Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

The Pines Campground at Araps - What's happening!

gfdonc

14-Feb-2012
11:34:28 AM

On 14/02/2012 kieranl wrote:
>As opposed to the non-locals who don't seem to have grown and provided
>plants for the pines. [snip].

Apologies if I touched a nerve. The comment was meant in a lighter-hearted manner than it may have sounded.

Nevertheless, I do feel the broader community of users didn't get a fair say in the Pines redevelopment. While I'd be one of last people to advocate replanting pinus radiata I would make the point that the Pines has been, and should always be, primarily a campground rather than a botanical showcase.
Those trees met the need very well for a long time, and I hope they're being replaced with something equally functional.


Eduardo Slabofvic

14-Feb-2012
11:42:12 AM

On 14/02/2012 gfdonc wrote:
> the Pines redevelopment.

go read HRCC's Tourism master Plan that was on public exhibition of the christmas period, or Tourism Victoria's stuff on the following links

http://www.tourism.vic.gov.au/images/stories/Documents/StrategiesandPlans/RMDP-Grampians-2010-2011.pdf

or

http://www.tourism.vic.gov.au/images/stories/Documents/StrategiesandPlans/Regional-Tourism-Action-Plan-2009-2012.pdf

Quibbling over the genus and species of a few trees is insignificant when compared to having half the camp ground closed

White Gold

14-Feb-2012
12:26:02 PM

On 13/02/2012 kieranl wrote:

>*post-edit* "money could be better spent on..." a person donated the plants.

Bugger! So there is no need for me to pay for camping in the pines then....You should've said this earlier kieranle :/

Mike Bee

15-Feb-2012
9:03:57 AM

I only manage to get to Araps about once a month, but I popped past yesterday on the way home from the Gramps and the place looks like a bombsite.

I appreciate the sentiment of having native trees in the campsite, but I'm a practical person, and at the end of the day, I don't care what trees are around me when I camp, as long as they are functional. This means that the trees don't drop limbs on me (Pines are better than Gums), offer good shade (either will work, though it will be a while before replacement trees offer any such benefits) and can deal with tarps, hammocks and slacklines being strung up between them (Pines are better for this generally). More the point, the pines are there already, whereas whatever we're going to replace them with will be decades away from being functional to the same extent as the current Pines.

As the saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

kieranl

15-Feb-2012
9:16:31 AM

On 15/02/2012 Mike Bee wrote:
>As the saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
As Stealth and, possibly Tracey, indicated earlier, the trees had been assessed as unsafe by an arborist. As they're in designated picnic and camping areas they would have to be removed once that assessment was made. With the park's overstretched budget they wouldn't be removed unless they really had to be.

Access T CliffCare

15-Feb-2012
9:42:34 AM

On 15/02/2012 kieranl wrote:
>On 15/02/2012 Mike Bee wrote:
>>As the saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
>As Stealth and, possibly Tracey, indicated earlier, the trees had been
>assessed as unsafe by an arborist. As they're in designated picnic and
>camping areas they would have to be removed once that assessment was made.
>With the park's overstretched budget they wouldn't be removed unless they
>really had to be.

Correct Kieran. The word maintenance that I used in my original post was, an umbrella word, to cover the work that was being done without having to describe in detail the whole process. (Sometimes the time I have to make a post is very limited due to my other work commitments) The removal of the old pine trees is an ongoing process which are being assessed by arborists as they become old and more dangerous. ie it falls into the maintenance of the park. Those trees in the visitor and camping areas are required to be assessed and removed/trimmed accordingly. So in respect of the old pine trees - they are broke and they are being fixed.
Replacement vegetation is another matter aside from this.
Cheers,
Tracey

post edit:
>On 13/2/12 One Day Hero said
>"maintenance".......pffffff. Look, I'm not weighing in on whether it was neccessary to kill >those trees or not, but c'mon, knocking down and chopping into little pieces is not >"maintenance"!
I'm still trying to get what you mean by this......so the best way of removing those huge arse trees out of the campground would be to drag them out in huge pieces??

Old_Man

15-Feb-2012
2:25:46 PM

Everyone has strong feelings about the Pines, and that says something obvious about their attractiveness. They'd almost qualify for a heritage listing. The number of exotic self-sown pines in the Wimmera is very small, after many decades; eg have a look from Plantation Crag in the Gramps. A weed is only a plant growing in the wrong place. In these hard times, mature trees shouldn't be removed without very good reason; they do take a long time to replace. In the Youies some years back, a mature, healthy pine near the Turntable car park, giving great shade for the bbq spot, was chopped out and not replaced - not even by boneseed. We also know something about 'maintenance' culling at the Pines:- in 1992 the red flowering gum in the top RH corner was cut down for no good reason (see Wild editorial). Radiata pines are excellent for camp grounds, they're hardy and keep weeds down; and they don't burn well either! Leave 'em alone.

kieranl

15-Feb-2012
2:45:26 PM

On 15/02/2012 Old_Man wrote:
> We also know something about
>'maintenance' culling at the Pines:- in 1992 the red flowering gum in the
>top RH corner was cut down for no good reason (see Wild editorial).

Jerry, I don't think that's correct. It was cut back, maybe about that time, but wasn't cut down. It died just a few years ago during the drought.

> Radiata pines are excellent for camp grounds, they're hardy and keep weeds down;
>and they don't burn well either! Leave 'em alone.

As said in other posts, trees are only being cut down because they've been identified as dangerous, not because they're non-native.

lacto

15-Feb-2012
2:55:12 PM

>>
>As opposed to the non-locals who don't seem to have grown and provided
>plants for the pines. I wasn't involved in the pines stuff but perhaps
>all us locals should just f- off and leave you guys to it if that's the
>attitude. I thought you'd know better Steve. This sort of division of people
>(locals/non-locals, long-stayers/weekenders, trad/sport/boulderers) has
>got up my nose for decades.

Kieranl whats this calling yourself a local - this is the country and unless your family selected ,or on the war memorial (Ist rather than 2nd ) then you are just a new arrival NOT a local .

ZERO

15-Feb-2012
3:15:18 PM

A couple of comments have mentioned DSE, who have absolutely ZERO management of the Pines and Arapiles.
The camp is managed by Parks Victoria, that quasi department that has a budget akin to the Greek debt crisis.
For all those whingers, whether from Natimuk or further afield, there is a donation box at the toilet block. All money here goes back into Arapiles.
Contribute labour, cash, ideas, letters to outr elected member of Parliament, but quit the pety slagging off of people who give a SH*T and actually do something about it.

kieranl

15-Feb-2012
4:24:09 PM

On 15/02/2012 lacto wrote:
>Kieranl whats this calling yourself a local - this is the country and
>unless your family selected ,or on the war memorial (Ist rather than 2nd
>) then you are just a new arrival NOT a local .
Coming from much deeper in the Mallee, I regard Natimuk residents as city-folk.

RNM

15-Feb-2012
5:50:41 PM

Hi Kieran.

Never met you before, to the best of my knowledge, but I think we spied you hoping out of your white patrol the other day to check for weeds near Dec crag.

After you were done, you hoped back in your car and headed off. You didn't appear to be climbing, just there to check up on the land.

Just want to say thanks heaps for the tireless dedication to Araps. I love the place to bits, but am really just a weekend warrior. I've been climbing at Araps for over 12 years, but when I visit I want to get on and enjoy the climbing and the environment. I rarely spend time giving back to the place.

It's great to know that someone is looking over Arapiles, and cares enough to take the time for things as painstaking and tedious as eradicating and monitoring invasive weeds.

Thanks to yourself, Lou, and others who are making a difference.

Mike

widewetandslippery

15-Feb-2012
6:04:12 PM

Build a shed, charge and enforce tent camping, give local property owners council license to allow cmping, nat parks/council sub portaloos in such spots. Problem solved. There's some jousting sticks on ebay

tskinner

15-Feb-2012
6:13:57 PM


Miguel75

15-Feb-2012
6:29:11 PM

On 15/02/2012 widewetandslippery wrote:
>...There's some jousting sticks on ebay.

If we're getting all medieval I want a bombyknocker (aka mace)


Doug

15-Feb-2012
10:23:45 PM

On 15/02/2012 Miguel75 wrote:

>If we're getting all medieval I want a bombyknocker (aka mace)

A couple of those great catapult thingies to lob flaming, oil-covered rotten sheep onto late night noisy drunks who won't shut up would be good too - far better than a hammer ... ;-)

One Day Hero

16-Feb-2012
1:59:20 AM

On 15/02/2012 access t wrote:
>I'm still trying to get what you mean by this......so the best way of
>removing those huge arse trees out of the campground would be to drag them
>out in huge pieces??

Well...........the campground is rapidly becoming less pleasant and more fuched. Big, tall, shady trees in campgrounds are nice. The big, tall, shady trees are being chopped into little bits and replaced with a couple of straggly little waist high sticks whose chances of survival seem marginal, and even if they do grow tall enough to provide shade it'll take so long that I'll be a washed-up farce of an ex-climber before it happens.

Bare, treeless campgrounds suck shit! Seeing as they're planning to do a number on all the pines, it might be smart to get some fast growing, tough trees in the ground asap in order to minimise the number of decades that 'the pines' will be a barren arsehole of a place.......don't you think?

None of this is your fault, but being all "oh, never mind your pretty heads about it, its just routine maintainance, it'll all be peachy in a day or two"...........seems a little naive and/or demeaning

If there's some scope for climbers to do a bit of planting, let me know. I'll try to get down and help.

ZERO

16-Feb-2012
10:34:21 AM

On 15/02/2012 widewetandslippery wrote:
>Build a shed, charge and enforce tent camping, give local property owners
>council license to allow cmping, nat parks/council sub portaloos in such
>spots. Problem solved.

Oh yes it is such an easy fix.
No point enforcing tent camping as it does not go back into park upkeep.
So you want to have everyone camp out in a barren treeless sheep paddock?
For a private landowner to provide camping they would have to invest heavily in proper toilets, shower blocks etc, have hefty liability insurance and all the trappings of any other commercial campground.
How much are you willing to pay for all this?
$10-15 per person per night?
Maybe even more.

16-Feb-2012
12:20:58 PM

On 15/02/2012 kieranl wrote:

>Coming from much deeper in the Mallee, I regard Natimuk residents as city-folk.

Spoken like a true son of Lalbert.

Access T CliffCare

16-Feb-2012
1:03:16 PM

On 16/02/2012 One Day Hero wrote:
>On 15/02/2012 access t wrote:
>>I'm still trying to get what you mean by this......so the best way of
>>removing those huge arse trees out of the campground would be to drag
>them
>>out in huge pieces??
>
>Well...........the campground is rapidly becoming less pleasant and more
>fuched. Big, tall, shady trees in campgrounds are nice. The big, tall,
>shady trees are being chopped into little bits and replaced with a couple
>of straggly little waist high sticks whose chances of survival seem marginal,
>and even if they do grow tall enough to provide shade it'll take so long
>that I'll be a washed-up farce of an ex-climber before it happens.
>
>Bare, treeless campgrounds suck shit! Seeing as they're planning to do
>a number on all the pines, it might be smart to get some fast growing,
>tough trees in the ground asap in order to minimise the number of decades
>that 'the pines' will be a barren arsehole of a place.......don't you think?
>
>None of this is your fault, but being all "oh, never mind your pretty
>heads about it, its just routine maintainance, it'll all be peachy in a
>day or two"...........seems a little naive and/or demeaning
>
>If there's some scope for climbers to do a bit of planting, let me know.
>I'll try to get down and help.

Yep, bare, treeless campgrounds suck shit. Totally agree. What I was querying, and possibly I was misunderstanding was your comment - quoted in full -
>maintenance".......pffffff. Look, I'm not weighing in on whether it was neccessary to kill those trees or >not, but c'mon, knocking down and chopping into little pieces is not "maintenance"!
As I noted, the revegation conversation is another conversation and one that will take place and also take on board all that has been suggested. Which is great.
With regards to my supply of information being demeaning - my approach has never been one of aggression - and to be honest, my original thought was possibly your idea of how I might speak or think ie "never mind your pretty heads and it will all be peachy" was slightly demeaning. - but then I thought better of it and decided it was comment bait.....

There have been many plantings at Araps, climbers are always invited and will be for the next ones. Thanks for your offer and I will certainly drop you a line when the time comes

Cheers,

Tracey

There are 71 messages in this topic.