Separate names with a comma.
We have a vibrant community here conversing about all sorts of non-snow topics such as music, sport, politics and technology. Simply register to reveal all our Après topics.
NOTE: This notice may be closed.
Discussion in 'Backcountry' started by dawooduck, Sep 10, 2015.
They trying to justify it though
The interest in backcountry may be increasing. I know! Let's make it easy to get to and **** up the quality that makes the backcountry attractive. It probably makes sense to some people.
ridiculous that this still needs to be mentioned
meanwhile there are more horses
Bingo was his nameO, what I was referring to in my Brindies post.
Why is the trip up the CP road not acceptable?
Now lets make a route into somewhere away from that road for snow mobile tours. But then you've just created another road and in 10 years time you'll get a call that people need to be able to get into areas that are away from the snowmobile routes. And on it goes.
Are you just further stirring the jocular pot of poo on this luverly spring evening perchance?
It's interesting how threads go to extremes ... No skidoo tours on the main range but what about say ..... Thredbo to Porcupine Rocks .... it's not like you will be disturbing too many BC trekkers out that way as they are all focussed on main range peak bagging.
Swampy High plains with access from Mowamba ? It's all horse n deer up there so could combine with environmental culling tours for jaded US dentists via Vail Resorts tie in
The Charlottes road is too busy and churned up by existing traffic for ski doo or dog tours
I like the Swampy Plains idea! But not the other, thats my territory baby!!!
Speaking of which, will he heading out, maybe that way, tomoz.
Hey, don't poke the bear!
There will be a couple of very disturbed "BC trekkers" out them there ways tomoz!
Don't you have some irritating neighbours you can go home to and annoy by mowing the spring grass on your souped up V8 ride on mower-skidoo!
Bugger, have to work tomorrow.
No signs of tracks at all!
Just found this thread haven't finished reading yet. It reminded me of this doco about what is happening to Cal (USA) State parks. I backed it as a kickstarter, well worth a look.
Dragging this one through from earlier in the thread @CarveMan .
This seems to be common. We've all been OS and seen first hand how other parts of the world do things, often very well relative to the load on that particular region. So we come home and start thinking that it'd be a good system for our alpine areas here. If you spent the majority of your BC career in OZ then you may realise that issues are somewhat different and potentially unnecessary.
I'm not seeing a sudden huge expansion of numbers in the BC. A slight increase in snowkiters but that's about it.
I'm still wary of creating organisations to represent their users in this particular situation. This in itself can (indirectly) be just another way to create opportunities by way of increased member numbers and participation.
I'm somewhat conflicted on the whole, and as someone else mentioned, we all put up trip reports and potentially influence more people to join the fun. I don't have a problem with anyone wanting to spend time in the parks under their own steam and those of us promoting backcountry recreation by way of blogs and social media are partly responsible for any increased load perceived or otherwise.
Being stoked on BC is cool but maybe I just have a problem with the commercial aspect.
I'm happiest when I can put a few bits of gear in a pack and hike out into the peace and quiet of the BC and only ever stumble upon other like minded people.
Last time I was on Mount Jagungal there was a snow mobile track to the summit. Thats a long way to go for training. Some of the locals out that way own sleds im sure.
DJM raises a good point re. Organisations to represent their users. Something most BC fans have shied away from but there sometimes comes a time when this is necessary in order to get your say across . In the Hunter climbing community we have had to form an organisation in order to fight a draconian ban on climbing at our premier area. Govt bodies are not always aware of the Dynamics of public usage in certain areas . This can lead to decision making ( non Gazetted in our case ) without balanced representation. Sometimes you gotta fight for whats right. Probably never get all parties to agree but at least we have a better crack at a Democratic decision.
Like when a draft PoM for the dam cliffs suggested banning swimming! One of the daftest things I'd ever read.
It's the classical problem of the commons: a public resource which is initially selectively under-utilised by a smaller user group comes under pressure when over-utilised, is then inevitably degraded, and either ineffectively regulated or unfairly privatised.... The most sensible approach is probably to extend the resort foot-print to the slack country, tax the resorts for this use, and use the cash raised to deal with ferals and alien vegetation, and then restrict access to the rest of the national parks to non-powered low impact traffic, and expand the no-go reference areas (which top-end adventurers will access 'informally', as we always have done....
I reckon that it's worth looking at the global leasing fees the resorts are charged as a whole.... But then again, at what margins are the operators running in any case? Ever more marginal snow in an ever shortening season in an increasingly limited area under increasingly high demand.... The incentive is to increase commercialisation and turn-over in the short term, hence the growing skidoo traffic. Time to review those resort lease terms. Some parties are still disproportionally raking it in compared to what they invest, and the public purse subsidises them.
Having said that, much backcountry access comes off the resort base or the state-based natural resource use and associated state infrastructure , so it's not a straightforward issue this.
It's when you're in the same country in summer that you see how much damage has already been done over many decades that we're not going to come back from. It looks so much more pristine covered in ever-reduced snow, but who are we fooling?
The state is not just a regulator and enforcer, but it's also a player, so State agencies both represent vested interests (think controversial forestry and grazing access,) as well as a massively under-resourced group of people who are doing their best. The NSW and Victorian situations are a bit different here - NSW a smaller critical, more vulnerable area, all NP. In Vic the larger space and adjacent state forests and their mixed-use management generates a somewhat different dynamic. No easy fixes here.
I can't see any electable state or federal government or the electorate itself being willing to stump up for the true cost of managing the parks - out of sight, out of mind..... till the next fire.
The 10/50 rule has really made its impact. So many trees have disappeared, my local wildlife has disappeared immensely, because their homes in their hollows have now been chainsawed and replaced with trampolines, soccer nets and master-built cubby houses along with the splash pools and spa saunas.
Once upon a time, people went on holidays to experience, trampolines, soccer nets, cubby houses with splash pools and spa saunas.
They now have all of the above in their own backyards!
Then, they have the audacity to, CRY POOR!
Strange analogy but I get what you mean.. I think ?
I'd be fascinated to find out the peppercorn rents the lift operators and other alpine area businesses pay for the use of Crown land. It's a tightly guarded secret but I understand the term peppercorn is an apt metaphor.
Yeh, nah. I'm more confused now than before I read it.
What is 10/50 rule?
And it's an acorn.
I got pepper in my eye the other day. Good fun.
A tree clearing rule crafted for social climbers on Sydney's North Shore and parts of its North West who wanted a view so they could boost their property value and/or their property maintenance costs, never minding the affected neighbourhoods being prized by most of their residents and visitors for extensive mature tree plantings in homes, streets and parklands.
I'm still at a loss as to why people think a place like KNP is under utilised. It's a national park to be kept from expansion and development. Thats the whole idea. We don't have to utilise it.
It's not that tightly guarded, but they also pay a whole heap of other charges and bed rates and stuff which the State uses to claw back fees changes and stuff.
It's like the way Forestry people call big old trees in forests 'over-mature' like senescing trees are some kind of plague to be cut away.
Yes but bed rates are usually paid by lodges, not lift operators except on staff accommodations. There does need to be more transparency where public lands are being used for a private gain.
We, the people, signed these leases in good faith with all parties.
We must stand by the contracts.
Like the Eddie Obeid and Ian MacDonald mining contracts?
them little critters need a place to hang out but they sure get a headache when the "tree house" falls down..
Team Bears get headache when they land on road/track or in camping area...sure need a lot of chain sawing to remove the brutes
nasty muddy guts that stuff our chainsaw chains too!!
Which is why CP is having to take their time.
KT was just a rollover option on a lease.
The latter would also be owned by private equity firms who no doubt are well connected politically.
They had a lease with the option to take up another 50 years. They took it up. It's the most transparent leasing event in the mountains IMO.
KT is owned by Amalgamated Holdings. You can look them up and see the board. Or read the annual report to see the costs and profits from their Thredbo business.
C.Man we need you to sort out the West K
wish you could sort out the West Kiewa Logging Road with your experience....Dungeys Track is a interesting approach to West Kiewa and everybodies hanging out for resumption of service....
Some landslip that's stumped the DSE...Parks have been happy though cos nobody could get thro!!!!
That's for them builder guys
Roads are really expensive for Parks agencies - they are typically absurdly underfunded, and like most agencies have very limited capability to swap funds from one bucket of $$ to another.
maybe Parks top heavy with Managers and in need of skilled plant operators....
KT have rent as a percentage of profit with NPWS. There is a lot of transfer pricing to associated entities going on, so the actual leasing entity makes almost zero profit and pays a minuscule rent. It is an historical throwback to the days before NPWS when the place was run by a park trust with the mission to increase tourism rather than make a buck.
Maybe. It's easier to hire in plant for specific projects.
Speaking of ludicrous road builds.... WTF in the NPWS commissioned and built 5kms of cycle lanes on the Maianbar Road. Lovely road side shoulder marked as cycleway, joined to nothing and right in the middle of nowhere......
Dunno. But often when a road gets upgraded you take the opprtunity to do what you can when you can. It may well fit into a longer term plan to link up other sections, or perhaps it had a terrible crash or incident history and was a priority for some reason.
agreed. the first bikes paths in melbourne were 1km long. look at em now. in the end they link up. in fact its easier to do it as CM says (when you can, design by stealth) rather than as a standalone project that noone wants to pay for