Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Topic Date User

Grampians Access 2019 7-Mar-2019 At 7:36:10 PM Tori_GMAC

Message

On 7-Mar-2019 f_abe wrote:
>The benefits of a more aggressive, private sector response to parks come
>in both economics and education. “If people don’t see the beauty of nature
>then they’re not going to care about it,” he said. “And if they’re not
>going to care about it, they’re not going to protect (it).’’
>
>I work in the government sector.
>I get how it works.
>An organisation supports an activity by helping construct an alternative
>access track to a place of recreation to avoid conflict with aboriginal
>heritage and ensure its long term viability (i.e. Gallery track that avoids
>the cave with artwork that I should know the name of cos I’ve walked past
>it a hundred time but can’t remember).
>Then it gets memo from someone who has to justify their position.
>This place of recreational activity is suddenly then banned by a knee
>jerk reaction to an event that took place many miles away because it happens
>to be nearest to the red circle they hastily drew on a map so their immediate
>superior can’t criticise them for not justifying their position.
>To show it’s not a knee jerk reaction they draw a heap of red circles
>on their map and choose 8 at random to show they’re being fair and reasonable
>before they colour in the rest of their map in red.
>The supervisor then passes this on to justify their position that they
>can justify the position of the people under them so they can justify their
>higher position and pay.
>This person then re words whatever the justification is so the CEO can
>justify to the public why their department is so justifiable.
>Somewhere along the line the original justification proved to be a little
>vague, so someone has the bright idea to raise the issue that was raised
>in 2003 but at the time effectively endorsed the recreational activity
>by publicly stating that a certain recreational activity was allowed despite
>the apparent grey area of being a banned activity. Lists were published
>stating the recreational activity was allowed following devastating fires
>and floods.
>Everyone was happy back then.
>But then someone received a memo.
>In the meantime, 4wd’ers continue to plough up tracks, foreigners continue
>to litter their way up well made paths, often holding onto large railings
>that in no way compromise the beauty of the park. Aboriginal heritage is
>conveniently packaged in the “how quaint are those handprints, where do
>I buy a photo” behind iron cages, and paid glamping is seen as a much better
>way to protect the environmental and cultural heritage of the Grampians
>than people who might actually have a connection to the pace.
>And I’m left to ponder the fact that the years (literally) I’ve spent
>soaking up the magic of the place are in fact completely worthless because…well…I
>don’t pay enough for them to be valid.
>

Thankyou for posting this, it is on point.

I have just had a read of the Grampians Tourism 2016-2020 strategic marketing plan : https://grampianstourism.com.au/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/11/2016-20-Grampians-Tourism-Strategic-Plan-FINAL-PRINT.pdf. It's all about the mighty $$$ and in an ALT-F there isn't a single mention of climbing through the entire document.

A key partnership outlined in this document is with Parks Victoria, essentially an arm of the State Government.

*shrugs*

I'm struggling to understand who benefits from getting rid of climbers from the Grampians. The marketing plan is all about spend per stay per person . . . perhaps there is a perception that having climbers [a low paying user group] removed from the area will enrich the statistical data pool and get someone a promotion?