Interesting how any proponent never acknowledges what is being denied.
They extol the need and virtues of nights immersed in luxury but don't address the comments, and that the average bushwalker is now removed from such as they aren't permitted to camp!
Where does the following fit into any of these proposals where exclusive use is paid accommodation only? That’s what’s known in park-management speak as the “recreation opportunity spectrum”. Some people desire a nice meal, a bottle of wine and a shower with their hike. Others need only a mattress and a dry track. And some people want to climb difficult ridgelines, carrying their own food and water and tent. Parks, whose upkeep is paid for by taxpayer dollars, need to cater for all.
Certainly doesn't align with their proposed exclusivity.
The following is, to me, justification why we need to strive to ensure wilderness is as little impacted as possible. “We suddenly started seeing red kangaroos back in the landscape. Yellow-footed rock wallabies are back. We now get western quoll sightings,” the 55-year-old Carlow says, on the phone from Sydney. “Tourism can do a lot of good. Most operators know their livelihood is linked with the health of their environment.”
To base an argument for interruption into existing undeveloped areas on the above because "tourism can do a lot of good" is okay for degraded areas being bought back from the brink, but these aren't that in the first place.
I applaud the massive amount of work done in rehabilitation on old farmsteads on the mainland. It's commendable, but has no relevance here, in fact exact opposite, and to me shows how ignorant some are when their eyes light up at tourism, but gloss over when it comes to existing, untouched wilderness and how their perceived money making venture can possibly have any negative effect.
I'm old fashioned, as they say, when it comes to values, but I've lived long enough, seen enough, to know changes to our special places have changed them forever.
Unless someone in 50 years looks at these projects and applies the same logic to that applied to old farms on outback Australia and sets out to return it all to nature!
Those making these ventures possible in government really don't have an interest in wilderness as many know it and to them it's not an issue to be reckoned with.
That's, IMO, the problem, when they don't have the courage to say enough is enough, rather, "there's always room for one more".
When we're all gone no one will know what an idyllic life it was walking quietly in the great outdoors, soaking in the atmosphere, enjoying the scenery and all in its rawest of states.
What was lost is lost and the new norm is in.
That's what some in high places would want ushered in sooner than later.