Bushwalk Australia

Hi all,

I'm sure by now we've all heard the good news about the protection of the Gardens of Stone NP.

I was just wondering if anyone had details on the proposed 50 million dollar investment.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-13/ ... /100616868

The countries longest zipline sounds quite bizarre to me. Also a 5 night walking track from the Blueys to the GoS is another interesting one, does anyone know what trails they plan to link together?

Interesting times

Cheers,

Richard

Richard

Hi there. I am interested in the questions you pose, but unfortunately I can't add any new information. I searched the web, the Colong Foundation website and the government's own website and did not come up with much. Here is the Premier's release:
https://www.nsw.gov.au/media-releases/g ... ventures-0

While the announcement of the park is on balance good news, the 'Lost City Adventure Park' element concerningly reflects the increasingly prominent government view that reserves are not mainly about nature conservation nor quiet, self-sufficient recreation. Instead, parks are seen narrowly as economic resources which have to 'pay their way'. Recreation infrastructure impacts on the remoteness of a place as experienced by a walker, as well as nature conservation values. Accordingly, the Wollemi to Gardens of Stone walk will have new huts at the end of each day's walk. This joins a rapidly lengthening list of such walks. It will be interesting to see whether they are privatised or managed by the government. They will certainly be expensive and may well lock out independent walkers. Either way, the huts will impact on wilderness values during their construction and during their provisioning, presumably by helicopter.
I can highly recommend two excellent articles in Wild magazine on this plague of creating 'iconic walks' with significant infrastructure in remote and natural areas.

If anyone has further details on the proposals to be funded through the $50 million package, I would be most grateful to hear them.

I have the feeling that this may be a double edged sword, with more exploitation than preservation.

Nuts wrote:

Lindsay wrote:I have the feeling that this may be a double edged sword, with more exploitation than preservation.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... gWU5dA0B6A

When the government says it "wants to improve the visitor experience for everyone....." I feel that a money making enterprise is planned.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... 2MOS9PIku0

A win or less loss? I don't see too many concerns raised?
Even though applying carbon offsets to eg. park infrastructure sounds like the next new disaster!?
(against a park extension and some action for biodiversity?)

Here we go again
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-25/gardens-of-stone-bush-campsites-lease-criticised/103810716

.. three low-impact sites which would each include six two-person cabins, a communal hut with a kitchen, and bathrooms.

There's nothing low-impact about that.

"There are a number of people who would like to enjoy camping in the park who are not necessarily able to carry heavy packs, or they might not feel confident taking a solo trip, or sleeping on the ground in tents,"

Stiff.
First, cabins aren't camping. Second, there are plenty of places I want to visit but I can't afford it. Why is it OK for people to be limited by financial capacity but not by physical?

https://www.gardensofstone.org.au/garde ... -objection has a guide to objecting. Deadline is 31st May.

north-north-west wrote:

Stiff.
First, cabins aren't camping. Second, there are plenty of places I want to visit but I can't afford it. Why is it OK for people to be limited by financial capacity but not by physical?

Totally agree with you but I feel the PC people will come at you for "ableism".

keithj wrote:https://www.gardensofstone.org.au/gardens-stone-sca-cabins-lease-dot-point-guide-making-objection has a guide to objecting. Deadline is 31st May.

Thanks Keith, objection lodged.

I'm actually not against the idea per se, but I am against the idea from what I've seen recently. Namely the Light to Light proposal and the Snowy Mountains with the walk down to Crackenback Village.

With the Light to Light, they closed all the wild camping sites along the track, locked gates, and started spending money improving the track. Ironically, they then proposed to build a lodge and cabins, on/near a site they closed, citing environmental issues!!!
In the Snowy Mountains, the loop they created focused on linking the existing resorts. But the obvious link, which was to walk along the Rams Head Range back to Thredbo was ignored, in favour of a new track down to Crackenback Village. Costing the public millions of dollars.

It's called "socialising the costs and privatising the profits".

It's as if business comes to parks, with this "great" idea where parks spends $$$$ of public money, then limit/lock out the public. And in return, they throw parks some crumbs. We will never know, as these details are considered "private and confidential".

This approach ultimately failed with the Light to Light, at least for the time being.

A better approach would be to involve the stakeholders at the beginning of the proccess, and then tender out the resulting development. Unfortunately many of the stakeholders aren't open to compromise. Their mantra is to ban everything and everyone from the park. Everyone that is except themselves.

I know parks are under political pressure to monitize the parks, but unfortuntely I only see private enterprise making the money here. And the public paying to essentially lock themselves out of parts of the park.

sandym wrote:

north-north-west wrote:

Stiff.
First, cabins aren't camping. Second, there are plenty of places I want to visit but I can't afford it. Why is it OK for people to be limited by financial capacity but not by physical?

Totally agree with you but I feel the PC people will come at you for "ableism".

I can be as PC as the next wokeist, I just find that particular argument in favour of development both disingenuous and inconsistent. Plus, environmental concerns always trump ableism for me.