Arthur Range monitoring & management

[grantd]

The Western and Eastern Arthurs are iconic bushwalking areas well-known to many on this forum. Perhaps less known is that the areas have been a primary locality of a recreational impact research and monitoring program that has now been going for 20 years, a period during which there have been a number of changes in the area. The Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service has recently published a report describing the monitoring program. The report also discusses the relationship of these findings to the management actions that have been implemented and the recreational changes that have occurred in the Arthur Ranges during the same period.

If the report is of interest to readers of this forum it can be downloaded from here - http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/arthursreport

The monitoring program described (part of a wider program that encompassed tracks and major routes throughout the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area; TWWHA) is unusual in both its scope and duration, with components monitoring on- and off-track impacts as well as campsites and visitation. Furthermore, recreation impact monitoring programs of this scope and length are rare internationally; one of the reasons there are so few rigorous assessments of the effectiveness of recreation-management strategies in natural areas.

[icefest]

While the above change is not quite so dramatic when routes actually followed are
considered, there has been a real decline in visitation to the eastern end of the Western
Arthur Range, beyond Moraine K. Based on a total of 500 walkers/year visiting the
range, current estimates imply some 300 walkers/year continue through the mid-section
of the range (Lk Oberon to Moraine K) but <100 walkers/year continue beyond Moraine
K to Lake Rosanne.

Annual visitation to the Eastern Arthur Range has declined from a high of around 400
walkers/year during the 1990s to an estimated <250 walkers/year more recently.

[Nuts]

did you forget to add a comment icefest?
Excellent work Grant (and Martin, Phil et al.) Thanks.

[Scottyk]

Interesting that overall visitation has dropped.
I wonder why that is?

[grantd]

While changes in visitation to the Arthurs are obviously interesting it is worth making a couple of points.

The discussion on visitation in the report is provided as context for the management and impact observations. In any area where there are recreational impact problems, a decline in visitation does not necessarily correlate with a decline in impacts because the relationship is not linear, and especially if use remains above particular environmental thresholds.The Arthurs report findings illustrate this, with active impacts continuing throughout and the greatest proportional impact changes occurring in areas with lower visitation.

There is not as much hard usage data around as there once was (Parks no longer has the capacity to collect and analyse it), the usage changes and trends described for the Arthurs are not the same everywhere. For example limited unpublished data suggests in recent years South Coast numbers have increased slightly, Anne Range seems about the same, Lk Rhona is up quite a bit, the Walls has also increased, and Frenchmans has increased a lot.The new track explains the latter but the reasons for the others can only be speculated on.

[north-north-west]

While the above change is not quite so dramatic when routes actually followed are
considered, there has been a real decline in visitation to the eastern end of the Western
Arthur Range, beyond Moraine K. Based on a total of 500 walkers/year visiting the
range, current estimates imply some 300 walkers/year continue through the mid-section
of the range (Lk Oberon to Moraine K) but <100 walkers/year continue beyond Moraine
K to Lake Rosanne.

Annual visitation to the Eastern Arthur Range has declined from a high of around 400
walkers/year during the 1990s to an estimated <250 walkers/year more recently.

Good. The fewer people who go there, the less degradation there is.

[doogs]

I would hazard a guess that since the introduction of logbooks their usage has decreased. Especially in these modern times with the constant mining of data, any extra form to fill in on a bushwalk might be too much for some. It is, however, about the only forms I am quite happy to sign!!

[Nuts]

The range needs a series of commercial huts to fund track works, justify its value. They'll be well hidden, nobody will notice.

[aloftas]

Isnt this area considered the most extreme and remote of the lot?
I hope that whatever comes from the Government's asking for Commercial Interests in these areas still allows for the true experience as well as convenience and safety.

[north-north-west]

The range needs a series of commercial huts to fund track works, justify its value. They'll be well hidden, nobody will notice.

I hope that's sarcasm. There are places far more suitable to commercial exploitation than the Arthurs.

[grantd]

With reference to north-north-west's comment re less people = less degradation, and at the risk of labouring the point I made above, this is often not true. In fact, for certain impacts it is quite possible to have decreased use and still have escalating impacts because (a) the relationship between use and impact is non-linear and (b) there are various environmental thresholds involved (for example, the point when vegetation cover is lost and erodible soil exposed) which vary with factors like the type of vegetation, gradient, drainage etc. The Arthurs study, and much work overseas (see the reference list in the Arthurs report) was partly about these things (see the Discussion section or the report).

[stepbystep]

Great work on the paper Grant and all involved.

How sure are you on the numbers decreasing when anecdotal evidence from many is to the contrary? I meet many out there that haven't signed in/out of logbooks. Or are you also using remote trackside sensors to count feet?

Apologies as I haven't had time to read the full report.

[Nuts]

The thresholds demonstrated in dramatic style on the side of Pelion West on the Overland Track, poorly positioned, difficult to stabilise, undercut groundcover on shallow soils and inevitable landslides (maybe also demonstrating a 'non-linear' effect if the traffic stops yet erosion continues)? Though generally an increase in visitation on that track may not necessarily lead to increased degradation? User Pays?

Sarcasm indeed NNW, a particular method of funding (assumption) not appropriate anywhere inside our WHA (opinion). Unless someone can point out some outstanding conservation component funded directly from such a source? There are commercial operations up there yet the track deteriorates.

Does it really matter, 'numbers' slightly less or more? while ever 'minimal impact' is not being achieved?

[Azza]

Great work on the paper Grant and all involved.

How sure are you on the numbers decreasing when anecdotal evidence from many is to the contrary? I meet many out there that haven't signed in/out of logbooks. Or are you also using remote trackside sensors to count feet?

Apologies as I haven't had time to read the full report.

Decline in numbers visiting the Eastern End of the Western Arthurs - beyond Oberon and Moraine K in particular.
Probably the most likely explanation is that people are time poor these days, particularly in the modern corporate world.
My ability to drop everything and go off on a 2 week traverse of the Arthurs is limited by family commitments, work commitments, annual leave etc.
Hence the trend is probably for shorter 2-3-4-5 day type walks.

[icefest]

did you forget to add a comment icefest?
Excellent work Grant (and Martin, Phil et al.) Thanks.

Yep.

Just wanted to mention that this was the most surprising thing (to me) about the report.

[Nuts]

I can't say i'd given it much thought. Some of the speculation mentioned above is probably true, then it's easy to think that what you have experienced is the 'norm'. Just as the ongoing effect of walker impacts is not easy to envisage without return visits (and armed with usage stats).

I can't remember signing the log several years ago (but yes, there are non-logbook data collection methods available), the last time I was up there we saw very few others, did A-K as an abridged plan (maybe people are just 'softer' these days ) Time poor but then the world is smaller, ticklists longer?

What surprises me is that we can continue 'find' money for lesser tasks, lot's of money, yet play games with our most precious assets.

('suprise' probably isn't the right term there, it'll do. Should add that iv'e not heard of any plans for commercial infrastructure or permit systems)

[north-north-west]

I can't say from any direct knowledge, but I've always gained the impression that the eastern end of the WArthurs has always been far less frequently visited than the popular A-K section.

[Nuts]

I guess so, at least from this site and various reports. I wouldn't have thought numbers were less. It's easy to accept that erosion continues despite lesser numbers or without a great deal more. Whatever the purpose of/interest in data collection, like many, I can only see the worth in action (as interesting as the discussion has been).

[Wherever I may roam]

Hi Grant,

I am curious as to whether the decline in walkers to the Arthur Range coincides with the development of the Overland Track?

That is, is there any correlation between the marketing of the improved accessibility of the Overland Track, growth of commercial groups on the OT and the advertising they produce, and more readily available transportation options to pick up/drop off at either end of the OT, compared to the attention given to the Arthurs?

It will be interesting to see the volume on the new Three Capes track.

Is it PWS intention to apply the OT and Three capes Track model to the Arthurs?

[Wherever I may roam]

P.S

I recall reading a similar report on the Walls of Jerusalem and in that report it made reference to formalising a circuit of the inner walls area (Car Park to WDC to Dixons to Lake Adelaide northern end (via Lake Ball) and then back up the Junction track to the Car park).

I suspect if PWS were to develop such a circuit with more track work such as boarding etc, it may also result in a greater number of walkers due to the actual/perceived accessibility of the park - which going back to my original thought, is what the OT development has probably done.

[JohnR]

This raises an important issue that I am sure most here are attune to.

PWS need to keep the OT / 3 Capes formula to those tracks only.

Every walk in Tassie has its own character and it is important that this be retained. Sure the OT / 3 Capes are great with their spectacular scenery and overall comfortable walking conditions. However the concept of huts, significant track work and generally easy accessibility, should not necessarily spread to other walks.

The SCT is a great example of something that should be kept 'as is' and (contrary to the Government's current plans) there should not be commercial huts developed along the track. It has a rightful reputation as a hard / muddy slog and you live in and off everything you carry on your back. It is a completely different challenge to that posed by the OT. In that way it attracts a different walker or at least one that wants to take the next step after completing the OT style walks.

WAs are the same. They should be retained 'as is' - a wilderness area with minimal track work (i.e. only to address erosion issues) and infrastructure. The nature of that walk and the challenges it throws up is extremely unique. This should not be compromised.

Tassie is blessed with a variety of walks and can certainly satisfy walkers of all abilities and interests. The diversity of walks both in respect of their natural attributes and degree of difficulty is something PWS should always strive to preserve / retain.

Cheers,
JohnR

[MrWalker]

The SCT is a great example of something that should be kept 'as is' and (contrary to the Government's current plans) there should not be commercial huts developed along the track. It has a rightful reputation as a hard / muddy slog and you live in and off everything you carry on your back. It is a completely different challenge to that posed by the OT. In that way it attracts a different walker or at least one that wants to take the next step after completing the OT style walks.

I'm not convinced that every track that has a reputation as a hard, muddy slog has to stay that way forever.
I know some people complained when Dick Smith provided funds to replace the soddon loddons with boardwalk on the Frenchmans Cap track, but most seemed to agree that having people continually churn through the mud was not really leaving the area in its original condition.
So why not fix tracks that have become popular enough to become degraded by people spreading out to avoid the mud?

[grantd]

In response to some questions and points posted in the last couple of days:

There is always a level of uncertainty when estimating use from limited data to areas like the Arthurs, but we are talking about quite a long time series, compliance rates (proportion of walkers who sign log books) for other areas where there may be alternative data sources (eg counters, ranger observations, etc) haven't changed much, and the occasional opportunistic check when in the Arthurs area (walkers noted vs those signed in) is also consistent with this so together this provides a level of confidence that the relative changes in use are real. But, as I've said previously, this analysis is about the Arthurs; changes in use are not the same in many other areas.

As for whether changes in use can be related to management changes elsewhere (like the Overland Track), without comprehensive surveys done at the time (they weren't) that can only remain speculation, even if there is a coincidence in timing.

Anyway, as some have pointed out, the numbers per se are not what is important. Their relevance is the relationship to on-ground impacts. What it is ultimately about is trying to achieve sustainable management of a precious area and (as the report concludes) we have drifted somewhat away from that in the last ten or so years.