The Spires

[naturelover]

We had a great trip to the Spires, managing to finish it just before the weather changed rather dramatically. If you'd like to see the pics and read the story, it is in my new-look blog, link below:
http://www.natureloverswalks.com/spires/

Here is a photo to give you an idea ...

[stepbystep]

Great pics Louise. Is it true this was a Hobart Walking Club trip with 10 members to the party?

I'm sad that the club sanctions such a large group going to untracked remote and sensitive areas, all to enable peak bagging for some. Poor form HWC. Oh well at least there will be a track now....

[north-north-west]

... Club trip with 10 members to the party?

11, going on the trip report.

[Tas Tom]

And, as I noted in the the log book at Scotts Peak dam late last year, a party of 11 NWWC/HWC members on a joint trip to the Eastern Arthurs in November last year. Including a number of the same people as on the trip to The Spires.
Surely in both cases a party size too big for these type of trips?

[stepbystep]

Imagine being at Hanging Lake with another party of 2 or 3 and that lot turn up. Even worse in the Spires...it's totally selfish imo....Club walks should be guided by leave no trace principles surely...? I know club members read this forum can any of them provide their rationale for such group sizes?

Louise please tell me your planned trip to Mt Nereus won't be like this?

[doogs]

I camped somewhere in the Denison region a couple of weeks ago and there was a group of 12 at Lake Rhona in the log book, plus a couple of small groups of 3 or 4. I think there needs to be a discussion about large group sizes in remote areas...

[Strider]

I camped somewhere in the Denison region a couple of weeks ago and there was a group of 12 at Lake Rhona in the log book, plus a couple of small groups of 3 or 4. I think there needs to be a discussion about large group sizes in remote areas...

Not just remote areas. I once spent a night at Vera Hut with 15 members of the Sutherland Bushwalking Club. They were all very lovely people but I thought walking in a group of that size was particularly inconsiderate.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Mechanic-AL]

As usual you have an awesome set of photos to recall this trip with Louise. Well done.

I have often wondered when a walking club puts up a proposal to do a walk, just how they elect who can go and who can't if every man and his dog wants to be on board. It must be hard being the one responsible for telling others they're not wanted
Any group over about 4 people is getting rather annoying in my books.

[gaskella]

Wow! Delightful images and a great read.

[stu]

Yes, lovely images as usual.

Have to agree, group sizes larger than 5-6 in untracked wilderness go against Leave No Trace ethics. This area is very delicate in places, let alone, as others have mentioned, if you are already out there and a dozen others show up.

The HWC trips to both Provis Hills & Tramontane had groups of 14; surely the damage groups of this size can cause goes against the very nature of the joy of travelling to these beautifully wild areas with a few like minded companions. Beating these remote peaks into submission with a conga line of scrub smashing isn't particularly sporting.

One of the reasons I probably won't ever join a walking club.

[Thylaseen]

Nice report. It is a very beautiful area and great country to walk through. We found the Pleiades tough going as well. Just wondering whether you launched the boat from Clear Hill Rd or elsewhere?

[TentPeg]

Hi - this is my first post after reading the forums over a long while.

I am a club member although do not speak on behalf of a club. I was on the trip to the Eastern Arthurs in November mentioned earlier. I was on the trip to the Spires. I follow the principles of Leave No Trace.

Why am I a club member - well the concept of knowledge and experience exchange is important to me. The gaining of knowledge or experience is often referred to as learning from your mistakes. In a remote bushwalking context I would rather not use this method so learning from highly experienced walkers who have been travelling our wilderness for many decades is of great value to me. On the couple of trips noted there was one person who has the full list of peak bagger points, two approaching it, and another couple approaching completion of the list of Abels. That's a lot to learn from.

Both the walks had a good sized group starting with 11 or 12 walkers. On the Arthurs walk we had two with ailments that led them to turn around and head home together. A large group allowed this to occur without affecting the goals of the rest of the group greatly. The group split a number of times to allow the various individuals to achieve their own goals from the trip while still remaining in smaller groups. There were 7 walkers at Hanging Lake - in November - hardly an issue I would have thought. The whole of this trip - apart from some minor side-trips - was done on a track. I can't see how this trip goes against the Principles. In essence the "plan ahead and prepare" principle was best achieved by a larger group. I may have missed something but the only place that I can find that addresses the Principles and specifically notes small groups of four is the Tasmanian National Parks site. Again I may have missed something but I see little difference between one group of twelve on one day and three groups of four on consecutive days.

The Spires walk had similar issues with ailments affecting four of the walkers. Again the size of the group allowed us to be able to manage the ailments without significantly impacting the goals of the walkers. The majority of the walking was done on a pad. They were reasonably easy to find as they were where you would have expected them to be. This is not an un-tracked wilderness. Some parts of it are 'sensitive' but certainly not un-tracked.

I suppose it is reasonable for me to be piqued by some of the comments made earlier so I might address them as well.

Not all the members of the two groups are peak baggers - and so what if they are. Does putting a tick on a list change the nature of a person's enjoyment of walking?

Another of the reasons that a large group is a good thing is that it allows those without the physical capacity to go to some areas to be able to get there and enjoy our amazing wilderness. I respect peoples opinions that they may wish to walk solo or with a few like minded companions but there is also a good case for more like minded people enjoying the wilderness without damaging it. To suggest that a large group would be 'beating these remote peaks into submission' is a little over the top. We are out there enjoying the process and not engaging in some form of sport. Some of the group members are in their seventies, many in their sixties, and so on, so the support provided by a club and a large group is integral to them being able to extend their remote area walking experience. That surely must be a significant positive.

[gayet]

We are out there enjoying the process and not engaging in some form of sport. Some of the group members are in their seventies, many in their sixties, and so on, so the support provided by a club and a large group is integral to them being able to extend their remote area walking experience. That surely must be a significant positive.

No doubt it is a significant positive for the people involved but it is NOT a positive of any measure for the area underfoot. And that is the concern. Some level of compromise has to be given for the protection of the land for the land's sake, at a cost to the humans who want access. We can't always have it all our own way.

[stu]

Agree on your comments on the Eastern Arthurs; yes, it's a track, but also due to the limited designated camping sites your group basically fills up every spare spot. You're right tho, at least it was out of season in November. I have come across similarly large groups in the WA's & they certainly monopolise the platfortms, not very fair to a smaller group arriving late.

Certainly trips of 14 to Provis Hills & Tramontane are 'beating them into submission' territory, after that many people pushing through scrub there would be a full blown track, hardly sensitive & certainly less in the true spirit of remote walking, surely?

Regarding the 'pads' in the Spires area, a pad is a faint trail, used infrequently at best in these areas; again, such a large group staying on said pads will result in the forming of tracks. It's usual in these areas to try to spread out to avoid forming pads, to try to keep the area minimally trodden.

For the greater good of remote wilderness I think most would agree that these are insensitive group sizes. Certainly Parks would be abhorred I would have thought, hence their suggested maximum group sizes. Sorry, the argument of aiding less capable members to get to these areas also doesn't cut it (it's an unfortunate fact of life), otherwise we might as well put roads in so the disabled, the elderly, children etc can also access these areas.

It's a touchy subject & we're all going to have our points of view.
I'd be interested what Parks have to say as they are the nominated custodians of such areas...

[Tas Tom]

I agree with Stu's comments above but, I suspect, the large groups will continue regardless.

From my perspective I just need to remember to double check the walks calendars of the major bushwalking clubs in Tassie and avoid their locations/dates.

[doogs]

I totally agree with Stu. I think Hobart Walking Club needs to seriously have a good hard think about their policies of group sizes.
"In more remote, challenging or sensitive terrain, and in national parks and on crown
land, group sizes of eight or less (four in the most sensitive cases) is encouraged."
This quote is taken from the Tasmanian government produced booklet 'Tasmanian Adventure Activity Standard - Bushwalking' (2009) and was co-authored by Andrew Davey (who has much to do with the HWC). http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/__data/asset ... alking.pdf
Looking at the Parks and Wildlife recommendations; there is nothing I can find for remote areas..the Overland Track is groups of thirteen and the South Coast Track is groups of six.

[whynotwalk]

Disclaimer: I no longer work for Tas Parks & Wildlife, so this is just my opinion. However ...

I did work with TPWS for nearly 24 years, specifically in the recreation and education areas. I was involved in both the Minimal Impact Bushwalking (MIB) and Leave No Trace (LNT) campaigns. Given that background, I must agree with those who are dismayed and disappointed that such a large group has gone into an untracked area like The Spires.

LNT Principle #1 - specifically adapted for TPWS - says

Walk in small groups. Split larger parties into groups of 4-6

Principle #2 goes on to say

IN PRISTINE AREAS:
• Disperse use to prevent the creation of campsites
and tracks.
• Avoid places where impacts are just beginning

I understand the excitement and sheer momentum that can overtake a group once the "scent" of a major adventure is in the air. "Just a few more walkers will be okay..." That's where judgement, leadership and thought for the environment need to take over. And LNT principles, club rules and common sense need to come into play.

As much as bushwalking is about our enjoyment, it's not JUST about us. Of course this is just my opinion.

cheers

Peter

[Nuts]

Awesome, awesome, awesome, cringe. And so it goes.

The P&W Track Classification (from which guidelines stem) would call this a route, an example of a route given as the Franklands traverse.
The management recommendation for a route, i'd expect with a whole bunch of parameters considered and few exceptions, is for a maximum party size of four.

...and, at the other end of the spectrum of use (but equally concerning/ worth a mention when it comes to publishing), reading further than was healthy, to not camp in designated 'day-walk' areas.