Developments in national parks

[Earwig]

I suppose people saw this in the news - a goverment report recommending loosening the laws that stop commercial development in national parks

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/green-light-for-hotels-jetties-in-states-parks-20120823-24oz8.html

And before people throw too much politics into the mix, it was the previous government that commissioned the report into expanding tourism and removing barriers to private developments in national parks.

[Earwig]

In the same edition of the Age.

http://www.theage.com.au/travel/activity/great-outdoors/luxurys-last-frontier-20120817-24cdm.html

Three-night package costs $2988 a person. A thousand bucks a night!

[jford]

Agree- not much point throwing politics into the mix, when they all seem to be equally bad. Labour federal guy, who stopped Ballieu putting cows in the ANP, seems to want to hand lots of control to state governments, who are known for being pro-development, no matter which colour they are.

Notice how rarely real bushwalking makes it into the mainstream media? Everytime "the bush" or "roughing it" is mentioned in the travel section of any newspaper, you can guess that it will include the words "...without working up a sweat" or "...without getting all cold and wet".

Imagine if we had a leader who went bushwalking? They did in NZ. Helen Clark went tramping all the time. Our only bushwalking politician got airlifted off the side of Feathertop...

[Kinsayder]

Honestly, I wouldn't mind a couple of signs along some of the tracks, maybe a sink in some huts. Jeez, I was chatting to some genuinely experienced (and very nice) Germans in the Fed Hut last December, they were telling me about the beers and meals in some of the huts in Germany...and it sounded great. But I think we know that Ted isn't thinking about some sign posts, sinks and maybe a couple of extended huts. He's talking about the Marriot, with a car park, supporting accommodation and duel carriageways. The guy is a developer's wet dream and an environmentalist's nightmare.

[Kinsayder]

Agree- not much point throwing politics into the mix, when they all seem to be equally bad. Labour federal guy, who stopped Ballieu putting cows in the ANP, seems to want to hand lots of control to state governments, who are known for being pro-development, no matter which colour they are.

Notice how rarely real bushwalking makes it into the mainstream media? Everytime "the bush" or "roughing it" is mentioned in the travel section of any newspaper, you can guess that it will include the words "...without working up a sweat" or "...without getting all cold and wet".

Imagine if we had a leader who went bushwalking? They did in NZ. Helen Clark went tramping all the time. Our only bushwalking politician got airlifted off the side of Feathertop...

I'm not sure if I can a couple of these points go, Jford. Tim Fisher (former Deputy Prime Minister) was a pretty keen bushwalker. He was well known for his trips with media sometimes in toe. Although he was also a bit of a prick. Either way I think it's indicative of the broader population in Australia. It's supposedly a nation of rugged outdoors type people but I think the reality is, well, something else (I could be fairly scathing here but it's probably not worth it).

Tony Burke, the "Labour federal guy" is intent on creating the world's largest marine park too. Carbon pricing is in place and he's working on blocking Baillieu's cattle farms in the high country. Some aspects might be related to the the Greens influence but to suggest that "they all seem equally bad," to me (and I might be taking this the wrong way and I'll humbly apologise if I have), that just says you're not paying attention.

[walkinTas]

I can't see any reason for having a National Park if it isn't to give the area a level of protection. One of the worst things that can happen in a National Park is development - human intrusion into the wildness landscape. IMO tourist development should always be outside the Park boundaries. I only reluctantly accept development that aims to improve safety and survival (huts) or some environmental protection (toilets) and even then, it shouldn't be overly intrusive.

[Pongo]

I just can't get this quote out of my head when thinking about this issue:

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

Must we continue to assert our dominance over the little untouched land we have next? I'm really quite disgusted we're going down this path, and for what? A quick buck.

I keep trying to write something constructive, but am tired and enraged so perhaps I'll post something a bit more useful later. But for now... It's best I go read the code of conduct for this forum before I really put my foot in it...

[jackhinde]

untouched land? wilderness? no such thing in this country for 50 000 years or more. the national parks system is so last century, a holistic approach to the whole landscape is required, and if part of that is adding economic value to national parks so be it.

[Kinsayder]

Jack, just because somebody has touched it doesn't give rise to putting a freeway through it, nor planting a Hilton in the middle of it.

[BillV]

The land needs to respected and not whored out to someone wanting a dollar......

[philthy]

i was recently in the USA and I was staggered at the amount of development in their national parks. fast food, multiple restaurants and lodges in every park except for a select few. ultimately, it meant that i avoided major sights because they were crawling with people. not to mention the lack of respect for the natural environment that creating such a museum/zoo engenders.

while i grudgingly understand that there should be some level of development to improve accessibility, i think that lodges and the like is going overboard. surely the point of national parks is to preserve an area as close to as it could be without too much human intervention. a really disappointing move by the government/s.

[Ent]

To me this issue with national parks what is their purpose?

1. Wildlife and fauna preserve
2. Bushwalkers' play ground
3. Recreational area for the non walker
4. Extension of Tourism

If we adhered to item one then bushwalking is a no as the damage and spread of disease such as fungus die-back, so the above are not necessarily mutually compatible uses. I struggle with the concept that every national park and every square inch should be treated exactly the same. A classic example is the OLT. Coal mining and grazing are just two activities that predate the declaration of the Park. Often wonder if a fully kitted out hotel had historically existed at say New Pelion hut serviced from the route to the old mine would be considered a bad thing or a good thing.

Yet we have other Parks that have remained largely untouched.

I see no great issue with development in some areas and believe some areas should even be considered off bounds for bushwalkers. Carefully considered management plans is the key but I have very little faith that such plans could be developed without the usual bureaucratic power games. I am certain that elements with the responsible authority will be more than happy to ban walking as an act of power and conversely ignore wildlife and fauna concerns chasing the tourism dollar.

When top of Barn Bluff on a magnificent day found endless scenic flights criss crossing the sky. Is that acceptable or not acceptable development? Should national parks allow commercial huts? Should they allow any huts?

More than a few national parks have significant fringe development. Some parks have rather over the top infrastructure with lower Mount Field National Park being a classic example.

I prefer a pragmatic approach where some national parks are considered more recreational areas and other as bastions of wildlife and fauna but off course this is unlikely to happen so as the political pendulum swings so well pro and anti development, a process that will not result in a the best outcome for any of the above mentioned potential uses. I think most people accept that national parks are starved of cash but does this cash come from broad range of uses or from re-direction from areas such as health, education, etc. Frankly, I am not so fussed (within reasonable bounds) what approach as long as people understand what they are signing up for. Noddyland idealism will only result in a continuing starvation of resources. At the end of the day we will get what we are prepared to pay for and a choice how to pay.

Regards

[paidal_chalne_vala]

Hands off the national parks!!!.
"don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you 've got `til it's gone, they paved paradise and put up a parking lot"
Big Ted is a rock ape and
"The guy is a developer's wet dream and an environmentalist's nightmare" as another poster so well put it.

Big Ted wants mining , cattle grazing, logging and 5 star toorak tractor crowd style resorts in the parks.
He has picked a real fight this time , with people who usually never say boo about anything!

[paidal_chalne_vala]

Big Ted Premier the head rock ape of VIC wants to make all the National parks in VIC into Toorak tractor friendly resorts with car parks, KFC, a Golf course, a fountain gate style shopping centre, maccas and a high rise 5 star hotel.AND he wants to increase logging , mining , shooting and grazing in the same national Parks. This is WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kinsayder]

I like your line of thinking, PCV. Where do I enlist?

[Hallu]

I'm already appalled when I see high-voltage power lines in a national park (Churchill NP for example), so hotels... I thought Australia would have learned from the early mistakes of the NP system in the US at the first half of the 20th century. Hotels bring casual tourists who throw litter, feed animals illegally, go off track and increase erosion... Not to mention the greedy hotel owners who will encourage stupid shows of any kind. This type of behavior from the tourists can already be felt on Kangaroo Island for those who've been there. Flocks of tourists paying everything to be guided where they should go and shouldn't go, wallabies almost tamed, and yet rubbish roads and signs, skyhigh prices, tourists doing stupids photos inside remarkable rocks instead of enjoying the scenery... Tasmania is a 100 times better.

[paidal_chalne_vala]

Tasmania's best Nat. parks are soon to be developed by the Labourals who are also slaves of big business.

[Kinsayder]

Tasmania's best Nat. parks are soon to be developed by the Labourals who are also slaves of big business.

Well, I guess with Tasmanian forestry losing some of its power in recent years they need to sell their souls to somebody. Shame it's not to future generations that they feel beholden.

[Hallu]

Yeah well we all feel that Freycinet, Tasman Peninsula and Cradle are getting more and more touristy anyway, but so far it was easy to get away from the crowds. But if they call for "development" in those parks it may not be the case anymore. Let's just hope they don't touch the others, because "unfortunately" WoJ has the potential to become a new Cradle, and Mount William a new Freycinet...

[wayno]

oh no, it will jsut encourage Dept of Conservation in NZ of more ways to get into bed with big business than they have already.
its bad enough wanting to drill a bus tunnel through fiordland to the hollyford and put a monorail through a nearby forest.

[wayno]

the more facilities you put in the greatr the amount of the population are attracted to a location, just goes down the slippery slope of turning the wilderness into disneyland and all the associated hussle bussle and noise. then you end up with something like queenstwon in NZ....
milford sounds saving grace is it's a sound and not a dry valley floor so you dont have to put up with roads clogged with vehicles people, accomodation and shops , although sticking an airfield there was one of the worst ideas ever.... boats are one thing but a steady drone of planes is something else...
if they start putting in airfields be very worried....

[paidal_chalne_vala]

The rock apes in Spring street are now planning the logging of the redwood gum trees in the Barmah Nat. Park. , on the Murray river.
They are calling it 'ecological thinning'.
I call it a WAR on the environment.

Fill in this form letter to the other rock ape in Canberra to protest.

http://vnpa.org.au/eletter/red-gum-fore ... E.facebook

[Earwig]

Prospecting in parks is also being looked at. An investigation is underway at the moment and submissions are being requested. The link below has the details. Note that "the overall objective of the investigation is to increase the number of parks under the National Parks Act 1975 where prospecting may be permitted" and "to make recommendations on which areas (in general terms) of the following parks could be made available for recreational prospecting:

Alpine, Baw Baw, Croajingolong, Errinundra, Lake Eildon, Lind, Mitchell River and Yarra Ranges national parks and Lerderderg State Park."

http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/investigation/investigation-into-additional-prospecting-areas-in-parks

[Hallu]

Leave Croajingolong alone for *&^%$# sake...

[Kinsayder]

And whilst it isn't in National Parks (yet), the Baillieu government is apparently to run a "trial" of logging in State Parks in the West of the state.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/baill ... 2bchr.html

Now, I'd love to be partisan here but I'm not going to. The Liberal Party in Victoria has no idea. they thought they could cut services to bring the economy back to the level that that have wet dreams over, which is on track to fail (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/licen ... 2be84.html) because they forgot that you also need a vision for a state. So it looks like we can brace ourselves for more cuts and selling off of the state's resources.

I felt that John Brumby was quite a disappointment but put it down to state level politicians generally being quite devoid of talent but Ted Baillieu has really put it all into perspective for me. The Liberal Party can never be trusted with the environment.

Apologies to posters who vote Liberal. I really am sorry...

[Hallu]

What's the point of having state parks and national parks if they're not protected against logging, hunting and mining ? You might as well call them "free for all areas dedicated to greedy *&%$#!" and it wouldn't make a difference...

Australia is a healthy economy, so where are those stupid arguments about "we need logging and mining to boost our economy" coming from ? Does Australia want to end up like China, rich but polluted like *&%$#! with all its recreational areas rapidly decaying ?

[paidal_chalne_vala]

rock ape Ted in his budgie smugglers may end up on the scrap heap after only one term. He is pissing every body off except the big developers and other huge companies and conglomerates whose motto is "profit first and balls the consequences".

Neither tears, hard work nor hand wringing will bring our state and national parks back once they are gone/ and /or in the hands of the dig it up , chop it down,shoot it , concrete it over and sell it crowd.
Even conservative/right wing voters who make Woodstock look like it never happened want to go somewhere beautiful , natural and unspoilt too.

[north-north-west]

Anyone else wondering if one of the first 'commercial' developments will be a form of cattle-grazing leases in the ANP? I bet they're still looking for a way around the ban.

[Kinsayder]

rock ape Ted in his budgie smugglers may end up on the scrap heap after only one term. He is pissing every body off except the big developers and other huge companies and conglomerates whose motto is "profit first and balls the consequences".

Neither tears, hard work nor hand wringing will bring our state and national parks back once they are gone/ and /or in the hands of the dig it up , chop it down,shoot it , concrete it over and sell it crowd.
Even conservative/right wing voters who make Woodstock look like it never happened want to go somewhere beautiful , natural and unspoilt too.

I think you'd be right in considering him as a one-termer. As long as Andrews keeps a tight ship I can't see Baillieu being returned. He has been terrible.

Anyone else wondering if one of the first 'commercial' developments will be a form of cattle-grazing leases in the ANP? I bet they're still looking for a way around the ban.

I'm not sure of the legal grounding behind his statement but I noted that Tony Burke recently expressed confidence that the federal Alpine grazing ban was water-tight.

[Hallu]

Especially when Aussie beef isn't that world class and when most Aussies overcook their steak anyway... What I find ironic though is that when you study the history of many national parks, a lot of them have been formed after farmers made their sheep graze here, and once the vegetation and water was gone, it was suddenly turned into a national park because it was no use to farmers any more and that the rock formations or salt lakes look interesting... So not only is the vegetation ruined (and as a result the local wildlife quite poor), but they assume that people are gonna enjoy a barren piece of land. This is quite a shocking statement, but it has mostly been the norm in Australia and still is : if farmers and/or miners don't want an area to become a national park, then it won't be. The most striking and current example being Cape York Peninsula : there's no permanent road system because of the Wet, it would be immensely costly to extract ore on a large scale over there, but still, just in case it might prove economically viable someday, they (meaning Queensland) refuse to turn the area into a big national park that would acquire Unesco status in no time and be a huge permanent source of income...