Off The Track

Tasmania specific bushwalking discussion.
Forum rules
Tasmania specific bushwalking discussion. Please avoid publishing details of access to sensitive areas with no tracks.

Off The Track

Postby wander » Sat 09 Jan, 2010 11:31 am

This whole business of not discussing off track routes is getting very strange. At some point the seeker will find the data via PM or an old copy of the Tassie Tramp or Wild or another resource. It might just take longer. Or the seeker will just go anyhow and find their own way. I have seen strong evidence of the latter already.

I think Parks really need to strategically review the track classification and info management in light of what will inevitably happen. The policy of “keep it secret” is already failing. Given the release of data from Parks own data base of tracks is a sackable offence it can only be considered to be a “keep it secret” policy.

Track or route info will be available on the net somewhere at some point regardless of efforts to stop it getting out.

To just try and stop info being discussed on the open forum is ignoring the reality of the web.

I am not specifically advocating a change of policy on this forum.

But I do suggest the issue needs to be discussed and recognised as a problem that will need changes to occur across a range of platforms to continue effective management of Park areas.
wander
Phyllocladus aspleniifolius
Phyllocladus aspleniifolius
 
Posts: 770
Joined: Mon 26 Oct, 2009 11:19 am
Region: South Australia
Gender: Male

Re: Off The Track

Postby Taurë-rana » Sat 09 Jan, 2010 11:44 am

I'm not sure what the Parks policy is, so I can't comment on that. But having just returned from Mt Anne and seen the large number of people off to do the circuit, enough to make me shudder and be very glad I wasn't heading out with them, and also reading John Chapman's book where he suggests that if you go to a lot of places in the summer months there will be quite a lot of people there, I believe there should be areas where the information is hard to find - if it's freely available people will find it even if they are not necessarily looking. If it takes some effort, people will only find it if they are looking specifically for it which will keep the numbers down.

Places like Lake Rhona which used to be word of mouth stuff are, by the sound of it, suffering from overuse because the information is so freely available. Once again according to Chapman, several of the harder routes such as the Eastern and Western Arthurs are no longer as challenging as they used to be, because so many people are going there that there has to be infrastructure put in to protect the environment. I wouldn't want to stop people going places but it seems to me that the number of bushwalkers is growing rapidly, the harder walks are becoming easier and less inviting due to the number of people on them, so more people are looking for off track walks, so the same thing will happen to them... I don't know what the answer is.
Peak bagging points: 170ish
Recent walks - Picton, Wylds Crag, Rogoona
User avatar
Taurë-rana
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1031
Joined: Mon 14 Jan, 2008 8:28 pm
Location: Devonport
Region: Tasmania

Re: Off The Track

Postby Son of a Beach » Sat 09 Jan, 2010 11:50 am

If this topic becomes a discussion of the forum rule rather than about such discussions in general, I may move it to the 'Forum' forum.

However, feel free to discuss the forum rule related to discussing details of off-track walking here if you like. The current site rule on this issue is:
Avoid posting detailed information on accessing sensitive areas without recognised tracks to public topics, but rather use private messages, email, or other non-public means to communicate such information instead. Feel free to ask questions about such areas publicly, so long as the post includes a reminder of this rule to get answers privately only.


The reason for this rule is not to comply with any wishes from Parks, or any other body. It is not to prevent people from finding information on such areas (PMs and emails are encouraged), nor to discourage people from going to such areas if they already plan/wish to do so. The reason behind the rule is in the hope of protecting sensitive areas from damage by over use by limiting the amount of information that is easily viewed about such locations by people who may not otherwise have planned to visit the areas.

Whether the rule is effective in achieving this aim or not is difficult to say, but I feel that it is responsible to limit the damage while not discouraging people from going to such places, if such a compromise is actually possible.

Note that this does not forbid discussion of off track areas. It does not even forbid discussion of sensitive off track areas. It is merely to limit the amount of detail regarding areas that are both sensitive and off track.
Son of a Beach
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 6778
Joined: Thu 01 Mar, 2007 7:55 am
ASSOCIATED ORGANISATIONS: Bit Map (NIXANZ)
Region: Tasmania
Gender: Male

Re: Off The Track

Postby Michael_Kingston » Sat 09 Jan, 2010 1:52 pm

Hi Wander - I am not so sure that it is a bad idea to keep off track discussions private and limit what you share with others (both publically and privately). My reasons would be:

1. If you send someone information about an off track walk via PM you have some control over who it is going to whereas if you publish it openly you have no control. I for one would always try and find out a little bit about a person before sending information to them about an off track area as I would not want to encourage someone to go where they are not skilled / experienced enough. I also think that publishing it openly may lead some people to see an off track route as 'accessbile' and easier than it really is.

2. Generally not publishing off track information and putting people in a position where they have to ".... find their own way...." means they have to develop skills in route planning and navigation. I see this as desirable and SAFER. I would never rely on advice given by anyone else re a walk. People walk at different paces, have different judgements about difficulty etc.

3. You say that the policy of “keep it secret” is already failing. I don't think there is any real evidence that off track walking is increasing. I started a topic on this a while ago and most experienced posters on this site felt the opposite was happening - that less people are going off track. I have also not been able to find any evidence from Parks or other sources that off track walking is increasing. Publishing details of off track areas is only likely to encourage off track walking.

4. There is certainly pressure on certain areas like the Western Arthurs and Lake Rhona. However, in the case of Lake Rhona, Parks have made it much EASIER to get to with the Tiger Range track. They have hardly gone 'secret.' With the Western Arthurs a substantial degree of pressure is from interstate walkers - just check the log books. I would suggest that people like John Chapman may have had an influence here through their books: just about every interstate walker carries a copy. In other words, public descriptions of a walk has lead to increased numbers. To give you another example, John Chapman publishes details of the route from Trappers Hut to Tiger Lake in one of his books. Since he has done this, the route has become much more defined and is basically a track now. Sixteen years ago when I first walked through that way there was virtually no evidence of walkers. I know it may only be a coincidence but i question whether he is doing the right thing.

Regards
Michael
Michael_Kingston
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun 13 Sep, 2009 4:24 pm
Region: Tasmania
Gender: Male

Re: Off The Track

Postby tas-man » Sat 09 Jan, 2010 2:02 pm

wander wrote:<Snip>
Track or route info will be available on the net somewhere at some point regardless of efforts to stop it getting out.
<Snip>


When using my iPhone on Hounslow Heath last week, I was surprised to see that all the old tracks in the dove Lake region, that Parks have closed or progressively removed from the printed maps over the past few decades, now show up on g****e m**s. Obviously once the information has escaped "Pandora's box" there is no putting it back, so the efforts of Parks to removed tracks from the official records to perhaps allow areas to regenerate, and more focused maintenance and development take place on the more publicised tracks, is bound to fail with the growth of such information on the internet. However I support Nik, in that the forum should not openly publicise details of routes in "sensitive" areas - the line between "sensitive" and "not sensitive" will the dilemma for Nik to advise and administer. :wink:
"The world reveals itself to those who travel on foot."
Werner Herzog
User avatar
tas-man
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1429
Joined: Mon 03 Sep, 2007 8:55 pm
Location: Riverside
Region: Tasmania
Gender: Male

Re: Off The Track

Postby tastrax » Sat 09 Jan, 2010 2:06 pm

Hi Folks,

This is the best quick document to read on the Track classification and the PWS desired levels of publicity - http://www.wyatt-family.com/phil/TrackC ... cation.pdf. Its an extract form the WHA track strategy.

<The views expressed below are a composite of private and PWS views>

The desire to have a range of levels of publicity/public knowledge of areas is a legitimate management technique and is used all over the world by many land management agencies. Its one of many techniques to both (possibly) limit impacts and as a means to provide a range of opportunities for users. Not all users want to have all tracks on maps because they seek the challenge of finding their own way, finding new routes, researching walks etc. They like to go "where no person has been previously". Those opportunities continue to be provided in many national parks (and other areas) and indeed PWS cannot generally stop anyone going anywhere (except in declared restricted areas).

If every single possible route was well publicised then the above opportunity would progressively be lost. Some authors have flatly refused to abide by PWS requests to limit publicity to vague descriptions of routes (as per the guidlenes) and detailed descriptions have been widely published of some previously remote walks. Its a battle that both PWS and you as users are losing.

I think it is great that forums such as this are widely available to people to research walks to new areas that may stretch their current abilities and I think the forum rules do a great job in complying with the PWS request for limited publicity on some tracks/routes. People regularly move topics to PM's which then means that individuals are sharing knowledge and gaining experience.

I think the best way to consider the issue is this... next time you are sitting on a remote peak admiring the view that you have attained by researching the route, finding your way and the fighting the elements ...turn 180 degrees and consider a high standard track leading to that point. Would you stop your walking at that point or would you be looking to gain the next peak over the next ridge. This might seem dramatic but its how things generally work. Destinations become popular, hardy walkers go there and then when the pad gets developed less hardy walkers follow etc etc.

Its similar to the creep of big cities as they start to spread - same with the track network. Limiting publicity is a way to maybe keep that creep at a snails pace rather than a sprint.
Last edited by tastrax on Sat 09 Jan, 2010 2:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Cheers - Phil

OSM Mapper
User avatar
tastrax
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1938
Joined: Fri 28 Mar, 2008 6:25 pm
Location: What3words - epic.constable.downplayed
ASSOCIATED ORGANISATIONS: RETIRED! - Parks and Wildlife Service
Region: Tasmania

Re: Off The Track

Postby tastrax » Sat 09 Jan, 2010 2:14 pm

tas-man wrote:..... so the efforts of Parks to removed tracks from the official records to perhaps allow areas to regenerate, and more focused maintenance and development take place on the more publicised tracks, is bound to fail with the growth of such information on the internet. ......


That is something PWS is attempting to address but there are some folk that are resisting the removal of data from maps. We are having more luck with the Park map series than the 1:25,000 series.

Michael_Kingston wrote: I would suggest that people like John Chapman may have had an influence here through their books:


John Chapman was actually one of the best authors we had dealings with. He would regularly contact PWS and seek information and would modify his books at our request UNTIL someone else published remote data. He then felt that he would need to supply similar information to maintain his share of the market. A very commendable approach from a PWS perspective.
Cheers - Phil

OSM Mapper
User avatar
tastrax
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1938
Joined: Fri 28 Mar, 2008 6:25 pm
Location: What3words - epic.constable.downplayed
ASSOCIATED ORGANISATIONS: RETIRED! - Parks and Wildlife Service
Region: Tasmania

Re: Off The Track

Postby Michael_Kingston » Sat 09 Jan, 2010 2:25 pm

Thanks for that info Phil. I guess that is the problem with the guide book game - someone will always go that extra bit further and then eveyone else feels compelled to follow.

Having said that, the fact that Chapman feels compelled to follow to maintain market share does raise the question of ethics in the guide book industry. People are making profits and the externalities (damage to National Parks) are being paid for by someone else (the user and taxpayer). Also, just because someone else behaves in a certain way does that make it right for me to do that? Isn't it a bit like (hypothetically) British American Tobacco saying that they don't really want to advertise cigarettes in Africa but because everyone else is advertising they have to do it or lose market share? i don't want this to be taken as an attack on John Chapman - just that the guidebook industry as a whole raises interesting ethical questions in relation to sustainability that are worth thinking about.
Michael_Kingston
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun 13 Sep, 2009 4:24 pm
Region: Tasmania
Gender: Male

Re: Off The Track

Postby Robbo » Sat 09 Jan, 2010 3:41 pm

To be fair to John Chapman, he only gives a broad outline of areas that are, 'off the beaten track', and leaves up to those who experienced enough in the areas concerned to, 'join the dots'. This applies to correspondence I have had with him directly as well, not just in the guide books he publishes.

As to the question re publishers of guide books in general it depends on the world view of the person involved. Lonely Planet's recent publicity re Bay of Fires is welcomed by local businesses and tourism operators but looked on with horror by the more 'green' side of things. The same discussion relates to Dick's contribution to the Frenchmans Cap walking track.

I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to this, rather a difference in the way we each see the world. The more fundmentalists of us would prefer all to be left as it is and have everyone see and do things as they do, while others would like as many as possible to experience what the wilderness has to offer and live with the consequences of what this implies.

Just my 2 cents worth.

TR
"The place between your comfort zone and your dream is where your life takes place." Nick Vujicic.
User avatar
Robbo
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat 07 Jun, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Melbourne
ASSOCIATED ORGANISATIONS: Gilson College
Region: Victoria
Gender: Male

Re: Off The Track

Postby Michael_Kingston » Sat 09 Jan, 2010 4:36 pm

Hi Robbo. I agree that Chapman keeps many notes very basic for more remote areas. However, irrespective of this, his books (amongst a number of writers) do draw attention to off track and little visited areas, particularly for those living beyond Tasmania, and this raises the likelihood of increased visits.

I made the point about John Chapman because Wander raised the issue of whether we should publicly publish details of off track areas. I was simply pointing out cause and effect ... you promote something through guidebooks and you are likely to increase numbers. Whether this is positive or not comes down to your viewpoint, as you said. To go back to my example of the Trappers Hut - Tiger Lake walk description in one of his books, I still question whether a detailed description (which is what he gives) should be written about (and therefore promoted) in a book when Parks have worked very hard to create a hardened, sustainable track into the Walls. Increasing traffic on the route simply creates further pressure in an area where Parks have done a lot to minimise environmental damage.
Last edited by Michael_Kingston on Sat 09 Jan, 2010 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Michael_Kingston
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun 13 Sep, 2009 4:24 pm
Region: Tasmania
Gender: Male

Re: Off The Track

Postby tastrax » Sat 09 Jan, 2010 4:42 pm

Yep - all good points which unfortunately normally leaves PWS not pleasing everyone. Its seldom a win/win situation.
Cheers - Phil

OSM Mapper
User avatar
tastrax
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1938
Joined: Fri 28 Mar, 2008 6:25 pm
Location: What3words - epic.constable.downplayed
ASSOCIATED ORGANISATIONS: RETIRED! - Parks and Wildlife Service
Region: Tasmania

Re: Off The Track

Postby Michael_Kingston » Sat 09 Jan, 2010 4:47 pm

Hi Phil - I agree. You guys at Parks are between a rock and a hard place on issues like this.
Michael_Kingston
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun 13 Sep, 2009 4:24 pm
Region: Tasmania
Gender: Male

Re: Off The Track

Postby Beeper » Sat 09 Jan, 2010 6:03 pm

In some ways I think this issue is a little overrated. I don't support wholesale advertising of off track walking in any media but on the other hand visitation of alot of Tassies remote areas is very low anyway (compared to other countries) and in most cases is difficult to get to anyway. The latter certainly turns most off. I've found there is a minority line of reasoning that goes something along the lines of a few foot prints found in the middle of no where is a disaster / impedient to the values of the area. Sometimes I think this type of view prevails. Finding the balance of providing information / protecting areas is a difficult one. My personal view is that provision of limited or very general instructions on how to get to a remote place is acceptable. It should be remembered that natural areas are public areas and restricting any access to only the "priviledged few" who are in the know doesn't add up to an equitable society.
Beeper
Atherosperma moschatum
Atherosperma moschatum
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon 16 Mar, 2009 5:53 pm
Region: Tasmania

Re: Off The Track

Postby Michael_Kingston » Sat 09 Jan, 2010 6:30 pm

Hi Beeper, it is a complex issue as your comment show. I guess it is a question of where to draw the line. You believe that:

"natural areas are public areas and restricting any access to only the "priviledged few" who are in the know doesn't add up to an equitable society."

I know someone who believes (probably to stir me) that NOT putting more roads into National Parks restricts access to a privileged few and is inequitable. After all, many people are too old, too young, have a disability etc that prevents them from walking for 3 days to access an area.

As you say it is a hard call, but I don't think the issue is overrated. The issue of what promotion of access should occur (whether that promotion is in words in guide books or in facilities and tracks) is a very real one and has significant implications for managing our natural areas.
Michael_Kingston
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun 13 Sep, 2009 4:24 pm
Region: Tasmania
Gender: Male

Re: Off The Track

Postby Beeper » Sat 09 Jan, 2010 7:11 pm

Yes protecting natural areas over the long term is difficult. Whatever the issue wherever, people will always find a way to get information, the Internet is just making that task easier, govt has to learn to live with/adapt to that medium in their land mgt. I think in national parks if a suite of walks are provided the vast majority of visitors will not want to go elsewhere. In most cases this is the case anyway in Tassy.

I react to some of the paranoia you get sometimes with the view that areas are being destroyed when there only a handful of visitors. I suppose it depends on what your thresholds of actual / perceived impacts are. I know people who think that any human impact in an area is an environmental disaster - what a load of BS. What they are really saying is that they want to keep the area untarnished for themselves.

The current Parks tracks policy is generally about right. Being completely dogmatic on this issue is incorrect IMO when in reality public land is owned/for the public.

There has been successful management the other way. The Lake Petrarch track used to be popular overnight destination, but with the effective closure of the track (or to let it die) by Parks, I doubt whether the place gets many visitors at all these days. Perhaps in 20 years it will be one of those wilderness destinations.
Beeper
Atherosperma moschatum
Atherosperma moschatum
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon 16 Mar, 2009 5:53 pm
Region: Tasmania

Re: Off The Track

Postby ronin » Sat 09 Jan, 2010 7:23 pm

The demand for 'new' terrain will always be high, i don't know much about the bushwalking scene but i know that people will always look for new terrain to conquer, whether it's the 'search, challenge, isolation, bragging rights, whatever', people will find it.
With technology as it is now it's so much easier.
I remember reading about how old time surfing 'explorers' found Bells Beach and there was (over time) only a mud track to get there, that was discovery.
You should see it now!
Maybe closer to home...Shipsterns Bluff, never heard of before on the mainland, you tassie locals had that to yourselves up until a few years ago, just wait, it'll become a 'Surfing Recreation Reserve' (like Bells) and you can forget about catching a few waves to yourselves.
I use the surfing analogy because that's more familiar to me but i used to 'discover' all these great little spots only to have them inundated over time by people looking for some isolation for themselves.
With technology, it's become too easy, there's no more discovery, there's always someone ready to part with info and as the pressure builds in the more local areas, people will push further outward.

I don't have to do an early morning surf check hoping there's waves, the internet tells me from my lounge room, with up to date info from around the world.
The 'search' has become a whole lot easier.

If the info for unprepared bushwalkers isn't out there, how many will go out there and become lost, or think that the limited info that has been provided is enough for a safe walk?
If, as a surfer, i'm given the runaround from other surfers, the worst that can happen is a crap surf, if i head out (as a bushwalker) and try a trek like Breminator attempted with limited or wrong info, well then the outcome would be vastly different.
ronin
Nothofagus gunnii
Nothofagus gunnii
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon 23 Nov, 2009 4:39 pm
Region: Tasmania
Gender: Male

Re: Off The Track

Postby Nuts » Sat 09 Jan, 2010 7:43 pm

I'm not sure if you took a cue from my post in the Jubilee Range topic Wander?

I was actually thinking of the track classification in general. I was thinking more of tracks on the sensitive end of the classification. It is obvious that a lot of work went into compiling the list and even Tracks into areas classified as sensitive seem to have had this classification ignored when there has been/is a $ to be made. This isnt only editors of guide books, promotion comes in many forms.... Reading through the explanation of the classes and who in particular 'parks' had in mind shows a Number of players are involved...........

If advice and control of tracked areas is being ignored what was the point of all the good work (and what hope for Any sensitive area (currently untracked or not)??

(hmmm, my thought may not really have fit with that topic and maybe not with this, they were also to perhaps help Nik to sort out what exactly is meant (in regards to this forum when 'sensitive' areas are mentioned? Are they to be decided at the time, go by the parks listing or otherwise? This dilemma has in the past come up and no doubt will again)

I actually dont really see (as with Beeper) that a few footprints in a remote area as (currently) a big deal. I do think some sort of (either) enforcement or rethink is necessary for the more (currently) popular areas under sensitive classification however..

Thanks for the link Tastrax :wink:
Last edited by Nuts on Sat 09 Jan, 2010 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wet and Wild! not 'Wet 'n' Wild'
User avatar
Nuts
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 8520
Joined: Sat 05 Apr, 2008 12:22 pm
Region: Tasmania

Re: Off The Track

Postby Son of a Beach » Sat 09 Jan, 2010 7:53 pm

I still don't have an answer for that, Nuts. It's very difficult to decide what is a sensitive area and even if you can decide, it's very difficult to decide how much detail would be OK.

Any thoughts or feedback about these two points would be of interest.

If people complain about a post that breaches our rule on this issue, we will aim to make a judgement on such a post on its own merits (based on information supplied to us by other members if we are unfamiliar with the area ourselves).
Son of a Beach
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 6778
Joined: Thu 01 Mar, 2007 7:55 am
ASSOCIATED ORGANISATIONS: Bit Map (NIXANZ)
Region: Tasmania
Gender: Male

Re: Off The Track

Postby Nuts » Sat 09 Jan, 2010 7:58 pm

It is difficult, do you go by whatever is currently published/promoted, or be the 'only' place that sees the parks classification as worthwhile?
Wet and Wild! not 'Wet 'n' Wild'
User avatar
Nuts
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 8520
Joined: Sat 05 Apr, 2008 12:22 pm
Region: Tasmania

Re: Off The Track

Postby tastrax » Sat 09 Jan, 2010 8:48 pm

Beeper wrote:..... I suppose it depends on what your thresholds of actual / perceived impacts are. ......


Good point Beeper - for me as a PWS staff member its also about being able to give good advice to mangers and the public. Tassie is quite well known for the research work it has done on quantifying impacts in various environments by walkers (and to a lesser extent horses and bikes).

Search here http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03014797 for author "whinam"

The other thing the research helps with is ensuring that managers know what the effects of increased visitation might be - vegatation loss that may lead to erosion (on slopes) or track widening (on the flats in some environments) to name just a couple. It sort of alerts them to the fact that they may get complaints from walkers (or forum users :lol: :lol: ) when thresholds are exceeded, maybe even ministerial complaints. For the asset manager it will alert them to pending costs for track infrastructure (if appropriate), increased budget needs for maintenance ( or if no funds ... when the rate of impact might exceed set thresholds).

Sensitivity is also something tough to deal with. Things are sensitive to different impacts- fire, trampling etc so what might be a problem for one plant might be a bonus for another...some orchids for instance often love fire whilst other plants don't. IIRC horses appear to have more impact on grasslands whilst walkers have more impact on woody shrubs and slopes etc. Walking in buttongrass on the flats is more likely to lead to widening (ie Loddons) whilst the same vegetation on slopes is more likely to lead to defined single tracks and possibly channels leading to easier erosion.

So back to the topic ... if the area in a forum discussion doesn't have tracks showing on the maps then I would say there is a fair chance PWS would prefer low key publicity (albeit that we know some old tracks still appear on maps). For me something like the following would be acceptable.....

After leaving the main tracks its a relative easy ridge walk with a few band of scrub on the southern slopes. Also note the tough gorges in a couple of locations. Limited camping is available near some of the lakes.

versus

Head off the main track at 123456E 3456789N and proceed to Mt Blob, then turn SW down the ridge until you hit the junction of creek x and y just above Phils Gorge, I would then camp at 112233E 2233445N beside Lake Blogg ...... you get the picture? You MIGHT give someone that information in a private PM once you have sussed out that they share the same philosophies as you in regard to the area. Having said that, I seldom give that much detail...why shouldn't they suffer the same fate as me when I ventured into that area :evil: :evil: :evil:
Cheers - Phil

OSM Mapper
User avatar
tastrax
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1938
Joined: Fri 28 Mar, 2008 6:25 pm
Location: What3words - epic.constable.downplayed
ASSOCIATED ORGANISATIONS: RETIRED! - Parks and Wildlife Service
Region: Tasmania

Re: Off The Track

Postby Son of a Beach » Sat 09 Jan, 2010 9:02 pm

Awesome! I've been looking for this kind of detailed information on Mt Blob and Lake Blogg for ages!
Son of a Beach
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 6778
Joined: Thu 01 Mar, 2007 7:55 am
ASSOCIATED ORGANISATIONS: Bit Map (NIXANZ)
Region: Tasmania
Gender: Male

Re: Off The Track

Postby tastrax » Sat 09 Jan, 2010 9:36 pm

I will send you a map if you like!
Cheers - Phil

OSM Mapper
User avatar
tastrax
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1938
Joined: Fri 28 Mar, 2008 6:25 pm
Location: What3words - epic.constable.downplayed
ASSOCIATED ORGANISATIONS: RETIRED! - Parks and Wildlife Service
Region: Tasmania

Re: Off The Track

Postby Nuts » Sat 09 Jan, 2010 10:04 pm

Yer, I'm not convinced. Perhaps the research provides a good management 'tool' but that document you link seems clearly aimed at limiting the impact (by increasing use) specifically of published, promoted, advertised material (as well I guess of public access sites such as this) . If it hasn't worked and is reduced to hopeful requests then what use is that? If the people its aimed at ignore it then it obviously needs enforcement or a better way (have I said that already?)

Do you have a link to the list of tracks/routes rather than just the few examples given in the classification? Perhaps it will give people a better idea of the types of tracks and routes already (at request) desired to be described as per your example.

( I know I keep mentioning the parks classification (which deals primarily with On The Track situations) but it seems that this needs to be sorted out before there can be a hope of influencing (or in this case limiting the descriptions for) 'Off-Track' use).
Wet and Wild! not 'Wet 'n' Wild'
User avatar
Nuts
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 8520
Joined: Sat 05 Apr, 2008 12:22 pm
Region: Tasmania

Re: Off The Track

Postby Taurë-rana » Sat 09 Jan, 2010 10:16 pm

Having just been into a less visited area and seen how sensitive it is, and realising how quickly it could be permanently damaged, I have decided not to publish my trip details on here. It's a place that I heard about first 20 odd years ago because I did a lot of bushwalking in Tasmania - I'd served my apprenticeship so to speak, and was building up my knowledge about this pastime.

At the risk of copping some flak, I do also have a bit of a proprietorial view of it too - this is my state, my country (heartland, homeland, whatever), and is it so wrong to want some of it to be local knowledge only? If I went to another state, I would be honoured to be told about places that were special and only known to the locals because it would mean that they trusted me enough to look after them. If they didn't want to tell me, why should I come in as an outsider and have access to their special places?

One thing that frustrates me is watching areas that could have some great walking tracks put in being clear felled - the mountains in the NE are a classic example of this, The Blue Tiers, and the Mt Victoria area - these mountains are stunning, or were, and could have had world class walking tracks put in if they weren't trashed.
Peak bagging points: 170ish
Recent walks - Picton, Wylds Crag, Rogoona
User avatar
Taurë-rana
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1031
Joined: Mon 14 Jan, 2008 8:28 pm
Location: Devonport
Region: Tasmania

Re: Off The Track

Postby tastrax » Sun 10 Jan, 2010 8:57 am

Nuts wrote:Do you have a link to the list of tracks/routes rather than just the few examples given in the classification? Perhaps it will give people a better idea of the types of tracks and routes already (at request) desired to be described as per your example.


For the World Heritage Area a full listing of the tracks is in volume 2 of the Track Strategy on this page.

http://www.wyatt-family.com/phil/parks.htm
http://www.wyatt-family.com/phil/World% ... 994%20.pdf

Not sure there is a listing anywhere for the entire state but I am happy to produce one for tracks up to Class 4.
Cheers - Phil

OSM Mapper
User avatar
tastrax
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1938
Joined: Fri 28 Mar, 2008 6:25 pm
Location: What3words - epic.constable.downplayed
ASSOCIATED ORGANISATIONS: RETIRED! - Parks and Wildlife Service
Region: Tasmania

Re: Off The Track

Postby Nuts » Sun 10 Jan, 2010 10:45 am

Thanks Tastrax, I found that last night and was having a look through. I have a hard copy of the statewide list (so imagine it is available somewhere) I imagine that (as the horse has bolted) the list would only really serve to point out the greed of some editors and tour companies...
Wet and Wild! not 'Wet 'n' Wild'
User avatar
Nuts
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 8520
Joined: Sat 05 Apr, 2008 12:22 pm
Region: Tasmania

Re: Off The Track

Postby wander » Sun 10 Jan, 2010 1:24 pm

Nuts, correct, your Jubilee Range query was the last in long line of queries that I have looked at to become interested in the question. Witness my queries about the location of a Huon Pine grove.

All good discussion with some good points and interesting information. Keep it coming.

I understand from a discussion with a Tas Ranger they are able to pick up in the arial pics a trail if 10 people go through. So it does not take much for a trail to form.

Are there more and more folks wandering about than ever before? We reckoned looking at the Huon Trailhead Registration book there would be 100 plus people through the Western Arthurs between Christmas and the 2nd week in January 2010. So if the use of well none tracks is up is there more off track happening?
wander
Phyllocladus aspleniifolius
Phyllocladus aspleniifolius
 
Posts: 770
Joined: Mon 26 Oct, 2009 11:19 am
Region: South Australia
Gender: Male

Re: Off The Track

Postby Michael_Kingston » Sun 10 Jan, 2010 2:27 pm

Hi Wander

We have a thread on off track walking that I started a while ago and you may be interested in looking at. I basically raised the same question as you:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2855
Michael_Kingston
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun 13 Sep, 2009 4:24 pm
Region: Tasmania
Gender: Male

Re: Off The Track

Postby PeterJ » Sun 10 Jan, 2010 4:34 pm

Beeper wrote:...............I suppose it depends on what your thresholds of actual / perceived impacts are. I know people who think that any human impact in an area is an environmental disaster - what a load of BS. What they are really saying is that they want to keep the area untarnished for themselves......


I take issue with you here to a certain extent. As I have been bushwalking for a heck of long time, I have seen the impacts and changes to areas. So, in my case, it is not keeping it untarnished but to keep places from being degraded. You see there are bushwalkers who care for our lovely bush and there are those who really don't give a damn. It doesn't take many of the latter to have an impact. Nowadays I see toilet paper strewn beside tracks and many times now have seen the deposits just lying about. So what happens is that PWS have to harden tracks and put in toilets to protect drinking water; all tough to do with a shrinking budget (well they just got a boost but the recent history is severe financial restraint).
User avatar
PeterJ
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Mon 24 Sep, 2007 5:06 pm
Location: Lenah Valley
Region: Tasmania
Gender: Male

Re: Off The Track

Postby Beeper » Sun 10 Jan, 2010 5:23 pm

My comments were directed to the ideological group that do not want much/any human visitation and will use any argument to justify keeping people out.

To you PeterJ and myself were probably part of the pragmatic group that care for our natural areas but acknowledge that govt has a tough job to protect them particularly when the environment is mostly always at the bottom of the fiscal pecking order.

The original argument in this thread was about whether its a lost cause not publicising details of remote areas given the advent of the web etc. I don't have an answer to that one, other than to say along with Tastrax that very general instructions are acceptable to be published in the abscence of nothing.
Beeper
Atherosperma moschatum
Atherosperma moschatum
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon 16 Mar, 2009 5:53 pm
Region: Tasmania

Next

Return to Tasmania

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests