I feel simple to Legs about the backcountry / outdoor community in general. It can be extremely elitist and gatekeeper-y.
SAP Article - Privatising KNP
- Thread starter Dropbear
- Start date
-
Join the conversation with a better online community
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.
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.
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.
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.
Parks don’t need to “earn” their keep that’s not what they’re there for
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.
This is getting quite bizarre. On what conceivable basis could supporting greater access be called Trumpian?
Oh. Well that makes a difference.
I’m out of here.
No point engaging with someone who misquotes to manipulate their opinion.
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).
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
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.
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.
Parks have to make money because they are not sufficiently funded.
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.
Parks have been underfunded for decades. If you think that underfunding is confined to Lib/Nat governments you haven't been paying attention.
Legs keep telling yourself parks are business and need to make money or what’s the point of them it lib/nats way
*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.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:
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.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:
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?
And, as far as I know, the heli flights are access to resorts, not "to Kossie".
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 itPutting 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:
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?
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".
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.
Best to make a raised walkway, or whatever form the iconic walk takes in the locale.
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:
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:
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.
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.
2 Hercs did a low flyover of the lake and then headed up towards Thredbo 2 weeks ago, practice for Kabul approach maybeWe 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No one is excluded from undeveloped wilderness, no one.
Developed wilderness is where the exclusion process starts.
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?
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".
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 ....
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.
My beef was with him misquoting me saying I mentioned “skinny” people.
He does like to “play” with peoples words and provoke them.
HAES
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.
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?
