"Exploring the Jagungal Wilderness"

[kanangra]

Some interesting tracks marked there. Also another hut on the track into Boobee?

K.

[rcaffin]

another hut on the track into Boobee?
Yeah, I noticed that on the map. But is there anything left today?

I also noticed that the track up Arsenic Ridge seems to start up on the WEST side. I have never seen that either.

Cheers
Roger

[RVG]

I haven't checked any coordinates, but that other hut/shed shown on the way into Boobees might well be one of several SMA huts in that general area (named as Happy Jacks 1,2, 3 etc.) which were later removed with a thorough clean up.

What is interesting about the track through Doubtful Gap is the way it went along "Diggers" Crk and then on to Arsenic Ridge. No doubt there was some gold prospecting along Diggers Creek but, not so far as I am aware, was it an an area where a Mining Lease was issued, unlike nearby Macgregors Creek where Mr Macgregor held a Mining Lease for several years.

Undoubtedly the track to Kiandra from the south went through Doubtful Gap and continued northwards beside what became known as "Diggers Creek" on its way, via Arsenic Ridge, to the Kiandra goldfields.

A conservation architect, David Scott, has prepared maps showing all the known tracks used by graziers, miners, the SMA, and others. There were many tracks.

[MeanderingFlyFisher]

It also shows falls just south of where the track crosses Doubtful Creek.Of course there could be falls anywhere all the way down to the junction.Very interesting indeed.
Also shows Doubtful Creek as Doubtful River which I had seen on my Nimmo map of the same series but haven't seen this map before.

[RVG]

I know its winter but it's a good time to start thinking about next seasons's walking. And for some hardy souls it's time to dust off the snow shoes, which is what a couple of hardy Canberrans did last weekend as they headed off for a walk to Jagungal.

They decided to go in the sensible way and went in via the Nimmo Rd and the Snowy Plains Fire Trail as far as the National Park boundary, 2km from Cesjacks Hut, from which it was a day walk to Mt Jagungal and return.

Before going in they did their homework and came across Johny's Walkabout Blog, which is an indispensable resource for ACT and KNP walkers. http://www.johnevans.id.au/wp/10-12-feb ... jacks-hut/

John Evans and his groups have been walking around Namadgi and Kosciuszko National Parks for years and his blog is a treasure trove of useful information for anyone wanting to walk in this part of the world.

As John knows the logical way of getting into KNP for Canberrans and Sydneysiders is to go in from the east and, specifically, either by way of the Schlink Pass Rd, for more southern walks, or by way of Nimmo Rd and the Snowy Plains Fire Trail to go to Kidmans, Mawsons, Valentine, Cesjacks and Mt Jagungal.

Here is John's route for a day walk to Mt Jagungal.

[rcaffin]

It also shows falls just south of where the track crosses Doubtful Creek.Of course there could be falls anywhere all the way down to the junction.Very interesting indeed.

There are mini-falls all along the way, and a very serious gorge of unstable mudstone at 45 degrees further down. I jest not. We backed off for several reasons, including a travelling speed of ~0.5 kph, nowhere within 3hrs to camp, and it was getting late. 'Doubtful' is right.

Here is John's route for a day walk to Mt Jagungal.

That's a long day and at high walking speed too.
We have done that on skis, but it was lunch on Jagungal, not morning tea. Ah yes - but the return trip only took a couple of hours: with some care it was one long downhill run on good snow! Aching ankles and knees by the end, but well worth it. First stop was somewhere near Rock Cairn.

Cheers
Roger

[RVG]

There have been a number of posts seeking information about routes in and through the Jagungal Wilderness. As we are coming up to the bushwalking season I thought that it might be a good idea to suggest a very good loop through the Jagungal Wilderness.

The beauty of this route is that it is a circular route which takes one through the heart of the area. It is very accessible because it can be reached from any of Round Mountain, Guthega Power Station, Cesjacks or Kidmans and it also opens up a wide range of variations, including visits to Tin Hut, Mawsons, the Kerries, Bluff Tarn, Gungartan, the Bulls Peaks, Mt Jagungal, Cesjacks and Kidmans.

If you look at the map you will see that the Bulls Peaks Fire Trail (now disappearing as an obvious track) runs more or less parallel with the Grey Mare Fire Trail. The Bulls Peaks Fire Trail runs more or less along the top of the Divide.

The recommendation is to do a loop walk using the Great Dividing Range to go north and the Grey Mare Fire Trail to go south. That loop can be accessed from any of the entry points mentioned above.

The most southerly part of the loop is Schlink Pass. Starting from there, (but you could start the loop from any of the other access points too), go over Gungartan, past Tin Hut, and then keep along the top of the Divide along to Mailbox Hill. From there continue north along the Bulls Peaks Fire Trail until north of North Bulls Peak. From there divert via McAlister Saddle to the Geehi Forks. From the Forks go along the southern flanks of Mt Jagungal to Strumbo Hill. The mountain can be climbed from many spots along here.

From Strumbo Hill follow the old track down the hill to the Grey Mare Fire Trail. (The track is easier to follow down the hill rather than going up it, which is why it is best to do the loop in this direction.)

Once on the Grey Mare Fire Trail it can be followed south past Grey Mare Hut to Valentine Hut. Shortly after Valentine Hut one could divert to Mawsons and back over the Kerries to Schlink Pass or one could foillow the Valentine Fire Trail back to the Munyang Rd and reach Schlink Pass that way.

Depending on the time available diversions could be made from the basic loop to visit Kidmans, Cesjacks, Bluff Tarn and other points of interest.

Allowing 4 days for the basic loop would be about right though that would depend on what you wanted to see.

[rcaffin]

Bulls Peak FT is kinda 'not-there' S of Rock Cairn.

Cheers
Roger

[north-north-west]

Bulls Peak FT is kinda 'not-there' S of Rock Cairn.

Don't know where Rock Cairn is, but I recall picking up the FT in the saddle just north of Mailbox, and following it (on and off, with diversions for the tops of lumpy bits) until just south of Cesjacks. More than five years ago now (summer of 09/10 probably) and the southern end in particular was fading out even then, but still discernible.

[rcaffin]

Yeah, it's fading. The descent from Smiths Perisher is gone.

Cheers
Roger

[Sonja and Jakob]

... I recall picking up the FT in the saddle just north of Mailbox, and following it (on and off, with diversions for the tops of lumpy bits) until just south of Cesjacks. More than five years ago now (summer of 09/10 probably) and the southern end in particular was fading out even then, but still discernible.

We did the whole in January 2016, and parts of it in January this year. Still the same. Some severe regrowth on the FT, so you have to leave it at times. – Sonja and Jakob

[RVG]

After the 2003 fires it was possible to follow the Bulls Peaks Fire Trail quite easily from Cesjacks all the way through to the last small rise before Mailbox Hill. Most of it was recorded on GPS at the time.

Gradually over the next 15 years the Fire Trail began to disappear. Parts of it are still there but other parts, such as from the Rock Cairn (several kms south of Cesjacks) through to the top of Smiths Perisher (the rise from 1770 m to 1840m just north of North Bulls Peak) are harder to find, though most of it can still be followed with care.

Before the book was published in 2015, the Bulls Peaks Fire Trail was again followed up Smiths Perisher and the track up that hill was recorded in detail because it was quite clear that it would soon be hard to follow.

The reason for doing that was to record once and for all precisely where the Fire Trail went because if it was not recorded than its precise route might have been lost forever. The hope was that by recording precise co-ordinates for the track it might be "walked in" again or, failing that, might someday be marked with track markers.

All of this raises a more general point, which has also been discussed recently in the forum posting concerning the track up Hannels Spur. The general point is that there are a number of old tracks which are disappearing. It is less of a problem at higher altitudes than it is lower down. Tracks on eastern facing slopes are more at risk, but tracks on western slopes, like Strumbo Hill, are also at risk.

These tracks are important to the bushwalking community so I suppose several questions needs to be asked such as "Which tracks are important?" and "What can we do about it?"

I've got my ideas but I'm interested in hearing yours.

[rcaffin]

The funny thing is that in Europe, the National Parks see the walking tracks as vital to maintaining public support and preserving the parks. Unfortunately, here in Oz, there has been a bit of a hardline stance that total wilderness is the only solution. No tracks, no old huts, and sometimes I suspect no people. I don't think that is a viable way of maintaining Nat Park budgets. They NEED voter support.

I don't mean support from frequently-commercial vested interests like 4WD and horse riding groups or hunting groups. They are small and are demonstrably bad for the areas. I mean the far larger general public, many of whom go walking. Many more like to look at the photos in magazines etc and go 'ooh, lovely'.
So ... we need to tell the pollies AND the NPWS management that we WANT the Parks.

There have been a few slightly aberrant ideas like making the Parks pay their way. That sounds a bit like making emergency services in hospitals pay their way. But in fact, if you take the wider view, the Parks do sustain a huge commercial community - of mfrs and shops who sell to the outdoors community. Granted, a lot of what is sold in outdoors shops is little more than outdoors-themed fashion clothing, but without the outdoors that entire market collapses.

We, collectively, need to agitate with our local political reps, and with Parks mgt, to support our Parks. A lot of the appeal in many areas is the preserved local history, in addition to the land itself. We need to emphasise that, along with the preservation. We also need to emphasise that some commercial interests are hugely destructive - like 4WDs, trail bikes, and horses, while others, like hunters, are simply too dangerous to the rest of the community. Read Tom Lehrer's The Hunting Song for the American view of hunting.

Cheers
Roger

[Xplora]

The funny thing is that in Europe, the National Parks see the walking tracks as vital to maintaining public support and preserving the parks. Unfortunately, here in Oz, there has been a bit of a hardline stance that total wilderness is the only solution. No tracks, no old huts, and sometimes I suspect no people. I don't think that is a viable way of maintaining Nat Park budgets. They NEED voter support.

I don't mean support from frequently-commercial vested interests like 4WD and horse riding groups or hunting groups. They are small and are demonstrably bad for the areas. I mean the far larger general public, many of whom go walking. Many more like to look at the photos in magazines etc and go 'ooh, lovely'.
So ... we need to tell the pollies AND the NPWS management that we WANT the Parks.

There have been a few slightly aberrant ideas like making the Parks pay their way. That sounds a bit like making emergency services in hospitals pay their way. But in fact, if you take the wider view, the Parks do sustain a huge commercial community - of mfrs and shops who sell to the outdoors community. Granted, a lot of what is sold in outdoors shops is little more than outdoors-themed fashion clothing, but without the outdoors that entire market collapses.

We, collectively, need to agitate with our local political reps, and with Parks mgt, to support our Parks. A lot of the appeal in many areas is the preserved local history, in addition to the land itself. We need to emphasise that, along with the preservation. We also need to emphasise that some commercial interests are hugely destructive - like 4WDs, trail bikes, and horses, while others, like hunters, are simply too dangerous to the rest of the community. Read Tom Lehrer's The Hunting Song for the American view of hunting.

Cheers
Roger

I find this quite interesting and a little conflicting. Tracks which are used regularly usually keep some definition on the ground but regrowth after a fire may cause it to encroach on the sides of the track. If it is not a popular track then it is not something an authority with a limited budget should throw its money at but often volunteer groups can offer to work with the land manager to keep it clear. The conflict I have is that you seem to say it is OK for bushwalkers to trample the ground but nobody else. Lets put thousands of human feet over a track but keep others from doing the same on their formed tracks. Why are we any better? I don't want to see people locked out of parks but there is a place for all. What about mountain bike riders? They can do a great deal of damage. Commercial interest in any of the recreational activities you mention is actually very small compared to the private or individual participants. I think we need to emphasise that bushwalkers can be hugely destructive as well. The activities you seem to have some disdain for have a great deal more regulation in parks than bushwalkers. I don't deny some idiots cause damage. I see it regularly but I also see damage done by walkers. Your words convey a view that only walkers should be allowed in parks. Given the damage done by walkers to many areas I would suggest there are some who say they should be locked out as well. Like many others, I walk, fish, 4wd and ride my horse and mountain bike on public land. I don't hunt on public land because I have my own land to do that. I do it all responsibly. It is the irresponsible who cause us to be locked out.

[rcaffin]

Tracks which are used regularly usually keep some definition on the ground but regrowth after a fire may cause it to encroach on the sides of the track.
Obviously you have not seen what the 2003 fires did to KNP. 'Encroach' is not the word for it. The growth rate after a fire can be incredible. I was going to mention just the wattles, but the same does apply to a lot of our alpine vegetation. Ash one year, head-high barrier 2 - 3 years later, with stems 100 mm apart. I dare say in 20 years the 'jungle' will have sorted itself out, but by then the tracks have been lost. Whole firetrails vanish.

Cheers
Roger

[RVG]

The funny thing is that in Europe, the National Parks see the walking tracks as vital to maintaining public support and preserving the parks. Unfortunately, here in Oz, there has been a bit of a hardline stance that total wilderness is the only solution. No tracks, no old huts, and sometimes I suspect no people. I don't think that is a viable way of maintaining Nat Park budgets. They NEED voter support.
Cheers
Roger

Of course the stance varies in each state and across the Ditch. As Bushwalk Australia says "New Zealand offers a model Let’s face it, the Kiwis are miles ahead of us at the moment. They take tourism and nature conservation seriously and have recognised the inherent link between the two. New Zealand’s Queenstown region is considered by many to be the adventure playground capital of the world. Yet NSW is a potentially superior attraction: the terrain is less steep for adventure sports and the weather’s better meaning these sports could happen year-round."

I'd agree with much of that and add that Tasmania also does things well too.

Years ago I had a conversation with Simon Crean during a Bay of Fires walk, when he was Leader of the Opposition, in which we talked about this issue and how well Tasmania and NZ struck the right balance for encouraging the public to use National Parks in a way which did not compromise their essential values. He was of a similar mind and appeared to be interested in the idea of Kosciuszko to Kiandra walk along the lines of the Cradle Mountain-Lake St Clair walk.

That could become an iconic walk in this part of the world. It would be good for the area and would encourage more use of the Park by persons likely to respect its values. That in turn would give extra funding to NPWS to look after the Park; something which is much needed.

[rcaffin]

the idea of Kosciuszko to Kiandra walk along the lines of the Cradle Mountain-Lake St Clair walk
Well, the AAWT does that and a LOT more. But elements in the NPWS fought (strenuously) to keep the AAWT entirely on roads over that section. This is a problem within the NPWS.

Cheers
Roger

[potato]

[i] This is a problem within the NPWS.

Perhaps its a problem that something like this would end up costing the NPWS more than what any increase in visitation may earn the park.

This concept of increasing tourism so that parks can pay for their existence is absurd. It only benefits tourism operators while more tracks and more facilities degrade the natural values of the area.

[RVG]

The Kiwis obviously see the broad picture. The NZ experience is that increased tourist/walking numbers provide an overall benefit to the community as a whole and that the impact on the Park can be managed.

One only has to look at the Queenstown area to see that even a large number of visitors can be channelled in a way which does little damage to the environment. Even on walks like the Routeburn, where the huts are frequently booked out, properly constructed and maintained tracks have protected environmental values. In fact, in some cases new tracks are being built to the benefit of everyone using the area.

The problem we have in KNP is the opposite. There are so few visitors to the area that we are losing the tracks. They are becoming overgrown, with the result that they are being removed from our topo maps.

In those circumstances we need more, and not less visitors, to the area.

[RVG]

Perhaps one could add that Tasmania also does a good job.

The Overland track has struck a good balance between walkers and the environment. By way of a response to increasing numbers the authorities have built extensive boardwalking and capped the number of walkers. For much of the season it is busy and the number of walkers runs into the thousands. Walkers come from all over the world and make a significant contribution to the Tasmanian economy. Has the boardwalking damaged the environment? Not as far as I can tell.

Would some track work hurt the Jagungal Wilderness? It seems most unlikely. Not much work needs doing. Some of the tracks which need attention need not much more than brushcutting for distances over about 500 metres.

[RVG]

Perhaps one could add that Tasmania also does a good job.

The Overland track has struck a good balance between walkers and the environment. By way of a response to increasing numbers the authorities have built extensive boardwalking and capped the number of walkers. For much of the season it is busy and the number of walkers runs into the thousands. Walkers come from all over the world and make a significant contribution to the Tasmanian economy. Has the boardwalking damaged the environment? Not as far as I can tell.

Would some track work hurt the Jagungal Wilderness? It seems most unlikely. Not much work needs doing. Some of the tracks which need attention need not much more than brushcutting for distances over about 500 metres.

[Xplora]

The Kiwis obviously see the broad picture. The NZ experience is that increased tourist/walking numbers provide an overall benefit to the community as a whole and that the impact on the Park can be managed.

It think this may be related to their economy in general which is supported strongly by tourism. Tourism in Australia is big but not the centre piece of the economy. We have some big attractions and that is where most of the money goes and the rest have to beg for it. Diverting money and attention to a project that may have some limited draw is never going to happen. I am not really in favour of creating theme parks in wilderness areas anyway. I thought Queenstown was a tourist theme park. Rotorua was worse. Most of the signs posted were written in Chinese.

NPWS have a volunteer scheme and if you can convince them of the need for the track clearing then you may be able to set up your own volunteer program. Those sections needing more than hand work could then get some funding if there is enough interest. If you can't generate the interest then the track is clearly of less importance and will reveg.

The fires of 2003 did not only affect KNP. I live in an area which was significantly affected by it and many old tracks around me have been lost. Most of these tracks were maintained by the cattlemen or loggers and since they have not further need the tracks are gone. Some walking tracks were lost as well but there is simply not enough money available to throw at tracks rarely used. The popular tracks have stayed but some are still affected by regrowth and weeds which is being dealt with by PV, DELWP and volunteers. The key is to show a significant interest in each track you wish to maintain. Mount some support from the BW community and then show how many are willing to put their hands to work. Find a way to be part of the solution.

[RVG]

NPWS have a volunteer scheme and if you can convince them of the need for the track clearing then you may be able to set up your own volunteer program. Those sections needing more than hand work could then get some funding if there is enough interest. If you can't generate the interest then the track is clearly of less importance and will reveg.

Thanks Xplora, that's a good suggestion.

Are there forum members who have had experience with this scheme in NSW?

[Xplora]

I have not had any involvement with NPWS for many years but did some volunteer stuff with them in the Blue Mtns. Authorities such as these respond well to vested interest groups. In fact having any sort of association with numbers behind you gives you some clout when talking to pollies, councils and government agencies. My advice would be to do it under the banner of Bushwalking NSW or Australia. Start by finding the name of the person whom you need to speak to. Make a call to the boss at the Khancoban office and see if support from that office will be forthcoming. A decision would be made at a higher level but they will seek advice from them. I guess it would be important to see if BW NSW will be on board with it as well but Roger may be able to canvas that aspect.

ParksVic worked with BW Vic last year to do track work on the AAWT near Mt. Wills. It was very successful and a good job done. I can't see why the same cannot be done in NSW. Good luck with it all.

[RVG]

I have not had any involvement with NPWS for many years but did some volunteer stuff with them in the Blue Mtns. Authorities such as these respond well to vested interest groups. In fact having any sort of association with numbers behind you gives you some clout when talking to pollies, councils and government agencies. My advice would be to do it under the banner of Bushwalking NSW or Australia.
ParksVic worked with BW Vic last year to do track work on the AAWT near Mt. Wills. It was very successful and a good job done. I can't see why the same cannot be done in NSW. Good luck with it all.

There are two things to be done. Firstly, we need to identify which tracks warrant some work and, secondly, whether there are enough volunteers who would be interested in spending some time in the Park on light track maintenance.

Starting with the tracks. Ideally any the work which is done should be done on tracks that matter, especially those which have heritage value, open up loop walks or useful through walks, and where the work is manageable.

The obvious candidates are:

1. Down Strumbo Hill, along the route of the Strawberry Hill Fire Trail. The distance is about 500m. The scrub is light and capable of being cleared with brushcutters and occasional use of a chainsaw. The benefit is that it would open up a good loop walk using the Great Dividing Range to go north and the Bulls Peaks Fire Trail to go south. Good access. Could camp at Grey Mare Hut or O'Keefes.

2. The northern end of the Bulls Peaks Fire Trail including Smiths Perisher. Relatively easy work with good access for volunteers. Stay at Cesjacks Hut.

3. The Strumbo Fire Trail west of Grey Mare Hut leading to the southern end of Pretty Plain. This would open up a loop linking the Grey Mare Fire Trail and Pretty Plain. Perhaps too much work for volunteers.

4. A section of the route up the Brassys between Kidmans and Mawsons. About 400m.

5. Arsenic Ridge - possibly too much for volunteers.

Does anyone have other suggestions?

Robert

[gayet]

Hi

I can't offer any suggestions as I haven't been into the area (new to Canberra) but if volunteer working parties could be organised for a weekend - arrive say Friday evening and Depart Sunday arvo - I'd be more than happy to sign up.

[Mark F]

I think another issue to consider is whether the proposed work is within the Wilderness Zone. I expect this would be a key determinant of whether the work could proceed. Personally I would be happy to work on such projects - the one that catches my eye is Arsenic Ridge which is outside the Wilderness Zone and having walked it last Spring would not be a particularly large undertaking assuming that it is more about clearing regrowth and some route marking. It would move some visitation from Happy's Hut to Brook's Hut which currently sees very little use. It provides a far more interesting section of the AAWT and is outside the Wilderness Zone.

[rcaffin]

Arsenic Ridge - part of the historical goldminers track going N to Kiandra. A very good route, worth preserving.
The other ones RVG mentions are also worthy.

Cheers

[RVG]

I haven't been up Arsenic Ridge for about twenty years and I was under the impression that it was now pretty much overgrown, but from Mark F's comments it sounds that it might still only be light regrowth. Is that the case?

Actually the AAWT could take a much better route through the Jagungal Wilderness than it now does. The route which is most logical, and which seems to retain its integrity of keeping to the higher ridges, is to use the Great Dividing Range between Schlink Pass and Crooks Racecourse. North of Crooks Racecourse the AAWT could use the track up Arsenic Ridge to reach Tabletop. This was the historical route used by the skiers and runners who set speed records through the Park in its early days. It is also shorter than going by way of the Grey Mare Fire Trail and a better walk anyway.

[potato]

A key point here is that this area is a wilderness zone and national park. I see another thread here discussing the ethics of taping routes and now this thread discussing opening routes - in a wilderness zone???

To quote a recent decision regarding another sensitive area - this isn't Disney Land... it's a national park. The wilderness values are greater than our recreation.