Bushwalk Australia

I really wonder where all our parks are heading particularly our World Heritage listed parks.

This really is a disgrace!!

Top Stories: Top economist surprised by lack of future Tasmanian World Heritage Area funding
http://ab.co/1W8yZZN


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess the WHA will have to pay its own way. Much like a iron ore deposit does once its being mined......for a while.
I think that's how they see it, a resource to be exploited.

It's been coming, continual funding cuts in the face of a new imagining. I'm not convinced pre-empting devastating wildfire is realistically possible but it's an odd day when a state pollie agrees we have enough $... negating their useful purpose and making them largely redundant?

Meanwhile, not good enough, i'll keep imagining that Tasmania hosts a disproportionately large national estate and should be subsidised appropriately, a recurrent national expense without a need to justify or alternatively be leveraged, ie. kept as far from the grubby hands of politicians as possible.

I'm surprised anyone is surprised. After all, current governments of pretty well every persuasion have shown that it all comes down to $$$$$ - where they can get it and bugger the damage done.

Everybody wants more money allocated to parks and the WHA in particular but I think this has been slightly mis reported. The current deal is 3.4M per annum from the federal government until 2018 and this is matched by Tas, so at least 6.8M is spent on the WHA per year. The reduction in funding referred to in the article is additional Fed funding allocated for various reasons which, after an intial boost, is gradually stepped down over the allocated number of years. This info is all available in a recent report on the WHA which might be of interest and is available on the fed environment department website: http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/ ... rness-2016. The report on the ABC site sounds like only 1.8M will be spent per annum, not true.

scrub boy wrote:The reduction in funding referred to in the article is additional Fed funding allocated for various reasons which, after an intial boost, is gradually stepped down over the allocated number of years.

Why reduce at all, aren't the demands of modern society putting more pressure on these incredible places not less.

Shouldn't the the wording in the budget read "the Federal Govt will continue to keep step with the growing pressure on our National Parks and maintain our current levels of funding through to (insert date) with a commitment to ratchet UP funding after this date to ensure that these incredible places are maintained for future Australian generations to enjoy"

Any way, Governments of any persuasion are pathetic when it comes to National Parks here in Australia [POUTING FACE]

I don't disagree, like I said, everyone would like to see more, and there are plenty of things to spend it on in our parks, I just can't see how we can have a rationale debate based on errors of fact. I suspect that most poeple could substitute 'more money for parks' with more money for BLANK' with 'BLANK' being schools, health, roads, hobby horse infrastructure, NBN, sunken navy ships for recreational divers or whatever their thing is. Probably shouldn't get started in this forum on taxation expenditure and revenue.............

c'mon scrub boy, it even sounds dismal.. & so it is! We don't expect a dental program funded by pulling gold teeth.
Actually, I had written that they (while obviously a pittance) are just random figures to us (jo public). Do we stop at covering the shortfall, maybe park visitors can fund schools, roads. Rangers could hold regular sausage sizzles!!