example of what an NP should be would have their opinion validated by the WH status, while this is a park that shows exactly what shouldn't have been done. It would also diminish the credibility of the UNESCO, selecting such an insignificant park. It may be significant for people living in Sydney, but that's all. Other parks all over Australia deserve the WH status much more than Royal, they just don't have the same popularity and political backup.

[GPSGuided]

Other parks all over Australia deserve the WH status much more than Royal, they just don't have the same popularity and political backup.

I suspect that's the same all over.

Based on what I've read about WH applications, it's a big money exercise for many countries and/or regional governments. It's often more about status and potential commercial spin-offs, similar to hosting the Olympics.

[Hallu]

I'm not sure about that. If you take Australia, the Willandra Lakes aren't popular at all (most people don't even know about Mungo), and it's the same with the Antarctic islands. They have scientific importance more than anything else. Yes, governments tend to promote only their touristy places, but the selection isn't like that. I'm convinced Royal has absolutely no chance of being selected.