Track maintenance parks fees

[bauera]

It appears to me that there is now little track maintenance being undertaken on other than those high profile tracks such as Overland and Walls. This is a shame as far as I am concerned. Who cares if all those overseas and interstate tourists get their feet a little dirty because OT is not yet all boardwalk? I get rather confused at my despair at walking in muddy peaty areas, worsening the degradation already caused by deepening the already gooey mud and yet also despair at my unhappy habit (yes, you do it too) of avoiding the worst of the mud and thereby helping to increase the number of multiple track braids, all of which end up about as muddy as the original. There are many tracks in Tasmania which would benefit from more track hardening, if only the Govt would put our parks fees towards these lesser used but oh so needy tracks. Is it only me or are they actually ignoring our non-tourist tracks in favour of visitor centres and barbecues?

[tastrax]

I suspect that you may be right - this link will take you to a page that shows where the park entry fees are spent - not much sign of track maintenance...

http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=8622

[Steve]

After going up Mount Roland the other week I was surprised to see they've given the track a bit of a face lift. All the signs we passed looked very new. We passed by a big pile of timber at the crossing over O'Neills Creek where it looked like they must have been putting a new bridge in or perhaps some sort of railing or upgrading the stairs near by. Up top at the Mt Roland - Mount Van Dyke junction there was a big new duckboard rest stop and from there new duckboard going along the plateau for.. a few hundred meters perhaps up to a kilometer (not all that good at judging distances ). Near the end of the duckboard was a rather impressive lookout/lunch area looking eastward.

We had a quick chat to a man we met along the way who told us that it cost $1000 per meter of duckboard, that inclusive of the materials, hiring the helicopter, and labour. That seems astronomical to me, I would have guess a few hundred at the very most. He told us too that it was paid for pretty much solely by the surrounding townships.

Anyway back to the topic. - Yes it seems that our park fees go toward the big tourist tracks, and its a pity that many lesser known but just as good walks seem to continually miss out. Its all a conspiracy.

I remember a few years back walking along the Overland Track on Cradle Plateau in the winter. The track was hideous, the board were all rotting away, some were floating or missing and mud was everywhere in between. We passed by a PWS officer and he told us that our fees and peoples OT fees were covering the maintenance, which I saw none of until this year. I know they must have been doing work through out the whole of the OT but to me leaving the start of the track in such a bad condition for so long was atrocious. That track is used by more day walkers than OT people, I don't get how it could take them so long.

I've been on many a track where a days work could have cleaned it up something amazing, however they still overlook these tracks.

There should be some kind of consortium where we, the tax payers.. the and fee payers, have a say what is down with our money. That's another thing, we as Tasmanian's who pay tax should not have to be slugged another fee for going into our own backyard. That makes no sense to me, mainlander and tourists paying fees seems like fair play as I'd say that have a bigger impact/presence in these main tourist locations. I know a number of people who refuse to go National Parks because of the fees and haven't gone to those places since the fees were introduced, its sad really. Still a heaps of good locations for the anti-fee crowd.

Umm, yeah my post is a little all over the place.

/rantover

[Beeper]

If you did some asking around, you'll find alot of the park entry fees actually goes towards staff salaries at the expense of projects on the ground, unfortunately funding for track maintenance often involves scraping from the bottom of the barrel ie little to nothing left.

[tasadam]

The Arm River track is in excellent condition - boarded nearly all the way.
Just before the climb, (about 1KM west of the car park), there is a small boggy area, the worst of which was about knee deep (I was curious OK??)
Then it's some very easy walking all the way to the Mt Oakleigh turnoff at the Douglas Creek bridge.
Between here and the hut, the track is a minefield of roots sticking out everywhere. Quite possible to walk, and not much worse than some of the rooty areas between Pelion Hut and Frog Flats, but taxing in comparison to the standard of the rest of the track. I suspect they left it like that (the track to Douglas Creek from New Pelion Hut) to discourage the masses from visiting Douglas Creek here - there is a sign at the hut tanks indicating there is a nice waterhole for washing over at Old Pelion Hut and not to do it at the bridge. They use it, too - droves of tourists traversing from New Pelion hut north along the OLT with their thongs, minimal clothes, and a bathroom bag / plastic bag assumingly containing clothes and a toothbrush or some such.

So it appears to me that sometimes tracks are left at a certain standard for "discouragement" reasons.

Regarding the fees. The Gov't said that all parks fees would go back into parks.
I discussed my views on that in THIS TOPIC.
No point repeating myself here.

I suspect that you may be right - this link will take you to a page that shows where the park entry fees are spent - not much sign of track maintenance...

http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=8622

That is a very concerning read and adds weight to my suspicions that the Govt are using park fees to do things that should have been funded by them, rather than shifting the source of funds for these activities from Gov't funds to Park fees.
There's a lot of Visitor Centre Operations and Staff, and Operations and Maintenance in that list, along with many other "ongoing" tasks that require annual costing.
So much for all the funds going into parks to improve things, looks like they are trying to get Parks to fund themselves.

If they want to do that, they will need more visitors, hence more fees, to allow for funds for track maintenance.
If they get more visitors, tracks will get worse before they get better.

The average OLT walker I met when I was there last month was describing a section as a minefield.
It was a particularly rooty section sidling around Pelion West, but hardly a minefield.

When I did the South Coast track in November, the track on day 2 from South Cape Rivulet to Granite Beach was by far the worst section, so much mud, so deep. Very slippery steep muddy banks heading down to Granite Beach (the last hour or so as I recall). Going the other way up this slippery mess is something I do not aspire to do.

Frenchmans doesn't bother me - you expect it there. They've fixed the worst bits from 20 years ago, but there are still some sticky spots.
The track up Philps Lead was a heavily eroded ditch compared to my memory of it on the first visit.

So. What can we do to improve things rahter than complaining about it here?

[tasadam]

Let's have a quick look at some numbers.

http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=8622
Revenue in -
2007/2008 = $3,510,705 (no mention of track maintenance)
2006/2007 = $3,270,660 (and a bit of track maintenance)
2005/2006 = $3,675,000 (and a lot of track maintenance)
2004/2005 = $3,121,203 (and a lot of track maintenance)
2003/2004 = $2,150,000 (and a lot of track work and maintenance)

Now, how many visitors provided this revenue?
http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/file.aspx?id=8203 (as found at http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=866 )

The Parks and Wildlife Service is not able to count the number of visitors to every National Parks. However, the Parks and
Wildlife Service regularly counts visitors to eight major sites in Tasmania (called "reference sites" - highlighted in yellow). It is
estimated that visitors to these eight sites represents some 60% of visitors to all 19 National Parks.

Therefore -
In 2007/2008, 60% of park visits was 714,047. That makes 100% of park visits about 1,190,078
In 2006/2007, 60% of park visits was 716,650. That makes 100% of park visits about 1,194, 416
In 2005/2006, 60% of park visits was 717,953. That makes 100% of park visits about 1,196,588
In 2004/2005, 60% of park visits was 752,643. That makes 100% of park visits about 1,254,405
In 2003/2004, 60% of park visits was 743,717. That makes 100% of park visits about 1,239,528

Using these numbers from the Parks site, one can see that each visit to a park generated
2007/2008 - $2.95
2006/2007 - $2.74
2005/2006 - $3.07
2004/2005 - $4.15
2003/2004 - $1.73

Now.
How much does it cost to get a parks pass?
http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=914
Per day per person $11.00, up to a two year pass for a household and up to 3 vehicles at that address for $115.

The flaw in my statistics calculations is that one cannot establish how many visits each parks pass holder made in a given year, or what type of pass they purchased.

One can still see from the amount of revenue generated per "park visit" that there is a hole in the figures somewhere.
Anyone got any ideas?
Perhaps they are counting people that don't buy passes?
Perhaps the money is going somewhere else...

I am sure that Parks would have the information on the number of types of passes sold per year available, whether they release that information is unknown but would be interesting - then it would be possible to establish on average how many visits each pass holder makes to a park in a given year.
It's not rocket science.

[tasadam]

Hang on a minute...
http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=914

The money raised from park fees goes directly towards the upkeep of your parks and reserves. It is used to maintain and upgrade visitor facilities, walking tracks and information booths.

Where did the fees get spent in 2007/2008?
http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=8622

Social Values Research and PR
Skifield Operations and Maintenance
Visitor Reception
Staff Shuttle Bus
Windy Ridge Hut
Visitor facilities maintenance
Sewerage Treatment WHA
Lake St Clair Waste Water Treatment – Operations and Maintenance
Visitor Centre Operations and Staff Day visitor facilities maintenance Wineglass Bay TrackMt William National Park
Operations and Maintenance
Operations and Maintenance
Mt William - Musselroe Development Impact Study
Visitor Reception Staff
Visitor Centre Operations and Staff
Day visitor facilities maintenance
Visitor Centre Operations and Staff
Operations and maintenance
Day visitor facilities maintenance Wineglass Bay Track
Port Davey Marine Planning
Southern Operations and Maintenance
Cockle Creek Site Planning
Melaleuca Volunteer Program
Melaleuca Bunded Containers
Heritage Huts
Cave and Pool Visitor Services
Weed Eradication
Visitor Centre Operations and Staff
Fortescue Bay Campground Caretaker and Maintenance
Trainee Program
Trainee Aboriginal Field Officer
Liffey Falls Contribution
Great Bushwalk Scoping Study
Marine Reserve Management
Discovery Ranger Program
Community, Interpretation and Public Affairs Programs and Projects
Research Rolling Surveys
WHA 25 Year Anniversary

May I emphasise their words for a moment -

It is used to maintain and upgrade visitor facilities, walking tracks and information booths.

[tasadam]

This topic shares an interesting newspaper article.

And to clarify my comments, I have certainly not got anything against Parks themselves, I do have something against the lack of funds they are dealt.

I read the newspaper article with interest (here seems like a more appropriate place to discuss it), and learn of the proposed (or is it fact now?) five 60 berth huts in the southeast. That's a max 300 paying visitors per night in the park. I wonder how long it will be before that revenue recovers the cost of the huts and facilities management in that area so they can start using it for upkeep of other areas.

It is interesting to note that much of the funds seems to be directed at new projects (viewing platforms, a loop track at Wineglass Bay, an ugly Bert hut, etc) rather than the upkeep of existing facilities.

Again, what can we do? Which politician do we write to? Anything else?

[Singe]

Interesting discussion. I walked the Tasman Peninsula loop back in November 2007, and again last December. Both times the section between Fortescue Bay and Mt Fortescue had a lot of fallen wood over the track; it was noticeably worse in 2008 - practically impassable and quite dangerous in some areas - and obviously hadn't been cleared in the interim. I had a chat with the resident PWS guy at Fortescue Bay in 2008 and mentioned the condition of the track; he said that he'd been there for six months (from memory) but hadn't had a chance to do any of the walks yet but that they were aware of the poor state of that track and planned to send rangers out to clear the track - but couldn't say when due to budget constraints. When they can't afford to send rangers out to keep major tracks passable for years at a time, I'd say PWS are critically under-funded!

[Son of a Beach]

...I'd say PWS are critically under-funded!

or perhaps their budget is seriously skewed away from track maintenance. They clearly have a substantial income, and have built some very impressive visitor centres and other projects aimed at interstate/overseas tourists. Could it be that the revenue is being aimed at tourist interests and that the interests of the local tax-payers are being neglected? Perhaps with the aim of driving the very tourist industry that brings in the numbers of people that destroy (by over-loving) some of the very tracks in question?

EDIT: Note that I'm not against tourism at all - it is essential to Tasmania's economy. But consider... If there had never been any tourism marketing of Tasmania, then our tracks would be less used, and less in need of maintenance (I'm talking about the mud problems here, not the fallen tree problems). Successive governments have encouraged greater tourist numbers in a big way (for good reason) and have therefore been directly responsible for the increased rate of deterioration of bushwalking tracks. Therefore they should take more responsibility for fixing them.

That is to say that without all the tourists that come here due (in part) to government encouragement, our tracks would need a lot less mainenance. With the government-driven extra numbers of track users, there should be a proportionate government-driven extra maintenance on tracks. IE, they need to take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions, particularly when those consequences affect the citizens of Tasmania (whom they are supposed to be serving).

[Singe]

Yep, I'd agree with that; essentially the Government is under-funding PWS for the agenda they (the Government) are driving. At the end of the day, capital investments (visitor facilities and new tracks) should be funded entirely from combined revenues; leaving Park entry fees available for the maintenance of existing tracks. This income is directly proportional to the number of visitors, so in theory should be sufficient for maintenance.

Bartlett's recent comments regarding the Tarkine needing to justify its existence don't give much hope for improvement though...

[tasadam]

I have been trying to get my head around my own calculations above. Something isn't right. If it was, they would have much more money annually to spend.

If I average the 5 years for "each visit to a park generated", the result is that over the last five years, the average visit to a national park in Tassie meant an income of $2.93
Now, the Overland track alone generates... Overland track fee plus parks pass...
$150 plus (as they recommend, 8 week pass) $28.
Some will be locals and will hold an annual pass. Some will travel to the park in a car with a car pass ($56). No statistics on this so all I can do here is take a conservative guesstimate.
1st November to 30 April is the booking time - 181 days.The placements per day are

A maximum of 60 walkers can depart each day from Cradle Mountain. This includes 34 independent walkers, 13 group members booked to use the separate group site facilities, and 13 with Cradle Huts

I am also aware of the increase in fee from $100 to $150 recently.
So for the sake of it, let's number crunch it like this...
181 days, 50 people (assuming they don't get a full count of starters)
Average Overland fee $110 (to cover an average, was $100 but went up to $150)
Average parks pass $20 (must surely be a conservative estimate - I would have guessed higher on average)
That's still over a million dollars for the 6 months they are charging the fee.
And this accounts for 9050 visits to a park.

These visitor number figures must be fairly close - this page shows the number of Overland Track walker registrations for the Nov 2004 to April 2005 season was 7116.
Everyone knows it got busier in more recent years - one of the reasons why they put the fee up from $100 to $150.
This page shows higher numbers of visitors to the park, but is their own esstimates. Still, makes my numbers look more conservative.

A third of their annual budget, raised by less than one percent of annual park visits.

I have not included any statistics on revenue raised by Parks fining someone for entry to a park without a pass, does that ever happen? Do they have the power to fine someone? If not, that needs fixing.
What about other fees that parks generate, for example the campsite fees for places such as Narawntapu - a tent site is $13 a night for 2 people (a lovely spot, too).

There seems to me to be a serious black hole in the system somewhere...
Are people visiting parks without a pass?
Where is all the money going?
Who decides what the money gets spent on?
Does anyone audit these funds to see that all revenue raised does in fact go back into the parks, as they say they do?

And the big one - Why does the Tasmanian Government so under-fund this essential service, the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife?
Let's fix it! But how?

[tas-man]

Interesting discussion. I walked the Tasman Peninsula loop back in November 2007, and again last December. Both times the section between Fortescue Bay and Mt Fortescue had a lot of fallen wood over the track; it was noticeably worse in 2008 - practically impassable and quite dangerous in some areas - and obviously hadn't been cleared in the interim. I had a chat with the resident PWS guy at Fortescue Bay in 2008 and mentioned the condition of the track; he said that he'd been there for six months (from memory) but hadn't had a chance to do any of the walks yet but that they were aware of the poor state of that track and planned to send rangers out to clear the track - but couldn't say when due to budget constraints. When they can't afford to send rangers out to keep major tracks passable for years at a time, I'd say PWS are critically under-funded!

Another example - the track over Coal Bluff at South Cape Bay that I walked both ways last weekend was noticeable more overgrown since my last trip through there 12 months ago. When the cutting grass obscures the mud and roots underfoot, its becoming potentially more dangerous when you can't see where your boots are going. I was thankful for my walking pole to help push through the overgrown undergrowth and save my balance on several occasions. The Launceston Walking Club used to run track maintenance weekends in years past, but now the red tape and insurance issues to get Parks official support and approval appears to be much harder to arrange, so it's no longer on their official programs. I believe that other clubs around the state used to assist with track work in the past but are most likely in the same situation, its just got too hard so they don't bother any more, leaving it all up to Parks.

[Beeper]

Unfortunately it seems as though track maintenance is not a high priority for Parks and new infrastructure being built is more attractive for the politicians to cut ribbons etc. Most major trackwork that occurred during the 90's was funded from the Commonwealth and little from the State. From what I've been told Park entry income has to cover alot of priorities, such as the projects as stated on the Parks website including some staff salaries plus annual funding of the shuttle bus at Cradle (up to $1m) and the Fox Taskforce in DPIW (up to $800k). So unless we want to do short walks in key visitor areas nothing much else is going to get much/any maintenance. The Overland and Frenchmans Track will be Ok as I think it comes from a different bucket.