andrewp wrote:I'm guessing the unforeseen circumstances are that there are too many parties not in favour of their concept. We all know that the feedback is just window dressing and they will do what they want regardless. Sounds like they won't be organising a replacement meeting. I was also all set to go and will be somewhat put out by the cancellation.
That was my immediate take as well. My submission is as follows. In a few places I used some rather good forms of words from posts above.
1 Are you familiar with the Falls Creek and Mount Hotham Region?Yes.
2 Are you comfortable with the proposed route alignment for the Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing?No.
3 What are the proposed Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing alignments strengths?I can see no strengths.
4 What are the proposed Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing alignments weaknesses?The main weaknesses in the proposal are that it lacks economic justification, it’s not sustainable, it would diminish the quality of the places on the route, and it's dangerous. Also, the proponents have scant knowledge of the walk area, which greatly limits their ability to make meaningful plans. I will address each in turn. Most are linked to some degree.
Economic justification
Regardless of visitor numbers increasing as seems to be envisaged by the crossing proponents, tracks and huts will require many millions of dollars to establish and maintain. There is no way that visitors or private enterprise will be able to fund the maintenance costs. Without significant works prior to commencement, steeper and/or more sensitive sections will quickly deteriorate. This especially applies to marshy areas.
Parks Victoria is stretched very thin. Will the government be providing the $1-3 million needed to establish infrastructure, and a similar amount each year for administration and to maintain infrastructure? If so, why has the government not provided such funding to Parks Victoria now? A far better use of funding is to maintain existing infrastructure. When this is done to a suitable standard then consideration should be given to expansion, which should be done gradually.
Prior to writing this submission I asked for details of the economic case. None was provided, and it may be that there is no economic case, or maybe is will not stand up to scrutiny. I'm unaware of a sound economic case that supports the proposal. If such a case exists it needs to be made known as a matter of urgency so that it can be scrutinised during the consultation process. If there is an economic basis I'd be most grateful if it could be sent to me.
Not sustainable
Wood is already in short supply at Federation Hut, Tawonga Huts, Cope Hut and other places. An influx of visitors not versed in conservation values will place stress on all these places. Human waste and litter are similar problems, with a very real risk of water sources being polluted with e. coli and Giardia. If this happens then downstream towns will be in jeopardy. Above I mentioned tracks in steeper and/or more sensitive sections that will quickly deteriorate. Works are needed prior to the track opening to bring these sections to a suitable standard. To do otherwise is in breach of policy surrounding these places.
Diminish the quality
Some camp sites such as at Federation Hut are quite limited and are full on many weekends. If more people visit then they will be forced to camp at more exposed places, which will put them at risk in adverse weather. This seems to be the aim.
One major current feature of the walks near here is solitude. If the numbers increase as seems to be envisaged then this aspect will be gone. The tracks and campsites will be loved to death.
The sort of shelters that seem to be planned are totally inappropriate for the region. Provision of shelters can kill in that people leave tents behind or have inadequate tents, and rely nearly fully on huts. If a hut is not reached in adverse weather or inability to continue then there may be a death. This has happened not far from the proposed route.
Dangerous
Many other long-distance tracks have relatively easy terrain. For example, apart from the start the Overland Track in Tasmania is more or less flat. The Larapinta Track in the Northern Territory is similar. By contrast, the proposed route has a significant descent and ascent. Putting people with less experience and fitness on the proposed crossing places them at risk.
Scant knowledge of the walk area
It has been shown beyond any doubt that the people behind the idea of the Hotham-Falls Creek route have no idea what they are doing. The brochure is riddled with errors of fact, spelling and design. The camping platforms are preposterous. How can one ensure that a booked platform will be available? What remedies are available should a booked platform be unavailable due to someone else turning up and camping on it? The siting of the Cope Hut platforms defies belief. Nice view, acceptable in good weather, but horribly exposed in bad weather. Without exception, every experienced bushwalker who commented on these platforms has condemned them.
I twice attempted to provide feedback to the Hotham-Falls brochure but received no reply. If a simple thing like feedback cannot be managed, what hope more complicated issues? Similar factual, spelling and grammar errors are in the preliminary Falls Hotham master plan. The Falls Hotham poster has far too many basic errors, and the design is dreadful. It beggars belief that planners cannot determine facts and write properly.
5 Does the proposed Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing route miss any of the unique landscape features/offers that could potentially enhance the experience?The idea is not to cover all the features in one walk. Can't be done. The idea is to give a good selection of features so that people will return to see the features that they did not see on their first trip. This point is basic for experienced walkers. Question five shows that the planners are totally unaware of the way that walks are conducted. It appears probable that Parks Victoria, Tourism North East (sic) or Mc Gregor and Coxall have not walked the proposed route specifically to see the route. I would be most interested to learn if this is so.
6 What audience segments do you believe the Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing should marketed towards? None. The market – for want of a better term – for walks is or should be those that are self-sufficient in remote and rugged regions and can find such places themselves. Enticing people with lesser experience, fitness and gear is ill-advised as such people will be placed in danger. No amount of infrastructure, technology or personal attribute can replace experience to adequately or at all manage adverse circumstances such as bad weather, injury, bushfire or being lost. On many occasions I have seen tourists venturing far beyond where they should at Hotham and Falls Creek with minimal or no gear. They were only saved by the grace of good weather. Tourists have died due to inappropriate encouragement, with at least one coroner critical of park management. If there's a fatality due to excessive promotion of a potentially dangerous area then it will not be an accident: the result is foreseeable. Those responsible will be held to account. Placing people in potential danger seems to be the policy of the proponents, and if so is strongly condemned.
7 What visitor services/facilities should be offered to make the Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing attractive to both local and international markets?No more than are available at present. People come to see nature, not destroy it and battle hordes. The best use of funds is to make tracks better in the places where they are wearing out, and to provide accurate information about the walks, including suitable warnings. So far I have seen no evidence that funds are available. Apart from that, facilities are quite adequate at present. Falls Creek has a visitor centre (two counting Windy Corner), there's a number of huts in the region, tracks are acceptable (if needing more work in many places), and Hotham also has a visitor centre. NSW and Tasmania have removed infrastructure to make wild areas remain that way. Victoria should not be doing more than having tracks that are of an acceptable standard. The government will not even do this!
8 Are there any further comments you would like to submit on the proposed Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing Master Plan?The idea is fundamentally flawed and should not proceed. It is devoid of economic credentials and has a dismal return on investment. There is no rational basis for the plan. Proponents do not have the requisite skills, experience or judgement to plan or manage such a concept.
The bushwalking culture in Victoria is different to those of other places. For example, in Tasmania, infrastructure such as track works, public huts and tent platforms are to protect the environment, not to entice more people to make money. Profit is a secondary matter that will ensue in due course provided the environment is maintained. Many of not most conservationists and experienced bushwalkers oppose any expansion of private use in national parks.
Private construction should be kept at the edges, just outside the national park. Allowing private construction within a national park so private enterprise can make profit is a matter of great concern. There is also the distinct possibility that limits users such as bushwalkers and sightseer to enjoy those areas; private investors will suggest a degree of exclusivity in order to help marketing their “product”.
by Xplora » Fri 13 Nov, 2015 8:08 am 
