Huon Pine Stand off McKays Track

[wander]

I have a memory of a reference somewhere (maybe on a map) to a stand of Huon Pine near (maybe 1kmNorth West???) the Junction Creek campsite on McKays Track. But now cannoy find the reference. So either my memory is going (possible) or I just cannot find the refercence. Can anybody point me to a reference to this? It may have been accessed in the past from the old 3 sided shelter (no lone gone) site.

[tasadam]

I don't remember reading that anywhere on this site. Thought I haven't read every post.
Sounds like if it isn't tracked, the reply would need to come via a PM in line with the site rules talking about the specifics of off-track locations.
I'd be interested to know myself.

[wander]

Just to clarify I did not find the reference in these forums. It was a small coloured map maybe in a guide book or article.

Thnaks for the above info, some leads to follow.

[Son of a Beach]

Apologies for any inconvenience, but I've deleted most of the replies to this topic in order to keep within forum rules. Not all of the deleted replies necessarily stepped over the line, but it's a very fuzzy line, and it's difficult to decide which ones should be included and which ones removed.

The rule states that details of sensitive off-track locations should not be included in public posts. Being that the area in question is (a little) off-track, and that Huon Pines are considered sensitive (they're very slow growing and there's a much fewer of them than there used to be).

Please keep such replies to private messages as required to comply with forum rules (as posted earlier in this topic by Tasadam).

In any case, I hope you got enough information from here before I deleted it all.

[tasadam]

A quick note to clarify the moderation of this topic.
Nik and I discussed this topic once track coordinates were posted, and agreed it was borderline but okay to leave, for now, as it looked like the information was available elsewhere anyhow.
Once a concern was raised in a PM by another member of the forum, the decision to moderate was justified.

If only I'd saved that info myself...

[Son of a Beach]

If only I'd saved that info myself...

Yeah, I thought of that immediately after it was deleted... I should have saved all the info for myself somewhere first!

[tastrax]

Good on you guys.. Its a fine line we tread and I must admit in this instance I didnt think it was issue (after the grid reference was posted and its source and the location was so close to a well defined track). But, given I also don't like the exact locations of remote tracks being publicised then I think you have made the right call.

Keep up the good work.

[Nuts]

I know that iv'e spoken out about publishing details of routes before (ones that I know are of concern for consequences of increase use) but I really wonder now whether, as a general rule, this is a good idea?
Afterall, as a forum, this site is for bushwalkers to discuss topics with others, pass on info, share walk descriptions etc.
Does anyone think that (in general) publishing routes will increase traffic That much?
If it does then perhaps that area (or track formed) needs recognition?
The sorts of people who are likely to visit these places likely to cause excessive damage?
Perhaps 'parks' need to provide an exact list of locations they would rather not have publicised (and the specific reasons why)?

(If it is only to save parks from extra work then I really think that this is a problem for them to deal with rather than attempt to control (sorry Ttrax))

I fail to see, in this case, exactly what anyone thinks will happen down there?

Just thoughts, perhaps for another topic, not really certain of the weight of reasons given, is all...

[tastrax]

Lots of questions in that response - maybe peel them off as separate issues and we can tackle them one by one.

There was at least one previous discussion on remote tracks - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1637
Another on going off track for photos - viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2804#p29339

and I also remember another on how tracks form but I cant find that one - I will keep looking...

There are also some documents on this site http://www.wyatt-family.com/phil/parks.htm that spell out some of the past history on Tassie Track Management.

[ILUVSWTAS]

Thats really cool/interesting! Thanks tastrax!
Nuts I agree with what you say about this being a bushwalking forum and not an environmental/conservation/terrorism site or anything BUT a bushwalking site therefore why should any info regarding bushwalking be kept on the hush..... BUT, actually im not sure where im going with this, I guess ive just come to terms with abiding by the site rules.....

I spose there is the risk of some unwanted guests trampling places they shouldnt, lots of huts gets damaged by vandals. And I do see that the more a sensitive area becomes general knowledge the route becomes a pad, pad becomes a track, track becomes something akin to the south coast/loddens/arthur plains tracks.....

Having said that I do think Huon pines are quite special and need to be preserved as best they can!

[corvus]

I suspect the Mods were being a bit precious with this deletion because what is to stop a PM regarding the grid refs message from being disseminated to every member ,tedious yes but not impossible and how many complaints does it take for posts to be deleted ? was that complaint from a "Parks"employee member perhaps and if so why ?
Anyone who did record the GR please PM please me as I would love to visit this unique occurrence when I next venture in to that area and you can be rest assured that I will only be telling my walking companions on the day where we are going and ask them not to "Way Point It please"
corvus

[Son of a Beach]

We're certainly not preventing people getting answers to thie bushwalking questions, but are trying to encourage some information to be sent by private message rather than posted out in public.

I do not know if it would increase traffic that much or not. If I knew the answer definitively that would certainly make it easy to decide on such site rules. As it is, I'm just playing it safe. I've no idea how realistic it is, but there is the possibility (for example) that the information that was in this topic could become the top google hit for people searching for an easy way to see huon pine. A lot of them might then walk that part of the track and the short off track section to, and through, the pines.

It may be an unlikely scenario but I don't know for sure. If it did happen there is a strong possibility of seriously degrading that sensitive area.

It's also worth noting that Parks policy and ideals have no bearing on the rules here (beyond what is in law). As far as I'm concerned, they are just another voice amongst the many on this site. Of course I do recognise that they have a lot of experience and expertise in some areas, but I certainly don't pay attention to their desires more than others just because they are Parks.

In fact there are a lot of elements to Parks management that I'm quite oposed to, bit I won't go into that here.

[Son of a Beach]

PS. No the issue was not raised by a Parks employee (as far as I know). Just by a concerned member. And both Tasadam and I were considering doing something before we received the complaint, in any case.

[Nuts]

Yer, my thoughts are probably a bit too 'broad' for this particular topic.

Surveys (and their bias) aside I wonder (with in mind that we have just been through one of the most historically prosperous periods) whether 'Parks' are the best ones to decide what Parks should be responsible for.... I have no strong opinion, just (interestingly from another 'pole' to other posters on this topic) wonder about such things. Is track and localised degradation a major issue... with the 'go-to' response seemingly always falling back to a lack of management funding perhaps the state should be far more 'developed' (in using/exploring the use of the wilderness more as a 'resource').... rather than closing tracks, discouraging people from one thing, encouraging them to another. Obviously some specific areas are more 'fragile' (even with the impact of generally (environmentally) conscientious people visiting) but I think that the line is blurred in many cases along with the possibility that the motivation may be to save a few $ or extra work...

With all respect I'd rather see parks take a more clear position giving specific reasons for many of their policies. This notion of 'frowning' on things is a real 'bug-bear'. With this in mind, perhaps it would be better with these particular issues for 'parks' to step back and play a more reactive role...

Anyhow.... rambling a bit... another topic could be a better idea

[Nuts]

ps... interesting link there tastrax

[Son of a Beach]

I agree that basing policy on available funding is not necessarily a good thing, whether official policy or 'frowning' type policy. Funding certainly dictates what is possible or feasible but it should be made clear which decisions are based on budget and which are based on policies directed at the real objectives of the department (whatever they may be).

[corvus]

PS. No the issue was not raised by a Parks employee (as far as I know). Just by a concerned member. And both Tasadam and I were considering doing something before we received the complaint, in any case.

As the area concerned is somewhat remote did the worried member only want their own friends to experience this,ie I know what you don't know and stuff the rest of you ??
corvus

[tasadam]

As the area concerned is somewhat remote did the worried member only want their own friends to experience this,ie I know what you don't know and stuff the rest of you ??
corvus

Corvus that is not helpful.
It has been said already that anyone wanting info such as off track locations can receive such info via PM as per site rules, should the holder of that info desire to share it. As you have asked for it, I see no reason why you would not obtain it via PM if your request is noticed, but again it's up to who has the info.
Please accept site rules and admin decisions.

[ILUVSWTAS]

As the area concerned is somewhat remote did the worried member only want their own friends to experience this,ie I know what you don't know and stuff the rest of you ??
corvus

Corvus that is not helpful.
It has been said already that anyone wanting info such as off track locations can receive such info via PM as per site rules, should the holder of that info desire to share it. As you have asked for it, I see no reason why you would not obtain it via PM if your request is noticed, but again it's up to who has the info.
Please accept site rules and admin decisions.

Well said Adam! I mean there are areas of these trees that EVERY bushwalker knows about already, go look at those ones if your so interested! not all places need to be made public!

It's already on such a well used track and quite close to the carpark at scotts peak! Be a shame if they got damaged by some rampaging rednecks wanting to upset the greenies.... it happened on the west coast during the franklin campaign!

[Son of a Beach]

As the area concerned is somewhat remote did the worried member only want their own friends to experience this,ie I know what you don't know and stuff the rest of you ??
corvus

It's not all that remote, being reasonably close to a road (albeit a long drive from most places). No, I have no reason to believe that the (multiple) people who've expressed concern had any reason to do so other than being hopeful of reducing the potential for damage to a sensitive area, which may or may not be affected by having detailed information here in a public post (which is the reason for the existence of the rule).

[wander]

Well I spose I'll just keep searching through the stuff on the floor again to find the reference I was looking for. I was not really looking to go there. I know already the scrub between the McKays Track and anywhere is very thick, especially at the creeks (not as extensive as many areas, but as thick). So you really, really, really have to want to go off track to actually do it. For am armchair view of this checkout a story that is sometime in the last 12 months (maybe longer) in Wild about a pair of brothers who went off track in this area to link off the McKays track to the White Monlith Range (or thereabouts) which was a stark reminder about the effort required to go off track or off route.

Going off track requires a lot of research and patience and effort to be rewarding and not just a huge slog.

[Son of a Beach]

Well I spose I'll just keep searching through the stuff on the floor again to find the reference I was looking for. I was not really looking to go there. I know already the scrub between the McKays Track and anywhere is very thick, especially at the creeks (not as extensive as many areas, but as thick). So you really, really, really have to want to go off track to actually do it. For am armchair view of this checkout a story that is sometime in the last 12 months (maybe longer) in Wild about a pair of brothers who went off track in this area to link off the McKays track to the White Monlith Range (or thereabouts) which was a stark reminder about the effort required to go off track or off route.

Going off track requires a lot of research and patience and effort to be rewarding and not just a huge slog.

If you missed any of the pointers that were posted here, you can request that people send them to you by private message. Good luck!

[Buddy]

Corvus,
I could not have picked a better word than "precious" myself. The publication I drew the info. from has been in the public domain since 1990. It was freely available from a Government instrumentality. The info. is also available elsewhere. If "wander" would like info. on other stands of Lagarostrobos even bigger and better, please PM me.