Tarkine

[Nuts]

That wasn't very nice sbs, rather nasty in fact. If you don't know what i'm on about don't respond. I wasn't particularly addressing you anyway.

As usual despite what you say, it goes: What are you on about, yada, nada, i'll pick this and run with it.. you sound to be almost verging on hysterical to me. It's a bit odd, something not right there, i'll restrain myself.

Look around, there are projects underway or holding time across our world heritage area. I had heard there were already buildings in place down there, I don't ask or search too much lately, these projects make me feel physically ill. You know, ill, it just happens, not by choice or with purpose.

EOI, incursions into 'Wilderness', you are either for them or against?
Not opposing them is one thing, endorsing them another. Joining in is disgusting.

Luckily anyone can make a proposal and it won't mean much. Hopefully those in our government don't find a political purpose to agree to much. They've gone too far themselves already. Even the language looks more likely that the only agreeable compromise will be tourism And mining. So best not guild our personal end of the turd here.

Ask for someone else's money, back yourselves? I don't much care, while i'd not and didn't question commitment, such action is white noise to conservation. It's a rather a rudimentary industry you endorse, understandable but please encourage those involved to a bigger vision.

[north-north-west]

In today's Advocate I read that $20 million would be required for the infrastructure that would need a mix of public and private funding .
To me that reads as "private huts" public toilets and extra or "better" road access ?

And they've spent how much so far on two thirds of the Three Capes?

[north-north-west]

EOI, incursions into 'Wilderness', you are either for them or against?
Not opposing them is one thing, endorsing them another. Joining in is disgusting.

Luckily anyone can make a proposal and it won't mean much. Hopefully those in our government don't find a political purpose to agree to much. They've gone too far themselves already. Even the language looks more likely that the only agreeable compromise will be tourism And mining. So best not guild our personal end of the turd here.

Ask for someone else's money, back yourselves? I don't much care, while i'd not and didn't question commitment, such action is white noise to conservation. It's a rather a rudimentary industry you endorse, understandable but please encourage those involved to a bigger vision.

You'd rather sit there and fiddle while the Tarkine is burnt?

The island needs employment opportunities. A project like this will provide them without the widespread and long term damage of mining and logging. A walking track and some tent platforms and dunnies are a small price to pay for the preservation of the area.

[Nuts]

I'm a working stiff NNW, little grabs here and there. Lot's of daily fiddling caused directly from or to try to shake this pervasive bs, *&%$#! attitude from even some in the industry and our overlords. Daily, while ministers yawn or their mates gloat and conservationists are either ignored, individually, or herded into muddleheaded purpose..

That the state needs employment is rather open ended, even that! does it? to what point?
That we 'need' to cut and blaze through 'un-tracked' wilderness to save, that it will make any substantial difference,
that it's an either/or outcome, that somehow all the interest will transfer to growing WHA, that we will get to then draw a line at a later stage (anywhere including the Tarkine). To save words, these things some of us seem to find easier to parrot right from the governments 're-imagining' and policy documents, doing their bidding for them.

We need to protect World Heritage! Doing so is unambiguous within a clear set of boundaries, watering them down with this particular form of compromise is dismal wherever it happens. Compromise some other way, one that starts to make actual sense! Unfortunately, in our small state, the conservation status-quo may as well be as much about taking sides, as supporting an end-game, as it is.


I'm no greenie, i'm being told. Not even at issue but I'm ok with that!

[Lophophaps]

NNW said:
" A walking track and some tent platforms and dunnies are a small price to pay for the preservation of the area."

Given the economic woes of the region, a track et al is a small price to pay. Ideally there would be no track, but the world is not ideal. MInes are a threat that can be countered by having walking boots on the ground.

SW Tassie is meant to be wilderness. Many describe the OLT and WOJ as wilderness. In a strict sense they are not, but they come close: lots of pristine terrain with minimal man-made anything. Apart from some OLT huts that can be seen for miles, nearly all infrastructure is hard to spot in most places. The high moors in the northern OLT and WOJ are an exception. However, if one accepts the OLT and visiting the WOJ as valid, these tracks must be accepted. The mud of Frog Flats and elsewhere are best left to the memory.

The more people that visit the place the more likely it is to be preserved. This is not just due to the musings and beliefs of visitors, but the money they spend locally will align locals towards the concept. A track might be a cop-out for some, but I trust Bob Brown's judgement.

[Nuts]

The 'OLT' is a track, WoJ a national park. CM/LSC is a national park and they are both very much wilderness. For this purpose, the ideal is all that matters, diminish the ideal and we have something less. Protect one place by agreeing to relegate others, which in total, are as or more worthy and definitely less ambiguous. The results of similar projects are pending, you'll get to see what we have already lost, it will take time.

I can tell you that when we worked on Frog Flats (Bob wasn't there), not so long ago, it was with the ideal of minimising impact, not facilitating income. Either way to substantially rely on income from such tracks involves agendas far wider reaching than a bit of trackwork.. and even then, as we see on the OLT, income relegated to small change without the desire for further development by people we had never even heard of.. Proponents of these projects should well keep in mind that the support you give now needs to consider future ownership, endorsing owners and managers with a vastly different focus and without necessarily any cute affinity for wild places.

Things have changed, partly from government policy, partly (ridiculously) from the otherwise green not seeing past their noses, or associations. I'd like to see a more considered expansion of your thoughts above Lopy, especially where it flips off obvious care for 3c or the project in the Vic alpine? how is this different and detached? How will that process happen, boots on ground alone = expanded 'WHA'? Immediately we have the voters of the NW, who are just as likely to vote against 'Bob' as for some enhanced notion of 'jobs', ones they can't necessarily relate too or particularly want?

(not demand, just like)

[stepbystep]

NNW said:
" A walking track and some tent platforms and dunnies are a small price to pay for the preservation of the area."

Given the economic woes of the region, a track et al is a small price to pay. Ideally there would be no track, but the world is not ideal. MInes are a threat that can be countered by having walking boots on the ground.

SW Tassie is meant to be wilderness. Many describe the OLT and WOJ as wilderness. In a strict sense they are not, but they come close: lots of pristine terrain with minimal man-made anything. Apart from some OLT huts that can be seen for miles, nearly all infrastructure is hard to spot in most places. The high moors in the northern OLT and WOJ are an exception. However, if one accepts the OLT and visiting the WOJ as valid, these tracks must be accepted. The mud of Frog Flats and elsewhere are best left to the memory.

The more people that visit the place the more likely it is to be preserved. This is not just due to the musings and beliefs of visitors, but the money they spend locally will align locals towards the concept. A track might be a cop-out for some, but I trust Bob Brown's judgement.

This! Spot on...

Having sat on the sub-committee for the TTT early in the piece I can assure you this is no brain fart and has the prosperity of the regions people at it's heart, alongside conservation goals, no more, no less. The people involved have far more bush walking and track design experience than any that have commented here, including myself. In fact I was so comfortable with those steering this that I no longer participated on that sub-committee as I had nothing else valuable to contribute.

There will always be knockers, well one anyway
The wilderness debate is tiresome, but there is certainly more "true wilderness" in takayna than on the OLT. I'm lucky to love them both regardless of the labels stuck on them...

[Nuts]

The people involved have far more bush walking and track design experience than any that have commented here, including myself..

There are some pretty experienced bushwalkers commenting here
(as far as I know, from what they choose to share here)

If you want to address me particularly then do so. I'm pretty much an open book when it comes to my experiences, of little consequence, they are enough to feel comfortable commenting here, 5 times a day on a whim!

Not that any of that should matter, rather a petty direction.

My experience in the area is limited to a couple of collective months. We don't operate down there (I doubt you'd back us as a footnote..), it would be my choice but i have this (perhaps old-school) notion of respecting boundaries, regardless of what existing operators think.

There are dozens of detractors already throughout the media, some comments ill thought through, others asking similar, and here probably those that can't be bothered commenting, if not already chased away. On both sides for sure, happy to acknowledge that, 'neither' are mine, I don't feel the need.

Build what you like, if you get the chance. I have no issue with any particular person or operation (I can only say that, despite the frenzy)... but building, It's not conservation in itself, it's building. There is a cost, and projected outcomes are speculative, aren't obvious. What is obvious? any gain will be taken as an expense elsewhere. The estate (parks V tracks, parks V parks.. whatever) generally, is not 'safe', starkly obvious.

[Lophophaps]

I agree that the OLT and WOJ are very much wilderness. My comments were to show the distinction between remote places with some infrastructure such as tracks and huts, and areas where people do not go enough to require such infrastructure. Arguably the latter is more correctly called wilderness than a track with 7000 people a year walking on it. To a certain extent it's an individual assessment and perception.

In my view we have to move beyond ideals and look at practicalities about how to best preserve places. There is or should be no relegation. All valuable areas should be preserved as much as possible. However, limited resources and competing priorities mean that some areas get more attention. This is fixed in stone, will never change, and applies to many aspects of life.

My reference to Frog Flats is from the early 1970s when it was a mire. The South Coast track was equally bad in the early 1980s. Ten years later the track to Hartnett Falls was deep. The very significant improvements to the tracks were hopefully done with the main aim of improving the environment, not to generate income.

I do not know how income from park fees is allocated. There's a saying by Louis Blanc, popularised by Karl Marx, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." So it might be that fees from a "rich" park are used to pay for works in a "poor" park. This is what governments do.

With some monitoring, it's often best to let managers get on with the job. They will not get it right all the time - humans are funny that way. In general I don't second-guess managers, who have more facts. What seems important to me may be far less important than an aspect that I don't know about.

Good projects are those that provide overall benefits to society. Some are total rubbish. A number that were promised during elections and gave back 8-20 cents in the dollar, like a multi-million dollar highway that has about 50 cars a day. The good ones can have a far higher return. I'd be looking at a minimum of $1.15 in the dollar, so that any error in the calculations or natural variation means that the result is still acceptable.

Each case needs to be assessed on merits. Invariably, despite a significant swing to PPP, this has not worked. Governments do not have a profit motive and can obtain funds at a lower interest rate than corporations. So put the jobs out to tender and see what happens. The government should own the infrastructure, not the corporation. The specification will be made by public servants, not the contractor. There may be contractor input, but that is all. If you want a picture of how things can go bad for the community, look at toll roads. One listed company has nearly all the toll roads, which cost a lot more than if they were run buy government. Governments were ripped off by generous contracts, and taxpayers are ones footing the cost.

Three Capes seems to have succeeded in attracting the numbers, although this is at the expense of the environment, and at some monetary cost. The proposed Falls Creek to Hotham Track has been badly managed at all levels. The main problem with the Falls-Hotham Track has been poor communication and lack of awareness of stakeholders. This seems to be heading towards something vaguely acceptable.

It seems to me that if the Tarkine track proceeds - hopefully fully owned by the government - then there will be benefits as detailed above. Sight unseen, the economics seems to be good. Others can and most probably will do this analysis, which I will follow with some interest.

Build what you like, if you get the chance. I have no issue with any particular person or operation (I can only say that, despite the frenzy)... but building, It's not conservation in itself, it's building. There is a cost, and projected outcomes are speculative, aren't obvious. What is obvious? any gain will be taken as an expense elsewhere. The estate (parks V tracks, parks V parks.. whatever) generally, is not 'safe', starkly obvious.

Above quote, yes, agree.

[stepbystep]

Proposal downloadable from here. Designed by Australia's premier track designer Martin Hawes in consultation with the likes of G. Dixon, R. Blakers and Bob. Nuts wasn't consulted...

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/b ... 1465178683

[north-north-west]

OK, I'm still in the intro and I already have a moment. OT standard track? True, it would minimise the long term environmental damage IF they get comparable numbers to the OT. But I'm concerned about the environmental impact of building that there. I saw how much damage was done in the forests around Fortescue when they were putting in that section of the Three Capes track, for instance.
They're talking about building campsites big enough for 30 walkers per day initially. That's a lot of tent platforms. Big footprint.
At least they do say:

The impacts of the proposed track on the ecological, human heritage and wilderness values of the region should be rigorously assessed before the track is constructed.

[stepbystep]

Perspective test nnw.......!!

Edit: You do realise OLT and 3CT standards are completely different standards?

[Nuts]

They'll get the numbers NNW, they'll reach capacity? & think of that ltr.

Thanks Lophophaps, a considered contribution.

It's hard to let the head rule when your facing down a developer driving stakes where you don't want them to go, with concepts that are foreign to wilderness, served with waste words on policy documents that (indeed) enshrine a need to consult (even me).

Even harder when they get support from those who should (or demand that they) know better.

[north-north-west]

Perspective test nnw.......!!

Edit: You do realise OLT and 3CT standards are completely different standards?

Yeah, I know. Just an bit of a WT *$&# moment. Actually, having read the whole thing I'm far less concerned about the impact of track construction than the campsites. They're saying 20 platforms at each site for starters, with possible expansion if demand justifies it.

I love the idea of the track, but the whole concept as presented in that document is geared to a 3 Capes audience, not to real walkers. Still, if it teaches enough people about the Tarkine it will be a major factor in protecting the area.

[stepbystep]

When you come to terms with the fact "real walkers" aren't you, that'll help. It's hard, I know. You, my friend, are unreal

Something for those that ponder 'wilderness'

http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-offici ... t-on-earth

[north-north-west]

When you come to terms with the fact "real walkers" aren't you, that'll help. It's hard, I know. You, my friend, are unreal

What does that make you?

[stepbystep]

When you come to terms with the fact "real walkers" aren't you, that'll help. It's hard, I know. You, my friend, are unreal

What does that make you?

Full of it

[north-north-west]

For once - I'm not going to argue.

[Nuts]

Greens party endorsed I see, so no opposition to EOI expected from that quarter either.
All souls in one basket, could be desperate yet spectacular swansong.

[stepbystep]

On unprotected land, open for clearfell and mining. What a curse a walking track would be...

[Lophophaps]

Stepbystep, can you please advise what that orange quarry-like picture is of and when it was taken? Thanks.

I've read most of the report, and it seems reasonable. The area has considerable potential and the maths may well stack up. I don't know - it's beyond my skills, and there's no basis for the figures. However, based on the rest of the report I see no reason to doubt the costs. Regardless, unless the costs are way out, over time they will be recovered. By limiting numbers it should be possible to keep campsites as described, and salami campsite expansions will hopefully not occur. There may need to be a ranger hut or two apart from the ends and the Western Explorer Road.

A single walk like this could have an impact well beyond the track. While there's only a limited causal relationship, the AWT and then AAWT formed a spine around which parks are now present. The link between Tharwa and Walhalla 660 kilometres away is fascinating. Standing in a car park and thinking that there's another car park like this 30-40 days away is enchanting. The OLT and SCT did not give that feeling. Tarkine is longer than the OLT and SCT, so maybe it will feel closer in this regard to the AAWT.

[stepbystep]

Stepbystep, can you please advise what that orange quarry-like picture is of and when it was taken? Thanks.

G'day, that's the Shree mine at Nelson Bay River, taken recently. Not a quarry. This is an example of what is a possibility in the vast majority of the Tarkine. That mine was abandoned after 7 months actual mining, ran at a massive loss, other than the tax rebates paid by us to the directors, zero royalties were paid and the operators have now breached several orders to remediation of the site. There is a massive load of acid leaching PAF sitting within 200 metres of the Nelson Bay River, untouched for 2 years.

It's heartbreaking and I'm passionate about turning things around for the region and it's people.

The proposal needs more work, hence the request for 275k in additional development funding. The economic projection by the proponebts indicate a plus for the Tassie economy of just over 1.9m/annum. I suspect that needs considerable more work too. 275k well spent imho...

[Nuts]

The mine will still be there

Anyhow, a minor detail.

The route looks fine, people with ticklists (the target audience) are time poor so the shorter option may long be more popular. Length of time to recover expense negating any immediate concerns of funding amounts.. or projected income or as always responsibility (other than a collective green backslapping at the glossy bits)

Anyhow.. As I understand there's nothing stopping an established company from walking/touring that route now (as a route, a category appropriate to wilderness)?

I wonder if this project would be supported if those involved had 'won' their WHA already, ponder the extent of these OLT coloured glasses.

[Lophophaps]

That mine is very bad. I'd argue that anything like this requires insurance to cover any possible damage, and then some. Commonwealth law to hold directors liable would assist. Recovery of the rebates would be nice. Spending $275,000 is peanuts to a government. Money welll spent.

[stepbystep]

That mine is very bad. I'd argue that anything like this requires insurance to cover any possible damage, and then some. Commonwealth law to hold directors liable would assist. Recovery of the rebates would be nice. Spending $275,000 is peanuts to a government. Money welll spent.

And how about some scrutiny of the mine directors track record? Those same directors that fled the scene of Pike River, NZ. And our govt let them do this...we all paid far more on this disgusting folly than the next stage of the TTT will cost us. And the story goes far deeper than this too!

[corvus]

That mine is very bad. I'd argue that anything like this requires insurance to cover any possible damage, and then some. Commonwealth law to hold directors liable would assist. Recovery of the rebates would be nice. Spending $275,000 is peanuts to a government. Money welll spent.

And how about some scrutiny of the mine directors track record? Those same directors that fled the scene of Pike River, NZ. And our govt let them do this...we all paid far more on this disgusting folly than the next stage of the TTT will cost us. And the story goes far deeper than this too!

How much did I pay and where is your proof ? I thought this was a Bushwalking Forum and not a Political platform ,just asking

[stepbystep]

That mine is very bad. I'd argue that anything like this requires insurance to cover any possible damage, and then some. Commonwealth law to hold directors liable would assist. Recovery of the rebates would be nice. Spending $275,000 is peanuts to a government. Money welll spent.

And how about some scrutiny of the mine directors track record? Those same directors that fled the scene of Pike River, NZ. And our govt let them do this...we all paid far more on this disgusting folly than the next stage of the TTT will cost us. And the story goes far deeper than this too!

How much did I pay and where is your proof ? I thought this was a Bushwalking Forum and not a Political platform ,just asking

Sorry corv...goes with the territory...shouldn't we be taking of how our bushwalking landscape is being managed? Maybe not I guess, shhhh... I'll find another pretty bushwalking picture soon.

[Lophophaps]

How much did I pay and where is your proof ? I thought this was a Bushwalking Forum and not a Political platform ,just asking

There are several very related aspects about part of bushwalking that many do not consider. There’s more conventional bushwalking subjects such as track notes, gear, pictures, conservation and the like. On a different level one finds politics, law, finance and corporations. If the second group is well managed we can walk in the knowledge that the place will be looked after. Absent adequate management then there will be problems, such as the mine in that ghastly picture, Ranger leaking in the NT, Pedder being flooded courtesy of the HEC government, and parts of national parks being acquired for private interests, such as in Victoria.

The big end of town drives donations and lobbyists, corrupting the political process. Lack of or poor legislation and regulation allows recidivist corporate offenders to act with impunity. Lack of political will causes lack of funding to peak regulators such as ATO, ASIC and ACCC, further allowing an easier path for what I believe beyond reasonable doubt - a high level of proof - is or should be considered crimes against people and property. PPP is a public-private-partnership, government and corporations working together. It may work, often does not, and invariably falls outside FOI as commercial-in-confidence, disallowing taxpayers to see how taxpayer money is spent. Lack of transparency causes much grief.

So while we take an interest in track notes et al, the wider issues in the second group should when necessary be considered. As you may gather, I’m somewhat involved in these issues, have been for a while.

I do not know the Tarkine well enough to comment in depth. However, the report by Martin Hawes is very good start. It’s very detailed, unambiguous, and above all open for public scrutiny. Too many government reports miss this level of scholarship by miles, and are often hidden, or sometimes released, redacted, perhaps well after they should have been. The report may have mistakes, people may view parts of it differently, and upon obtaining further and better particulars some parts may change. Martin said as much. Others may and probably would do it differently. Some may even do it better. I submit that any difference or improvement to this report by others would be very minor.

The focus now seems to me to be to examine the report and check the detail, improve it, give constructive criticism. If it is accepted that the Tarkine needs protecting, then a track is, as NNW said, a small price to pay, and that’s the direction we should be heading in.

[Nuts]

The focus now seems to me to be to examine the report and check the detail, improve it, give constructive criticism. If it is accepted that the Tarkine needs protecting, then a track is, as NNW said, a small price to pay, and that’s the direction we should be heading in.

With all respect Lop, it's simply a commissioned submission document that should be seen as it would if from any member of the public/ entity. Part of their planning/ submission, it can be called a report, survey, report on survey, whatever seems to fit. A 'Foundation' in no way essentially qualified or necessarily authority. Destructive criticism would be as entirely appropriate here as it would with any given proposal.

It's contents seem well considered, well researched and well written. And i'm sure those involved are vastly qualified in their roles.

I noticed a couple of baulking points but they are probably not even at issue depending on the chosen level of 'thinking positive'.


I'm curious how it's now hard bitten members of the bushwalking community using terminology such as that 'it's a small price to pay'.
Lot's of people seem to have made the seamless transformation to this being a given. 'The Tony Abbotts of this world'? then, yeah, away we go.

'It's just a small price to pay' here, one there. Soon enough, 'a small price to pay' Foundation.

There are all sorts of minimal impact opportunities throughout the region that would cost far less, even if $ were the bottom line.

Nuts.

[photohiker]

Destructive criticism would be as entirely appropriate here as it would with any given proposal.

With respect, I completely disagree with this notion. The only useful criticism to use would be objective criticism.

Throwing rocks is not a solution.