SAP Article - Privatising KNP

Legs Akimbo

Grumblebum
Ski Pass
Mar 3, 1999
71,394
49,287
1,563
Coastal suburban boonies.
This whole business of exclusion is a pretty well repeated position @Legs Akimbo , what's that about?
It's pretty straightforward. I don't think people should be excluded. The park should not be an exclusive playground for an entitled few. This is an example:
It depends if it’s an outdoor amusement park primarily for the paying public’s pleasure or a national park primarily to preserve a unique natural environment with positive minimal impact human interactive appreciation to preserve it for future generations.
If this is your position exclude everyone, like Nadgee or Muogamarra. There is no basis for letting an entitled few in and excluding the rest. Particularly exclude mountain bikers and skiers, although I suspect that in your universe these are OK.

If you are going to let people in you have to accept that there has to be a bit of development to protect the rest. You also have to accept the sad fact that NPWS are woefully underfunded and need to generate income from somewhere. I believe that KNP is the only park that makes a profit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MisterMxyzptlk

Alleve

One of Us
Jun 17, 2019
691
1,438
263
Southern Sydney
The park should not be an exclusive playground for an entitled few... There is no basis for letting an entitled few in and excluding the rest.
You keep talking about the "entitled few". Nobody has said anything about the entitled few. If anything, we're against the entitled few because we are against the helicopters and the "onsen".

This is a pretty simple point you continually fail to understand: we don't want to exclude people. You can claim we do all you like, but outside of your own mindset, it doesn't make it true. Our issue is the amount of development. There needs to be a balance, because if there's not enough development, there are supply/demand issues, and if there's too much development, there's too much damage to the park.

We happen to believe that balance is closer to the present-day iteration of the park than you do. We certainly believe that the SAP goes far too far, and has some devastating implications (in particular with some projects proposed, and the power it gives Barilaro, a man with a reputation and history of not giving a shit about the park). Going on about how we want the park to be luxury only is simply a lie. If the park was for rich people only, I wouldn't be able to go. Why the hell would I want that? And your claim that we want to exclude unfit or disabled people shows that you either didn't read the post it came from, or you intentionally misunderstood it to serve your argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: teletripper

Alleve

One of Us
Jun 17, 2019
691
1,438
263
Southern Sydney
You also have to accept the sad fact that NPWS are woefully underfunded and need to generate income from somewhere. I believe that KNP is the only park that makes a profit.
Theres a pretty easy answer to that. The government funds the national parks more. Crazy idea, I know. I don't think it's as crazy as having Barilaro as deputy premier though.
 

Legs Akimbo

Grumblebum
Ski Pass
Mar 3, 1999
71,394
49,287
1,563
Coastal suburban boonies.
You keep talking about the "entitled few". Nobody has said anything about the entitled few. If anything, we're against the entitled few because we are against the helicopters and the "onsen".

This is a pretty simple point you continually fail to understand: we don't want to exclude people. You can claim we do all you like, but outside of your own mindset, it doesn't make it true. Our issue is the amount of development. There needs to be a balance, because if there's not enough development, there are supply/demand issues, and if there's too much development, there's too much damage to the park.

We happen to believe that balance is closer to the present-day iteration of the park than you do. We certainly believe that the SAP goes far too far, and has some devastating implications (in particular with some projects proposed, and the power it gives Barilaro, a man with a reputation and history of not giving a shit about the park). Going on about how we want the park to be luxury only is simply a lie. If the park was for rich people only, I wouldn't be able to go. Why the hell would I want that? And your claim that we want to exclude unfit or disabled people shows that you either didn't read the post it came from, or you intentionally misunderstood it to serve your argument.
Untele-whippet. Only skinny people.

The proposed developments make access easier. We can't have that, can we?

My point about rich people is that people are being denied their preferred form of access which does no more damage than anyone else's. Why?

Theres a pretty easy answer to that. The government funds the national parks more. Crazy idea, I know. I don't think it's as crazy as having Barilaro as deputy premier though.
Gosh. What a clever plan!
Parks don’t need to “earn” their keep that’s not what they’re there for
No. It's not what they are there for. But it's a cold, hard necessity.

Sometimes I wonder what world people inhabit.
 

parkmonkey

Pool Room
Ski Pass
May 20, 2005
37,355
25,510
1,563
On a wave or mountain face near you.
Untele-whippet. Only skinny people.

The proposed developments make access easier. We can't have that, can we?

My point about rich people is that people are being denied their preferred form of access which does no more damage than anyone else's. Why?


Gosh. What a clever plan!

No. It's not what they are there for. But it's a cold, hard necessity.

Sometimes I wonder what world people inhabit.
What trumpian utopia do you inhabit?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alleve

Untele-whippet

beard stroker
Ski Pass
Jul 13, 2006
20,247
44,945
1,063
60
Burnt Downs, Blue Mtns, 1100M.
Untele-whippet. Only skinny people.

The proposed developments make access easier. We can't have that, can we?

My point about rich people is that people are being denied their preferred form of access which does no more damage than anyone else's. Why?


Gosh. What a clever plan!

No. It's not what they are there for. But it's a cold, hard necessity.

Sometimes I wonder what world people inhabit.
Where did I say skinny or overweight?
I mentioned lazy and slothful and lifestyle choices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alleve
Remove ads with a
Ski Pass

parkmonkey

Pool Room
Ski Pass
May 20, 2005
37,355
25,510
1,563
On a wave or mountain face near you.
This is getting quite bizarre. On what conceivable basis could supporting greater access be called Trumpian?
it is your insistence that they need to earn their keep. If you want to go to Disney land go to Disney land, don’t take anyway what makes them special in the first place, parks are first and foremost for the protection of areas of natural beauty and their biodiversity so they are not exploited and remain for future generations
 

Legs Akimbo

Grumblebum
Ski Pass
Mar 3, 1999
71,394
49,287
1,563
Coastal suburban boonies.
it is your insistence that they need to earn their keep. If you want to go to Disney land go to Disney land, don’t take anyway what makes them special in the first place, parks are first and foremost for the protection of areas of natural beauty and their biodiversity so they are not exploited and remain for future generations
Am I insisting that? In my perfect universe the parks are adequately funded. Now, in the real world...

Do you have some sense of how much park is not included in these proposals? It doesn't even include the Main Range. It is management of an area that is already pretty densely developed (for a national park).
 

Alleve

One of Us
Jun 17, 2019
691
1,438
263
Southern Sydney
This has become seriously weird.
It's a reference to FriendlyJordies, a popular YouTube channel who is currently being sued by Barilaro because he hurt Barilaro's feelings. In his videos, he refers to Barilaro as bruz. It's not a foreign language.
Untele-whippet. Only skinny people.
Like Untele-whippet, I'm not going to continue this. You consistently misquote and take what people have said out of context to push a false narrative, a strawman for you to get upset against. There's no point arguing with you because you refuse to let it be an argument. I'm not sure how you managed to screw this thread up so bad, but congratulations.

And despite your sarcasm, yes, funding the parks is a clever idea. It would be the world we'd be living in if Barilaro and the Nats weren't in power. As parkmonkey said, parks needing to bring in revenue is only a necessity in a world where they are underfunded, and they are underfunded when the Libs and Nats have power.
 

Kletterer

Thredbo Doughnut Tragic
Moderator
Nov 26, 2014
24,590
30,408
1,063
Canberra
How many more times will we see headlines like this ?
1629604237577.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alleve

Legs Akimbo

Grumblebum
Ski Pass
Mar 3, 1999
71,394
49,287
1,563
Coastal suburban boonies.
Why do you feel the need for parks to make money? Libs/nats are cutting their funding, it’s not like parks are a failing business it’s a choice of the government what funding to give them regardless of what money they do or don’t make
Parks have to make money because they are not sufficiently funded.
Like Untele-whippet, I'm not going to continue this. You consistently misquote and take what people have said out of context to push a false narrative, a strawman for you to get upset against. There's no point arguing with you because you refuse to let it be an argument. I'm not sure how you managed to screw this thread up so bad, but congratulations.
You might take this problem up with all the people who have misattributed ideas to me. My proposition remains simple - access to parks is a good thing and should be encouraged. Do you disagree.
And despite your sarcasm, yes, funding the parks is a clever idea. It would be the world we'd be living in if Barilaro and the Nats weren't in power. As parkmonkey said, parks needing to bring in revenue is only a necessity in a world where they are underfunded, and they are underfunded when the Libs and Nats have power.
Parks have been underfunded for decades. If you think that underfunding is confined to Lib/Nat governments you haven't been paying attention.
 

Dropbear

One of Us
Aug 4, 2010
747
610
263
Northern Beaches
*Sits on fence*

Apart from the unruly argument, I think you're both / all right!

Yes, parks need more funding. (This could happen as soon as people vote for better environmental policies. Exhibit A and B: Helen Haines and Zali Steggall.)

But for as long as parks are publicly owned, they don't need to be economically profitable, because they can be socially and environmentally productive.

The problem is that this is under threat from the small government types who want to sell everything off. If we don't want this, then we need to raise a fuss about it.

The same thing goes for Kosciuszko. If it's forced to be super-profitable so that it subsidises all the other parks in NSW, then we shouldn't accept that if we don't agree with this funding strategy and / or we think the alpine environment can't handle the pressure that this strategy places on it.
 

AWJ

One of Us
Ski Pass
Jul 8, 1999
2,094
1,332
363
Canberra
Putting aside the gatekeeper-y nimby's above, i can't see how chopper flights are privatising the park. Is there going to be a heliport at Rawsons? A permanently fenced off area where flights will land? That line of thinking (heli flights = privatisation) is just silly.

But i also can't see how Heli flights (other than for disability groups who otherwise wouldn't ever be able to get up close to Kossie) fit into any of the objects of the NPWS act other than possibly under s 2A(1)(c) - see below:

1629686038283.png

1629686054288.png


So for mine, Heli flights to Kossie are a no (except for people whose disabilities prevent them from otherwise being able to get out there).

With the viewing deck at Porcupine, how many people are currently going there?

Have there been any injuries from people clambering around the rocks?

Is there a level of damage (eg erosion) being caused to the area which could be minimised by building a viewing deck?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alleve

Legs Akimbo

Grumblebum
Ski Pass
Mar 3, 1999
71,394
49,287
1,563
Coastal suburban boonies.
Putting aside the gatekeeper-y nimby's above, i can't see how chopper flights are privatising the park. Is there going to be a heliport at Rawsons? A permanently fenced off area where flights will land? That line of thinking (heli flights = privatisation) is just silly.

But i also can't see how Heli flights (other than for disability groups who otherwise wouldn't ever be able to get up close to Kossie) fit into any of the objects of the NPWS act other than possibly under s 2A(1)(c) - see below:

1629686038283.png

1629686054288.png


So for mine, Heli flights to Kossie are a no (except for people whose disabilities prevent them from otherwise being able to get out there).

With the viewing deck at Porcupine, how many people are currently going there?

Have there been any injuries from people clambering around the rocks?

Is there a level of damage (eg erosion) being caused to the area which could be minimised by building a viewing deck?
The iconic track will go close to Porcupine Rocks. It will (presumably) get a lot more visitation and hardened access makes sense. And, having scrambled around the Rocks in winter, if there have been no accidents it would be a miracle.

And, as far as I know, the heli flights are access to resorts, not "to Kossie".
 

Alleve

One of Us
Jun 17, 2019
691
1,438
263
Southern Sydney
Putting aside the gatekeeper-y nimby's above, i can't see how chopper flights are privatising the park. Is there going to be a heliport at Rawsons? A permanently fenced off area where flights will land? That line of thinking (heli flights = privatisation) is just silly.

But i also can't see how Heli flights (other than for disability groups who otherwise wouldn't ever be able to get up close to Kossie) fit into any of the objects of the NPWS act other than possibly under s 2A(1)(c) - see below:

1629686038283.png

1629686054288.png


So for mine, Heli flights to Kossie are a no (except for people whose disabilities prevent them from otherwise being able to get out there).

With the viewing deck at Porcupine, how many people are currently going there?

Have there been any injuries from people clambering around the rocks?

Is there a level of damage (eg erosion) being caused to the area which could be minimised by building a viewing deck?
My issue with the helicopter flights is not that they're privatising the park, but rather they are loud and unsightly, ruining the experience for most people while (most of the time) only serving a privileged few who don't need them. Imo if they want to increase transport, helicopters are entirely the wrong way to go about it
 

Bogongpeaks

First Runs
Aug 23, 2021
3
6
3
The iconic track will go close to Porcupine Rocks. It will (presumably) get a lot more visitation and hardened access makes sense. And, having scrambled around the Rocks in winter, if there have been no accidents it would be a miracle.

And, as far as I know, the heli flights are access to resorts, not "to Kossie".
This disgraceful viewing deck at Porcupine Rocks will attract a large number of visitors who will walk along the shortest route from Perisher Gap to Porcupine Rocks. This informal track traverses a sensitive subalpine wet bog at Wheatley Gap and is unsuitable for a large number of people. Vegetation does not have an opportunity to recover outside of the walking season because it is covered in snow.

The NPWS walking tracks plan notes the current footpad at Porcupine Rocks is “reasonably sustainable".
 

Chookfooter

Cranky Curmudgeon
Ski Pass
May 11, 2020
2,003
3,888
363
There are no restrictions on Helicopters flying over the park now, only landing. If you are here in summer it can be like living under the flight path in Sydney sometimes with the Parks doing aerial shooting and weed spraying, contractors carting building materials, sightseeing tours etc. No real changes under the SAP, I can't see too many people shelling out for a chopper ride to the resort, particularly Charlotte Pass. Maybe 1 or 2 flights a day, there are sometimes that many for medevacs in a busy season.
 

Legs Akimbo

Grumblebum
Ski Pass
Mar 3, 1999
71,394
49,287
1,563
Coastal suburban boonies.
This disgraceful viewing deck at Porcupine Rocks will attract a large number of visitors who will walk along the shortest route from Perisher Gap to Porcupine Rocks. This informal track traverses a sensitive subalpine wet bog at Wheatley Gap and is unsuitable for a large number of people. Vegetation does not have an opportunity to recover outside of the walking season because it is covered in snow.

The NPWS walking tracks plan notes the current footpad at Porcupine Rocks is “reasonably sustainable".
Best to make a raised walkway, or whatever form the iconic walk takes in the locale.
 

Dropbear

One of Us
Aug 4, 2010
747
610
263
Northern Beaches
Putting aside the gatekeeper-y nimby's above, i can't see how chopper flights are privatising the park. Is there going to be a heliport at Rawsons? A permanently fenced off area where flights will land? That line of thinking (heli flights = privatisation) is just silly.

But i also can't see how Heli flights (other than for disability groups who otherwise wouldn't ever be able to get up close to Kossie) fit into any of the objects of the NPWS act other than possibly under s 2A(1)(c) - see below:

1629686038283.png

1629686054288.png


So for mine, Heli flights to Kossie are a no (except for people whose disabilities prevent them from otherwise being able to get out there).

With the viewing deck at Porcupine, how many people are currently going there?

Have there been any injuries from people clambering around the rocks?

Is there a level of damage (eg erosion) being caused to the area which could be minimised by building a viewing deck?

They've stated that the commercial helicopter flights are for commuting into the resorts, so I don't think they're proposing to fly to the summit.

Good pick up about the commercial helicopter flights being incompatible with the parks act. I wonder if there's a court case challenge in that?

Commercial helicopter flights also incompatible with the SAP's own objectives, including:
Environmental Resilience
  • Improve climate resilience and encourage carbon negative operations
  • Become a national leader in environmental resilience and sustainability with investment in renewable energies and green infrastructure
Transport and Connectivity
  • Enable equitable and efficient access arrangements that prioritise sustainable mass transport modes and intelligent transport systems to travel safety between Jindabyne and Kosciuszko National Park
Source: SAP Draft Master Plan

I don't mind seeing (and hearing) helicopters flying over for park management and maintenance purposes. For example, flying in materials for the Iconic Walk.

But seeing choppers flying back and forth for people to pay for something that isn't essential and environmentally sustainable isn't right. Everything else about the way the mountains are managed (such as limited use of skidoos) is that the alps are for quiet enjoyment.
 

Dropbear

One of Us
Aug 4, 2010
747
610
263
Northern Beaches
Upon further reflection, maybe the fancy viewing deck at Porcupine Rocks is so that we can all get a better view of all the commercial chopper flights going past?

:out:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alleve

Ian D

Pool Room
Staff member
Administrator
Mar 14, 1995
47,266
13,969
1,515
Newcastle
ski.com.au
I’m out of here.
No point engaging with someone who misquotes to manipulate their opinion.

I think his opinion is quite clear and clearly stated. It is others who are manipulating what he is saying.

Elitism doesn't relate to wealthy people, it relates to "only people who can walk in and carry all their stuff" type elitism.

This is defended by "protecting". Well if you want to truly protect then ban everyone, even those that walk. Especially those that mountain bike and ski.

If not you are being an elitist. "Only these type of people can access the park".

Again, nothing to do with money. About access for all.

Downside is there will be limited development in restricted areas. Like there currently is - look at the ski resorts, dams and roads already through the park. Just limit it and control it to provide a revenue stream that can then be spent on maintaining all aspects of the park.

So no I don't see him manipulating anyone's words. I do see people misrepresenting what he is trying to say however as it doesn't align with their world view.
 

Myazma

One of Us
Ski Pass
May 10, 2009
3,990
8,264
363
Jindi
We watched a C130 stooge up Kosi way last Thursday. We heard it (pretty recognisable) and had to search the sky for it.

They do not do this often and their flight lines are pretty tidy these days. I do not have an issue with it at the current level.

DSC00363.JPG


DSC00364.JPG
2 Hercs did a low flyover of the lake and then headed up towards Thredbo 2 weeks ago, practice for Kabul approach maybe
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alleve and skifree

Legs Akimbo

Grumblebum
Ski Pass
Mar 3, 1999
71,394
49,287
1,563
Coastal suburban boonies.
I don't mind seeing (and hearing) helicopters flying over for park management and maintenance purposes. For example, flying in materials for the Iconic Walk.

But seeing choppers flying back and forth for people to pay for something that isn't essential and environmentally sustainable isn't right. Everything else about the way the mountains are managed (such as limited use of skidoos) is that the alps are for quiet enjoyment.
So the noise is not the problem. The problem must be something else.
 

Dropbear

One of Us
Aug 4, 2010
747
610
263
Northern Beaches
Elitism doesn't relate to wealthy people, it relates to "only people who can walk in and carry all their stuff" type elitism.
If not you are being an elitist. "Only these type of people can access the park".

It's not elitism to insist that everyone is welcome in the park, as long as their use of the park doesn't negatively impact on other people using the park.

This is defended by "protecting". Well if you want to truly protect then ban everyone, even those that walk. Especially those that mountain bike and ski.

This is a straw man. Nobody is suggesting locking up the park.

Besides, the inevitable endpoint of locking up parks for their "protection" would be that over time, the population would lose their collective appreciation for how beautiful natual places are. If people were to stop seeing the need to have parks, the parks act would be abolished and the land could be mined, developed, or otherwise exploited.

Downside is there will be limited development in restricted areas. Like there currently is - look at the ski resorts, dams and roads already through the park. Just limit it and control it to provide a revenue stream that can then be spent on maintaining all aspects of the park.

Encouraging people to use the park and limit their impact is a good thing. The question that everybody is debating is what impacts are acceptable, and what are not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alleve

Legs Akimbo

Grumblebum
Ski Pass
Mar 3, 1999
71,394
49,287
1,563
Coastal suburban boonies.
No, the noise from commercial helicopters would be a big problem. So would the carbon emissions, which, under our current system, would be entirely a public cost even though the benefit of the flights would be private.
Do commercial helicopters make different noises? That's what I like about this place. J learn stuff all the time.
 

Dropbear

One of Us
Aug 4, 2010
747
610
263
Northern Beaches
Do commercial helicopters make different noises? That's what I like about this place. J learn stuff all the time.

Now you're just trolling.

But the logic is simple:

Management and maintenance flights are publicly funded and they are done for the public benefit - maintaining (or daresay enhancing) the quality of the national park.

Commercial flights have the same noise and environmental impacts, but all their benefits are private and all their negative impacts are public.
 

Telezacski

A Local
Ski Pass
Mar 19, 2010
7,778
15,361
563
It's pretty straightforward. I don't think people should be excluded. The park should not be an exclusive playground for an entitled few. This is an example:

If this is your position exclude everyone, like Nadgee or Muogamarra. There is no basis for letting an entitled few in and excluding the rest. Particularly exclude mountain bikers and skiers, although I suspect that in your universe these are OK.

If you are going to let people in you have to accept that there has to be a bit of development to protect the rest. You also have to accept the sad fact that NPWS are woefully underfunded and need to generate income from somewhere. I believe that KNP is the only park that makes a profit.
Since when was Nadgee exclusive? I’ve hiked Nadgee from Mallacoota to Wanboin, yes it requires a permit but this is simply to control numbers in the same way as the overland track.

Outside of the ski areas have you been to any of the areas in question, which are due for careless redevelopment?

The suggestions around Currango and Yarrangobilly caves are completely outside the fabric and cultural significance of the sites.

ask the question if Barilaro wanted reasonable discussion on this why would he limit the responses to 100 words? Why wouldn’t he seek comment from those who wrote the previous plan of management for Kosciusko? I know for a fact those who wrote the previous plan are all opposed to the proposed changes and have submitted documents directly to Barilaro.

national parks users aren’t elitist as you suggest but I would argue the privatisation of the parks will make the parks for the elitist.
 

Legs Akimbo

Grumblebum
Ski Pass
Mar 3, 1999
71,394
49,287
1,563
Coastal suburban boonies.
Now you're just trolling.

But the logic is simple:

Management and maintenance flights are publicly funded and they are done for the public benefit - maintaining (or daresay enhancing?) the quality of the national park.

Commercial flights have the same noise and environmental impacts, but all their benefits are private and all their negative impacts are public.
So it's not the noise. It's that you are not in the helicopter. Got it.
 

Legs Akimbo

Grumblebum
Ski Pass
Mar 3, 1999
71,394
49,287
1,563
Coastal suburban boonies.
Since when was Nadgee exclusive? I’ve hiked Nadgee from Mallacoota to Wanboin, yes it requires a permit but this is simply to control numbers in the same way as the overland track.

Outside of the ski areas have you been to any of the areas in question, which are due for careless redevelopment?

The suggestions around Currango and Yarrangobilly caves are completely outside the fabric and cultural significance of the sites.

ask the question if Barilaro wanted reasonable discussion on this why would he limit the responses to 100 words? Why wouldn’t he seek comment from those who wrote the previous plan of management for Kosciusko? I know for a fact those who wrote the previous plan are all opposed to the proposed changes and have submitted documents directly to Barilaro.

national parks users aren’t elitist as you suggest but I would argue the privatisation of the parks will make the parks for the elitist.
I've strolled the odd bit of the park. I think I know it, at least a bit.

I've also been to Nadgee. Surely you're not proposing a permit system for KNP?
 

Ian D

Pool Room
Staff member
Administrator
Mar 14, 1995
47,266
13,969
1,515
Newcastle
ski.com.au
It's not elitism to insist that everyone is welcome in the park, as long as their use of the park doesn't negatively impact on other people using the park.

Who makes that decision?

Does a mountain biker negatively impact a walker? I know my dad thinks bikes should not be allowed on shared paths as they are a menace!

Elitism is "if it doesn't annoy me then it is OK".

Encouraging people to use the park and limit their impact is a good thing. The question that everybody is debating is what impacts are acceptable, and what are not.

Indeed it is what people are discussing. Is cutting down a glade of trees to open a ski run acceptable?

Then there are those brumbies ....
 
  • Like
Reactions: MisterMxyzptlk

Telezacski

A Local
Ski Pass
Mar 19, 2010
7,778
15,361
563
I've strolled the odd bit of the park. I think I know it, at least a bit.

I've also been to Nadgee. Surely you're not proposing a permit system for KNP?
Not at all but I’m also not advocating for what is a reasonably cheap excursion into the park at say Yarrangobilly into a five star exclusive getaway. Which is what Barilaro is.

I’m also not advocating for the last complete homestead in the park which has been painstakingly preserved to be turned into a modern holiday stay.

what your arguing for and supporting will lock many users out of the park.
 

Untele-whippet

beard stroker
Ski Pass
Jul 13, 2006
20,247
44,945
1,063
60
Burnt Downs, Blue Mtns, 1100M.
I think his opinion is quite clear and clearly stated. It is others who are manipulating what he is saying.

Elitism doesn't relate to wealthy people, it relates to "only people who can walk in and carry all their stuff" type elitism.

This is defended by "protecting". Well if you want to truly protect then ban everyone, even those that walk. Especially those that mountain bike and ski.

If not you are being an elitist. "Only these type of people can access the park".

Again, nothing to do with money. About access for all.

Downside is there will be limited development in restricted areas. Like there currently is - look at the ski resorts, dams and roads already through the park. Just limit it and control it to provide a revenue stream that can then be spent on maintaining all aspects of the park.

So no I don't see him manipulating anyone's words. I do see people misrepresenting what he is trying to say however as it doesn't align with their world view.
My beef was with him misquoting me saying I mentioned “skinny” people.
He does like to “play” with peoples words and provoke them.
HAES
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alleve

Alleve

One of Us
Jun 17, 2019
691
1,438
263
Southern Sydney
So it's not the noise. It's that you are not in the helicopter. Got it.
I'm struggling to understand how you haven't got it because Dropbear put it about as simply as it can be put, and you've still managed to somehow misunderstand it.

Management flights help everyone and impact everyone. On balance, they are good.

Commercial flights help a few, but impact everyone. On balance, they are bad.

The noise is an impact. It's acceptable when it's offset by public gain. It's not acceptable when the public gets nothing, and has to deal with the impact regardless.

Its got nothing to do with who's in the helicopter. Stop trying to manipulate what other people have said. If you're going to argue against someone, argue against what they've actually said.
 

Legs Akimbo

Grumblebum
Ski Pass
Mar 3, 1999
71,394
49,287
1,563
Coastal suburban boonies.
Not at all but I’m also not advocating for what is a reasonably cheap excursion into the park at say Yarrangobilly into a five star exclusive getaway. Which is what Barilaro is.

I’m also not advocating for the last complete homestead in the park which has been painstakingly preserved to be turned into a modern holiday stay.

what your arguing for and supporting will lock many users out of the park.
But if someone is mad enough to pay for a 5 star getaway why shouldn't they? Provided the great unwashed can still go down the path for a dip in the pool. After all, Yarrangobilly started life as a guest house. I don't subscribe to the theory that visiting a national park must be a character building experience.

Who will be "locked out of the park"? How?
 
Remove ads with a
Ski Pass

Log in

or Log in using
Remove ads with a
Ski Pass