Luxury camp inside Walls of Jerusalem WHA with heli access

[johnw]

In theory this should work but the Environment web site appears to be down right now.
https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/FOI%20181005.pdf

[johnw]

In theory this should work but the Environment web site appears to be down right now.
https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/FOI%20181005.pdf

The link is now working this morning.

[geoskid]

Good thinking. The shadow minister is the Hon. Tony Burke
https://www.tonyburke.com.au/contact/
Keep it very short and he may read it. Stress economics and Mr Burke can use this against the Liberal Party. Briefly cite the TWS points about breaching TWWHA requirements and say that it seems that the minister supports these breaches.

If there's enough questioning of the Liberal's economic credentials then they may reverse their decision.

Write to the Minister for the Environment, The Hon Melissa Price MP.
https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Mem ... tent-panel
Throw economics at her and also the fact that the vast majority of people oppose the development. Briefly cite the TWS points about breaching TWWHA requirements. Ask if she supports these breaches.

Can anyone with a bit of time find out the voting results for Tasmanian state and federal electorates at the last election?

Of course, when you submit your economic modelling. you will have put as much effort into the other side of the ledger? That is, contact Daniel and gleen information that he has about his business plan and expected customers and where they might reasonably be expected to conribute to the economy before and after their guided fishing experience in our lovely state. If not, it will be seen as incomplete, and therefore discarded.

[geoskid]

[i]After reading here this morning Mr Hackett's announcement that he is banning public access

This is simply dishonest SoaB. Would you care to attempt honesty?

[geoskid]

Cafe Society: Fly-in, fly-out venture the thin edge of the wedge
AMANDA DUCKER, Mercury
January 16, 2019 11:00pm
Subscriber only

Then there is the issue of helicopter access. A core value of true wilderness is that it is free of mechanical access, he says. Prized as one of the top five wild trout fisheries in the world, the remote Western Lakes are historically a walk-in destination with flat, easy terrain ideal for daytrips on foot.

Fishing for an introduced species, in an area previously riddled with motorbike and 4Wd tracks, and a wreck of a floatplane nearby with an existing hut smack bang on the island. I get that he likes the place, but he is romanticising.

“The Franklin Dam and forest wars led to bad publicity all around the world,” says Greg.

Just don't - not comparable!

“It gave us an image overseas as a petty, bigoted, redneck island that nobody wanted to go to. It is no coincidence our tourism industry has boomed after the forest wars were effectively stopped.”

Well, they are coming here now in record numbers and want to experience the place in a variety of ways without wrecking it.

[Nuts]

Good thinking. The shadow minister is the Hon. Tony Burke
https://www.tonyburke.com.au/contact/
Keep it very short and he may read it. Stress economics and Mr Burke can use this against the Liberal Party. Briefly cite the TWS points about breaching TWWHA requirements and say that it seems that the minister supports these breaches.

If there's enough questioning of the Liberal's economic credentials then they may reverse their decision.

Write to the Minister for the Environment, The Hon Melissa Price MP.
https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Mem ... tent-panel
Throw economics at her and also the fact that the vast majority of people oppose the development. Briefly cite the TWS points about breaching TWWHA requirements. Ask if she supports these breaches.

Can anyone with a bit of time find out the voting results for Tasmanian state and federal electorates at the last election?

Of course, when you submit your economic modelling. you will have put as much effort into the other side of the ledger? That is, contact Daniel and gleen information that he has about his business plan and expected customers and where they might reasonably be expected to conribute to the economy before and after their guided fishing experience in our lovely state. If not, it will be seen as incomplete, and therefore discarded.

I doubt Daniel would help but that's a reasonable idea. Most clients would spend a night or two in Tassie accommodation etc. before and/or after their fishing tour.

It's after-all inarguable that this money is returned to the Tasmanian economy (rather than his own pockets). This benefit is easy to measure, more clients = more return to accommodation places etc..

He Is going to have a hard time explaining how a less-exclusive/lower priced walk-in project model wouldn't require.. more clients. More clients of his or those of other small businesses not excluded. Or the potential now for private fishers spending such money (now the area is famous).

[Lophophaps]

In the available time it is not possible to create and check an economic model. I can say with some certainty that on balance of probabilities the regional economic input fro a large number of people fishing and bushwalking will exceed that of a much smaller number being flown in.

I have perused the April 2018 submissions in the link that was not working. There are 130 submissions, and every one opposes the proposal, many very strongly. Some have great depth, a lot of science. The vast majority have similar or identical points. I made a summary, may be of interest. The longer ones are interesting. The formatting is a bit crook in this post.

Halls island list

Document Entity Position Page
1 Tasmanian Greens Against 1
2 Against
3 Against
4 Against 5
5 Against
6 Against
7 Against
8 Hobart Walking Club Against 14
9 Against
10 Against 19
11 Against 20
12 Against 23
13 Tassie NW Fisheries Against 25
14 Circular Head Walking Club Against
15 Against
16 Against
17 Against
18 Against 34
19 Against 42
20 Against 85
21 Against
22 Against
23 Against
24 Pandani Bushwalking Club Against 91
25 Against 99
26 Against 104
27 Huon Licensed Anglers Assn. Against 106
28 Tasmani Fly Tyers Club Against
29 Against
30 Soth Tas. Licensed Anglers Against 113
31 Against 114
32 Tasmanian NPA Against 123
33 Against 126
34 Against
35 Anglers Alliance Tasmania Against 131
36 NP and Wildlife Advisory C. Against 132
37 Against
38 Tour operator Against 138
39 Against
40 Against
41 Against
42 Against
43 Against 148
44 Against
45 Against
46 NW Walking Club Against 156
47 Bushwalking Tasmania Against 158
48 Against
49 Against 165
50 No submission
51 No submission
52 Against 173
53a Against 174
53b Against 175
54 Against 176
55 Against
56 Against
57 Against
58 Against 181
59 Against
60 Against
61 Against
62 Against
63 Against
64 Against
65 Against 191
66 Against
67 Against
68 Against
69 Against 198
70 BirdLife Tasmania Against 199
71 Against
72 Against
73 Against
74 Against
75 Against 207
76 Against
77 NW Walking Club Against 209
78 Against
79 Against
80 Australian Heritage Council Against 212
81 Against
82 Against
83 Against
84 Hobart Walking Club Against 217
85 Bushwalking Tasmania Against 219
86 Against
87 Against 224
88 Against 235
89 Bob Brown Foundation Against 238
90 Wilderness Society Against 239
91 Pandani BW Club Against 252
92a Tasmanian Aboriginal HC Against
92b Tasmanian Aboriginal HC Against 260
93 Against
94 Against
95 Tasmanian Fly Tyers Club Against 267
96 Against
97 Against
98 EDO Tasmania Against 270
99 Against
100 Against 276
101 Against
102 Against
103 Against
104 Friends of the GW Tiers Against 287
105 Against 292
106 Not stated Against
107 Southern Tas. Anglers Against 296
108 Anglers Alliance Tasmania Against 298
109 Against 300
110 Against 314
111 Against 323
112 Against 326
113 Against
114 Tasmanian Conservation Trust Against 330
115 Against
116 Against
117 Against
118 Against
119 Against
120 Tasmanian Land Conservancy Against 345
121 Against
122 Against
123 Against
124 Against
125 Against 352
126 Against
127 Tasmanian National Park Association Against 363
128 Against
129 Against
130 Against 373

Some extracts
69 What Mr Hackett is proposing will benefit his own pockets only. It will create "3" new jobs at the expense of hundreds of anglers and bushwalkers.

110 Cruise ship patrons live in encapsulated expenditure bubbles. There is very limited spin-off to locals. There is not overwhelming evidence that high-end eco-tourists, especially those who are time-poor, will do otherwise.

[geoskid]

In the available time it is not possible to create and check an economic model. I can say with some certainty that on balance of probabilities the regional economic input fro a large number of people fishing and bushwalking will exceed that of a much smaller number being flown in.

*&^%$#! - You have no way of knowing that - your research is incomplete!

have perused the April 2018 submissions in the link that was not working. There are 130 submissions, and every one opposes the proposal, many very strongly. Some have great depth, a lot of science. The vast majority have similar or identical points. I made a summary, may be of interest. The longer ones are interesting. The formatting is a bit crook in this post.

Every one! Go figure! A lot of science - I'm sure! Is anyone surprised 'the vast majority have similar or identical points'? So long as you don't think any of this is a scholarly exercise, no harm done

b]Halls island list [/b]

Document Entity Position Page
1 Tasmanian Greens Against 1
2 Against
3 Against
4 Against 5
5 Against
6 Against
7 Against
8 Hobart Walking Club Against 14
9 Against
10 Against 19
11 Against 20
12 Against 23
13 Tassie NW Fisheries Against 25
14 Circular Head Walking Club Against
15 Against
16 Against
17 Against
18 Against 34
19 Against 42
20 Against 85
21 Against
22 Against
23 Against
24 Pandani Bushwalking Club Against 91
25 Against 99
26 Against 104
27 Huon Licensed Anglers Assn. Against 106
28 Tasmani Fly Tyers Club Against
29 Against
30 Soth Tas. Licensed Anglers Against 113
31 Against 114
32 Tasmanian NPA Against 123
33 Against 126
34 Against
35 Anglers Alliance Tasmania Against 131
36 NP and Wildlife Advisory C. Against 132
37 Against
38 Tour operator Against 138
39 Against
40 Against
41 Against
42 Against
43 Against 148
44 Against
45 Against
46 NW Walking Club Against 156
47 Bushwalking Tasmania Against 158
48 Against
49 Against 165
50 No submission
51 No submission
52 Against 173
53a Against 174
53b Against 175
54 Against 176
55 Against
56 Against
57 Against
58 Against 181
59 Against
60 Against
61 Against
62 Against
63 Against
64 Against
65 Against 191
66 Against
67 Against
68 Against
69 Against 198
70 BirdLife Tasmania Against 199
71 Against
72 Against
73 Against
74 Against
75 Against 207
76 Against
77 NW Walking Club Against 209
78 Against
79 Against
80 Australian Heritage Council Against 212
81 Against
82 Against
83 Against
84 Hobart Walking Club Against 217
85 Bushwalking Tasmania Against 219
86 Against
87 Against 224
88 Against 235
89 Bob Brown Foundation Against 238
90 Wilderness Society Against 239
91 Pandani BW Club Against 252
92a Tasmanian Aboriginal HC Against
92b Tasmanian Aboriginal HC Against 260
93 Against
94 Against
95 Tasmanian Fly Tyers Club Against 267
96 Against
97 Against
98 EDO Tasmania Against 270
99 Against
100 Against 276
101 Against
102 Against
103 Against
104 Friends of the GW Tiers Against 287
105 Against 292
106 Not stated Against
107 Southern Tas. Anglers Against 296
108 Anglers Alliance Tasmania Against 298
109 Against 300
110 Against 314
111 Against 323
112 Against 326
113 Against
114 Tasmanian Conservation Trust Against 330
115 Against
116 Against
117 Against
118 Against
119 Against
120 Tasmanian Land Conservancy Against 345
121 Against
122 Against
123 Against
124 Against
125 Against 352
126 Against
127 Tasmanian National Park Association Against 363
128 Against
129 Against
130 Against 373

Some extracts
69 What Mr Hackett is proposing will benefit his own pockets only. It will create "3" new jobs at the expense of hundreds of anglers and bushwalkers.

110 Cruise ship patrons live in encapsulated expenditure bubbles. There is very limited spin-off to locals. There is not overwhelming evidence that high-end eco-tourists, especially those who are time-poor, will do otherwise.

[/quote][/quote]

[bogholesbuckethats]

I have perused the April 2018 submissions in the link that was not working. There are 130 submissions, and every one opposes the proposal, many very strongly. Some have great depth, a lot of science. The vast majority have similar or identical points. I made a summary, may be of interest. The longer ones are interesting. The formatting is a bit crook in this post.

Thanks a lot for that, this will definitely come in handy.

[geoskid]

I will just add- I am not a fisherman of any sort, and don't do guided tours of any sort (bushwalking, MTBiking, Adventure motorbiking). What irks me most is that I see this issue as one of privilege -existing users refusing to tolerate newcomers as if they have some ownership. Similar to public hut users begrudgingly making space for others when they thought no-one else would be coming - or on a bigger and more important scale, issues around asylum seekers and refugees. The same type of thinking is present in all - and I am familiar with the type of thinking that attempts to justify this privilege - it is always dishonest and ignorant.

[bogholesbuckethats]

I will just add- I am not a fisherman of any sort, and don't do guided tours of any sort (bushwalking, MTBiking, Adventure motorbiking). What irks me most is that I see this issue as one of privilege -existing users refusing to tolerate newcomers as if they have some ownership. Similar to public hut users begrudgingly making space for others when they thought no-one else would be coming - or on a bigger and more important scale, issues around asylum seekers and refugees. The same type of thinking is present in all - and I am familiar with the type of thinking that attempts to justify this privilege - it is always dishonest and ignorant.

I have no problem with sharing any part of the TWWHA with newcomers just as long as their experience does not negatively impact the experience of other users.

[Thornbill]

What irks me most is that I see this issue as one of privilege -existing users refusing to tolerate newcomers as if they have some ownership.

Not at all. As long as those "newcomers" are using the area in a way that complies with the various management objectives of the area, then I have no issue. The proposed development as it currently stands it as odds with these objectives, hence my opposition. It has nothing to do with privilege, ownership etc.

[Son of a Beach]

After reading here this morning Mr Hackett's announcement that he is banning public access

This is simply dishonest SoaB. Would you care to attempt honesty?

I don't believe I was being dishonest. I think that Mr Hackett and/or the journalist was taking liberties with the use of the work "public". However, I can appreciate that you may not like the way I worded that, but perhaps we simply have different ideas of what "public access" means.

So here's some honesty and truth... People who have contacted Mr Hackett since his privatisation of Halls Island asking for permission to visit the island have been told that the island is now closed. Here's what I've read regarding fisherman who've asked Mr Hackett:

The proponent has emailed people asking to go to the island said that the island is "closed". The public access plan for the development simply says that they may allow use in the future. If complete exclusion of the public (current situation) and a statement that the public may be allowed to go there (future situation) is not a significant detraction from the enjoyment or use by other people than it is hard to know what is.

(FlyLife forums topic, page 20)

Perhaps they are just making this up and I've been misled. Maybe if anybody here has been planning a trip to Halls Island soon, they could contact Mr Hackett and let us know the response?

(My own recent trip was before I'd read this, so I was not aware of any ban or closure on the island. I was naive enough to think that it would be like walking through Lees Paddocks.)

Mr Hackett has indicated that some non-paying visitors may be permitted access in the future, but not at present. Even if access is granted to non-paying visitors in the future, it is not what I think any reasonable person would describe as "public access". Certainly not in the way that public access is available to other private land such as Lees Paddocks and Wadleys. Hacket will require an application process, and will decide who can go in and when, and will only allow people who don't disagree with him.

As I've said elsewhere, these are reasonable terms for a private development or any private land. But I do not believe most people would describe it as "public access".

I would say that Mr Hackett is being dishonest if he were to say that he is granting public access.

But in the end, geoskid, it's semantics. You and I may simply have different opinions on what "public access" means.

But for now, public access, by any definition, is indeed banned. People who have asked have simply been told that the island is closed.

[Son of a Beach]

What irks me most is that I see this issue as one of privilege -existing users refusing to tolerate newcomers as if they have some ownership.

Could you please link to posts here where you have seen this? I don't recall having seen posts in this topic expressing intolerance of newcomers.

What I see people getting upset about is:

• lack of due process (perceived or otherwise) - eg, bypassing assessment under the EPBC Act; project clearly being contrary to even the new management codes, but still being approved; government ignoring the advice if their own committees regarding approval of the development
• dishonesty of proponent's submission - eg, does not meet the official definition of a "standing camp" (eg, huts constructed from timber steel and concrete sheet huts are not "tent-like" - but what does "tent-like" mean? perhaps ask the public what they think - or the official advisory bodies - but their advice was ignored)
• privatisation of Tasmanian public land within a national park, with zero consultation with the Tasmanian people
• "significant detraction from the enjoyment or use by other people" is guaranteed by this project (visual/noise pollution, lack of access), but banned under the official code for a "standing camp"
• access to previously public island being made more difficult for most people, and impossible for some
• If this can be done in a location that before the beginning of the process was in an area with one of the highest levels of protection, then the highest level of protection is meaningless, as the government and private developers can annex (ie, rezone) any location and develop it

[north-north-west]

I will just add- I am not a fisherman of any sort, and don't do guided tours of any sort (bushwalking, MTBiking, Adventure motorbiking). What irks me most is that I see this issue as one of privilege -existing users refusing to tolerate newcomers as if they have some ownership. Similar to public hut users begrudgingly making space for others when they thought no-one else would be coming - or on a bigger and more important scale, issues around asylum seekers and refugees. The same type of thinking is present in all - and I am familiar with the type of thinking that attempts to justify this privilege - it is always dishonest and ignorant.

But it's OK for those who can afford to patronise this proposed venture to have the almost exclusive privilege of access to Halls Island, at the expense of all others? You have a strange interpretation of privilege is you think this proposal gives a more equitable access arrangement for the general public.

I do not know if the Hacketts have actually banned general public access. What I do know is that the only general public access the proposal allows is for a maximum of three groups per year, each of which has a maximum of four people, which means at most twelve people per year. And there are no details about who decides which groups and/or individuals will be allowed in and when, or what the application process is but, given that Hacketts hold the lease, one assumes they have considerable input.

Anyone who wants to walk into Malbena is welcome, provided they apply standard MIB practices. Ditto with accessing Halls. Have a ball, peeps. Enjoy the place. But don't lock everyone else out at so one small company can make money and those with the $$$ can lord it over the rest of us.

Serious question geoskid: I have read every post you've ever made on this forum and so many of them have been in favour of development, of lessening protection of our NPs. Have you ever seen a commercial development proposal for National Park or wilderness to which you object?

[Nuts]

I suspect a bigger picture (and that last can (lol)). Here we have a bulk of fishers and some walkers. When it comes to the proposal and 'management objectives', all busy & involved in political counter-punches. Elsewhere walkers appear most motivated by affected access. Meanwhile, eg. a string of huts is built in one of our national parks (Tasman) and it flies under the radar. This project could well be a red herring for all intents and purposes. For the bigger picture i'm sure these incursions should be all equally challenged every time, together, wherever they are. Regardless of politics and therefore management objectives. These places are ours! NIABY. Lest we just play in to political hands, each time. Why even accept this system of objecting each time when the system itself is rearranged to fail wilderness..

[Son of a Beach]

Huh! It’s official. Daniel Hackett on his own website is calling the new arrangements, and I quote, “increased public access”.
(http: //hallsisland .com .au/public-access-program/)

Under this enhanced Visitor Access Program, the important European cultural history and natural values of Halls Island will be available to more public walkers and fishers than ever before

Is he deliberately confusing "increased public access" with "increased visitor numbers" for the sake of clever (?) marketing? Because I reckon they are completely different things.

Here and elsewhere, he appears to be deliberately confusing access to the hut with access to the island. All to suit the marketing of his schemes.

[bogholesbuckethats]

Taken from the hallsisland.com.au website.

The thin edge of the wedge?
Approximately 40% of Tasmania’s land mass is World Heritage Area (TWWHA). Under the current 2016 management plan, approximately 85% of the TWWHA is zoned as Wilderness Zone, a larger land mass than ever before, and managed to be free of commercial infrastructure or helicopter landings. Only ~15% of the TWWHA is available as potential locations for commercial infrastructure such as Halls Island.


100% of the TWWHA is available for commercial infrastructure if it can be secretly re-zoned

[myrtlegirl]

I just got this email:

Please be advised the period for making a representation in relation to Development Application DA 2018/50 – Visitor Accommodation (Standing Camp) at Halls Island, Lake Malbena, Walls of Jerusalem National Park has been extended in accordance with Section 57(5) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.

Any person may make representation in relation to the proposal in writing addressed to the General Manager, 19 Alexander Street, Bothwell 7030 or by email to kbradburn@centralhighlands.tas.gov.au and will be received no later than 5.00pm on 15 February 2019.

[north-north-west]

I just got this email:

Please be advised the period for making a representation in relation to Development Application DA 2018/50 – Visitor Accommodation (Standing Camp) at Halls Island, Lake Malbena, Walls of Jerusalem National Park has been extended in accordance with Section 57(5) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.

Any person may make representation in relation to the proposal in writing addressed to the General Manager, 19 Alexander Street, Bothwell 7030 or by email to kbradburn@centralhighlands.tas.gov.au and will be received no later than 5.00pm on 15 February 2019.

That's interesting. Are they hoping to get some supportive comments, or is there a possibility they are actually going to be fair about the process?

[bogholesbuckethats]

They had been asked to extend the date due to the fires affecting the area. The initial response was no but I guess they have had a change of heart.


edit
Section 57 (5) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 states
(5) Any person may make representations relating to the application during the period of 14 days commencing on the date on which notice of the application is given under subsection (3) or such further period not exceeding 14 days as the planning authority may allow.



its likely that they missed the "A" after 57 in the email
section 57A
(5) If 2 or all parties agree that mediation should be conducted in relation to an application for a permit under section 57 , the period within which the planning authority must make its decision in relation to the application may be extended under section 57(6A) .

[Lophophaps]

"In the available time it is not possible to create and check an economic model. I can say with some certainty that on balance of probabilities the regional economic input fro a large number of people fishing and bushwalking will exceed that of a much smaller number being flown in.

"*&^%$#! - You have no way of knowing that - your research is incomplete!"

Actually I know with certainty about balance of probability. It's a legal concept, an area that has seen my involvement for decades. Magistrates and presiding members agree with me much more than they disagree. I write good prosecution briefs and have won a lot of cases. My prosecutions work record is three years, one case every six weeks or so, one case lost, and that though trickery. Privately I've won against a lot of people and entities, including ASX top 100 companies, a lawyer who was charged with a crime ( a criminal lawyer!), the police and many more. I'm in court next week, and I'll win that, solid case, again.

My view about the economic model is based on over 30 years of analysing such matters. Further, as far as I'm aware the Riverfly 1864 figures are unavailable, and in any case they keep changing the way the business will be run. Apart from that, as advised above there's not enough time for me to master hundreds of pages of Halls Island information so I'll keep it short. There's plenty of entities and people to cite who have had far more time than me to address the issues - TWS, HWC, EDO, AAT, etc. They also know more than me and I defer to their expertise.

I made a submission about the Falls Hotham Alpine Crossing, which at 17,500 words was one of the longest and most detailed. I totally destroyed the proposal, and none of my points has been denied or challenged by Parks Victoria. Given time I could write a similar submission about Halls Island. I write submissions like I write briefs.

Every one! Go figure! A lot of science - I'm sure! Is anyone surprised 'the vast majority have similar or identical points'? So long as you don't think any of this is a scholarly exercise, no harm done.

Science relies on facts, so the conclusions by scientists will be similar if not identical. The same applies to conclusions about the TWWHA. If the rules say that something is proscribed or details the aims and these will be breached by the Halls Island proposal, then of course comment about these aspects will be the same in different submissions. I see limited point in quoting my long list.

I have no problem with sharing any part of the TWWHA with newcomers just as long as their experience does not negatively impact the experience of other users.

Not at all. As long as those "newcomers" are using the area in a way that complies with the various management objectives of the area, then I have no issue. The proposed development as it currently stands it as odds with these objectives, hence my opposition. It has nothing to do with privilege, ownership etc.

Well said. The first is the best short summary of the views of most bushwalkers, anglers and similar users regarding wild areas that I have seen.

Myrtlegirl, thanks. I will still aim to have most finished by COB on Monday, but the extra time allows more research.

[Lophophaps]

Does anyone know how many clients Riverfly intends to have and how long they will stay? The purported project brief at
https://www.cg.tas.gov.au/__data/assets ... ackett.pdf
is of an exceptionally low standard. No date, no EIS mentioned, no figures, no economic analysis and they cannot even spell the place correctly. There is no apostrophe in "Halls"! Apostrophes were abandoned by Australian place names agencies well over 20 years ago.

[north-north-west]

Their projections appear to be based around 30 groups per year. That is where the helicopter flight figures come from. Not sure how many people could be accommodated in each group.

[bogholesbuckethats]

Each of the three pods can hold 2 people. I saw some information a few weeks back about the cost for a few nights stay. From memory it was around $3000-$4000 but I cant remember if that was per person or per pod. If anyone can point me back to where that information is that would be great.


edit - from the mercury

The documents reiterate the pair will run 30 tours of six people per year. Visitors will be flown to the site by helicopter, usually from Derwent Bridge to the Central Plateau Conservation Area, with each tour requiring up to eight flights.

[kymboy]

In my experience $3-4k would be per person for about 4-5 days of guided fly fishing including food etc.
It's not a poor person's sport

[Son of a Beach]

Over on the FlyLife Forums, one of the members there has posted an email conversation with Daniel Hackett regarding wanting to visit the island:

From: XXXX [mailtoXXXX@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, 22 October 2018 10:51 AM
To: RiverFly 1864; daniel@riverfly.com.au
Subject: Access to Halls Island Hut - Wednesday 24th October

Hi Daniel,

I was planning on visiting Halls Island this Wednesday.

Do you mind if I stay in the hut there overnight?

Thanks,

XXXX

Hello XXXX

Thank you for your email

Halls Hut & Island is currently closed to access while overdue conservation work is planned and implemented to protect the hut for future generations. As you would be aware from your previous use, the floor joists and boards have broken into three sections, and are at risk of irreparable damage at this time.

We are also conducting remote-camera fauna monitoring on the island, and it is important that these are not interfered with inadvertently while this research is conducted.

We hope to complete conservation works by mid-2019.

Kindest Regards,

Daniel Hackett
Halls Island custodian & lessee

So, to paraphrase: Halls Island is closed and we have surveillance cameras monitoring the island. For fauna research.

[myrtlegirl]

We are also conducting remote-camera fauna monitoring on the island, and it is important that these are not interfered with inadvertently while this research is conducted

Fauna monitoring....is this a euphemism for security cameras? Wouldn't it be funny if a random visitor found the cameras and streaked past, covering the appropriate bits of their anatomy (i.e. their face).

If it's for 'research', who reviews their research? The Gold Standard for research is that it is independently peer-reviewed and published in scientific journals.

I hae me doubts....

[johnw]

Today I received an email acknowledgement of my submission from Central Highlands Council, with notification that respondents (representors) can speak at the council meeting. Those wishing/able to do that need to follow the process advised by the council.

[bogholesbuckethats]

I strongly encourage you all to come to the meeting where the vote will take place on Tuesday 26th of February at 10:30am in Bothwell. As johnw said, if you are willing to speak at the council meeting you will need to follow the process advised by the council.