Is an "Abels vol. 2" 2nd edition going to be printed?

[zacharycbruce]

Hi all,

I seem to remember reading somewhere a 2nd edition of the second volume of the Abels books was planned for printing this year. But now I can't seem to find any information about it. The abels website contact page is broken and Bill Wilkinsons email offered on that site no longer exists.
Anyone have any information?

Cheers,

Zac

[north-north-west]

I have it on good authority that Part A of Volume 2 is nearly ready. If all goes according to plan it should be out for Christmas. Not that anything much in this world does go according to plan, but we can always hope.

Part of the reason for the delay is the increase in size, mainly due to the far greater number of photos included. So Volume 2 will, in fact, be produced in two volumes. Part A covers sections 6 & 7 (West Coast and Franklin/Gordon). Part B is sections 8, 9 and 10.

So everyone needs to keep fingers crossed and don't blame me if it all goes pear-shaped.

[Nuts]

Are they at least vetted by parks before publishing?

[ILUVSWTAS]

Not sure what they're like behind closed doors but from a public view do parks even care anymore?

I know things can always get worse but sadly the damage has already been done. The books already exist it'll mostly be those (myself included) that already own them that'll be the likely customers.

[north-north-west]

Are they at least vetted by parks before publishing?

For what?
Maps are small scale and don't show routes for the more sensitive off-track areas. Route descriptions for off-track areas are mostly limited to generalities. Multiple warnings are given about sensitive ecosystems and the difficulty of certain peaks and routes.

Would you prefer if it we pretended that these places simply did not exist?

[zacharycbruce]

Hi Nuts,

Were there issues with the previously published books? I seem to remember in the section around cradle there were some issues identified with parks telling walkers they couldn't divert off the overland or something? I'd have to pull out my copy and find it as I can't recall the exact details. Are there other issues/conflicts with parks that aren't expressesly covered in the books?

[ILUVSWTAS]

It's my understanding the popularity of these books is pushing high numbers of people (some Inexperienced which is another matter) into areas that can't cope. Lots of places that never had as much as a pad before these books existed are now tracked.

Once a new track is created it needs to be filed in PWS track classification system which puts more strain on an underfunded misguided organization.

[Nuts]

Are they at least vetted by parks before publishing?

For what?
Maps are small scale and don't show routes for the more sensitive off-track areas. Route descriptions for off-track areas are mostly limited to generalities. Multiple warnings are given about sensitive ecosystems and the difficulty of certain peaks and routes.

Maybe the maps and route descriptions are too vague then. Surely the more experts the better?

Not in any loop (or rumour mill) anymore and haven't heard anything much in particular Zac, other than that generally there has been some increasing & changing use, attributed to the Abels guides, as ILUVSWT mentions. Certainly many more trip reports from the Eldon Range for example, which may be mostly attributed to the guide. But even if it's more from random bloggers, is not really the point.

Way back when the first edition was published, which I genuinely expected would have caused more concern at the time, I asked a similar question. Willing to consider that the author and others involved have a strong (if, to me, misguided) conservation ethic, it may be even more important that any new editions are vetted. Maybe the best move for our parks that the author could insist!? Be allowed to publish that fact. Or, yes, edit!

We could all insist on seeing walker surveys, track or route monitoring and full disclosure of impact (and rescue) logs. Evidence that protection is still considered and acted on, that P&W have a purpose. No longer able to trust such things haven't suffered political influence.

[north-north-west]

And if there was heaps of detail you'd complain about that. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

[ILUVSWTAS]

It is hard to know the answer. Maybe it is education. I just think minimizing the footprints where ever possible is the most some of us can do.

[Nuts]

And if there was heaps of detail you'd complain about that. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

haha,
yes, it's likely. And if given formal approval I might even find the energy to ask why. It's mine too y'know.

ps. same goes for these guys, who also have every right to then start to leverage on the theme:

[Rexyviney36]

At least one blog/you tube channel is gone…but even that one had barely 1000 subs so I question what/if any impact it would have on the 100 or so Abels that were on it.

[ILUVSWTAS]

At least one blog/you tube channel is gone…but even that one had barely 1000 subs so I question what/if any impact it would have on the 100 or so Abels that were on it.

Well, the book got those guys into it, those guys got that 1000 ppl into it, that 1000 ppl got ?? Into it. And so on so on so on

[north-north-west]

I think it's highly possible that Bill works more on the British principle of 'right to access'. While I have a lot of sympathy with that, it's true we cannot transfer that directly here, as there has been significantly less human modification to our alpine and sub-alpine landscapes - specifically, less concentrated modification for use of resources.

It's not a simple problem with a simple solution. More people = more pressure on natural places.

[doogs]

I am struggling to understand the need for an updated version of The Abels, particularly in a couple of volumes. It does seem to me that the plethora of blogs, youtubes and guidebooks tell more about the vanity of the author rather than adding anything meaningful to the bushwalking community (there are of course exceptions to this statement). All the information needed to climb virtually any mountain in Tasmania is available on the internet if you take time to research it. There are progressive minded individuals who are realising that there's too much information out there, to the detriment of the Tasmanian Wilderness, so they have either deleted their blogs or are considering it. I applaud these people as it would be difficult to throw away so much hard work.
*I must also add that about 10+ years ago I wrote a handful of trip reports on this forum, probably motivated by egotism, I can't deleted these now and the site owner is reluctant to when I last asked him.

[north-north-west]

*shrug*
There's a market. Some access information and some routes have changed. And it is weird to update Vol I and not the rest.

It's impossible to keep everyone happy on this subject. Especially as the genie is already out of the bottle. As doogs has said, the information is out there. The whole concept of the Abels is Bill's, he has as much right as anyone else to deal with it. What's next - getting the HBC to revoke their whole peakbagging list ?

Blech. The person doth protest too much, methinks. Yes, I'm conflicted about this. If someone can come up with a viable solution, I'd love to hear it.

[doogs]

I'm just hoping for a paradigm shift on the issue and people self moderate themselves. Probably a generational change..

[ILUVSWTAS]

I'm just hoping for a paradigm shift on the issue and people self moderate themselves. Probably a generational change..

Took me quite a while...

The peakbagger list is a bit different. There's only a small amount of people that follow that, mostly in walking clubs who bring they're own rules to the wilderness.

I was asked by Bill 4 or 5 years ago to be a part of his new book on non abel peaks. I initially agreed. After a few weeks it just didn't sit well with me so I called him and withdrew.
One of my friends no longer plays the game on this forum as he can't stand the thought of being an influence to just one person.
As I said in an earlier post we just need to do what little we each can.

[Jon MS]

The new edition of the Ables was due out for last summer. But, then covid hit and there were issues getting the maps finalised. The chapter I was asked to write on fire was completed in Nov 2019.

However, I too have major issues with the Ables concept, and have had a “robust” discussion with Bill over it. It seems to me that it is a very anthropocentric way of assessing our natural world.

When I look at the mountains in Tas, my list of what I consider to be the top 10 only includes 3 Ables, Federation Pk, Precipitous Bluff and Frenchmans Cap.

The others on my top 10 list, Geryon South, Mt Hean, SW Cape Range summit, Ironbounds summit, Big Propsting, Greystone and Mt Humboldt, don’t make the Ables grade.

Of these, Geryon South misses out due the requirement for a 150 m drop between the high point and the peak, and the others by being less than 1100 m high (the Ironbounds and Mt Humboldt miss out by only about 40 m and Greystone by 80 m). There are also heaps of “lessor” hills with amazing views and ambiance (eg Mt Stokes, Going Hill, Elliott Hill, Mt Discovery and many others).

However, having said that, if it encourages people to get out, appreciate our natural world (whilst making active steps to minimise damage) and then have people support the preservation of our wilderness areas, it has to be a good thing.

I remember having lots of these discussions back in the Franklin Dam days. We had major concerns that by promoting the river we would end up saving it from the dam only to then "love it to death". This did not happen. Yes, there was a big peak in rafter numbers in 1983-84 with over 2000 people rafting the river over the summer (with a daily peak of 80 people, even though the first few campsites are big enough for only about 15 to 20 people...), but numbers quickly dropped over the next few years. Having rafted the river lots of times in the 1980s, in Dec 1989 I was contracted by the PWS to guide a trip down the river assessing campsites. By that summer, many of the campsites that had formed in the 1980s had gone and the river had recovered.

I can’t help drawing parallels with Disappearing Tarn on Mt Wellington. Yes, heaps of people went there when it was promoted on social media. But, I was struck by their good nature, respect for other people and the lack of litter (despite there being 1000s of people over the 3 or 4 days that the tarn was full). Looking at the majority of people’s clothing and footwear it was clear that the majority of these people were not “hard core” bushwalkers.

I wonder if the appreciation gained by some of those who visited Disappearing Tarn was then reflected in the huge number of people who put in objections to the Mt Wellington cable car. These objections, overwhelmingly against the cable car, made the Hobart City Council properly assess the cable car and then have a majority of councillors reject it.

[Nuts]

You don't see the 000's of 3 capes supporters voicing their concerns over Halls Island? And maybe this weight of numbers would rather drive closer to the tarn, swing warm and cozy in a gondola or have their stuff carried through the Eastern Arthurs? Why no huts, what's so bad with spas? Who support/ for what? Surely anything to make a point easier, isn't the emphasis on 'easier' or points (rather than measurable support for then minimising impact)? Even the parks service moves too fast for these important questions & directions (to me). Aligned as they are to government's whims and time-frames.

I don't have many answers, just questions. Yet if they can't be met by a central agency I'd rather individuals didn't forge ahead meantime with their own effective ideals and hazy reasoning. Parks are an easy target, I'm sure we wouldn't just follow a car across an oval because someone thought it lacked a road, even so much so they actually start directing traffic.

[Doonish]

Part of the reason that volume 2 is being updated is that the old edition is out of print. If you want to keep it in print (and sure, that's contestable) you can either reprint the old edition, or update it, fixing up any changes and errors. The latter makes more sense, if Bill wants to put the time in.

I wonder just how many extra walkers some of the more obscure areas get? I remember climbing Mt Hobhouse 7 or 8 years ago, and having a look at the logbook. There are a couple of ways to approach Hobhouse, and not everyone is going to fill out the log, but nevertheless, at that stage, there were only one or two parties filling out their details every year. The book was so sparsely filled that you could look back to entries before Abels Volume 2 was published, and there, it was similar - one or two parties a year. Would be interested to see if that has changed more recently.

Hobhouse has a little issue in getting across the dam, if you go that way, but it's hardly "remote". But it feels like a kind of test case, because you're not likely to climb it unless you're working through a list. Places like the Eldons, I can imagine a whole lot of other factors feeding in - there would be people who have done the Western Arthurs/Ducanes/Southern Ranges who are looking for their next multiday range traverse. I'd imagine the Franklins have had a growing amount of traffic too, despite having no Abels, but that's just supposition - I don't have the data.

How much does the existence of the books lead to more visitors to difficult places? Tricky to say, I reckon.

[Rexyviney36]

If a fella like Lucas, or a book like The Abels or Chapman's guides inspires my son to get out in the bush in our state, then I'm all for it. It's not their job to teach him how to respect and care for it when we're out there, it's mine.
I appreciate where people are coming from in terms of overuse, but use is not necessarily overuse. Misuse is the more important issue.

[Nuts]

I never thought of the most remote peaks as examples, overuse may never be an issue. Imagine what everything else will look like when it is Especially if it turns out the weight of people would rather luxury accommodation or chopper rides to entice their delicate kids.

[ILUVSWTAS]

I never thought of the most remote peaks as examples, overuse may never be an issue. Imagine what everything else will look like when it is Especially if it turns out the weight of people would rather luxury accommodation or chopper rides to entice their delicate kids.

God don't even joke about it.....

[Doonish]

Oh sure. My point is more that if something is even halfway difficult to get to, I wonder about how many people are pushed by The Abels, per se, to walk there. This being based on the very small (but no less intriguing) example of Hobhouse. My guess is that the majority of people who would claim to be chasing Abels, and inspired by the book, would ultimately never walk off a track.

[grunter]

I've seen on Face(less)book today some one promoting their new Garmin group " Tasmanian Hikers" That's another issue altogether. Hopefully they don't make their walks in sensitive areas public. No need to read a book. Just download a gps file and off you go!

[north-north-west]

I've seen on Face(less)book today some one promoting their new Garmin group " Tasmanian Hikers" That's another issue altogether. Hopefully they don't make their walks in sensitive areas public. No need to read a book. Just download a gps file and off you go!

Yes, the indiscriminate sharing of GPX files is a bigger issue, to me. That does get people into places well beyond their competency levels and encourages not only overuse but misuse.

[ILUVSWTAS]

I've seen on Face(less)book today some one promoting their new Garmin group " Tasmanian Hikers" That's another issue altogether. Hopefully they don't make their walks in sensitive areas public. No need to read a book. Just download a gps file and off you go!

Yes, the indiscriminate sharing of GPX files is a bigger issue, to me. That does get people into places well beyond their competency levels and encourages not only overuse but misuse.

Totally agree with both points there. The safety issue is a real worry

[Nuts]

Yes, GPSX as well.

[Azza]

Oh sure. My point is more that if something is even halfway difficult to get to, I wonder about how many people are pushed by The Abels, per se, to walk there. This being based on the very small (but no less intriguing) example of Hobhouse. My guess is that the majority of people who would claim to be chasing Abels, and inspired by the book, would ultimately never walk off a track.

Dunno.. there was massive interest in the updated books from the established walking community who already knew about the Abels list from the original book. A lot of people saw it as an achievable goal versus the other list's that float around. (I'm guilty of this, but well before it got trendy)
A lot of the noise on social media in recent times has come from the more casual / recently inducted walkers who has decided to jump on the Abel bandwagon and promote their expliots online for fame and fortune.

Chasing a few of the more notorious peaks (not necessarily Abels) I've observed the modern approach has been to go in with a big team of bush smashers and plow through.. tape it and share the GPX file so the next group can smash through the week after.
One notorious walk that took several attempts was blasted through in a few hours after discovering someone had made a highway, previous successful trips had taken 8+ hours.
So my observations are that bigger more organised groups are targetting the harder Abels and they're leaving a trail for their buddies to follow next week and we've observed cases where multiple groups have followed in quick succession.
Safety in numbers has enabled people who otherwise wouldn't venture off track to get to these places.

It was the story I heard a few years ago that large week long plus expeditions to places like the Arthurs, Franklands etc were dropping off. Due to people not having the flexibility and free time due to modern working commitments etc.
Its a bit hard to say with current circumstances if that is still the case. Things were trending towards the shorter multiday walks.