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!

Access T CliffCare

16-Feb-2012
1:05:41 PM

On 14/02/2012 Eduardo Slabofvic. wrote:
>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-
>010-2011.pdf
>
>or
>
>http://www.tourism.vic.gov.au/images/stories/Documents/StrategiesandPlans/Regional-Touris
>-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

Oh, and do check this out. As they say knowledge is power

dalai

16-Feb-2012
1:19:40 PM

On 16/02/2012 One Day Hero wrote:
>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.

You are already a grumpy old climber with the illusion you can get fit for autumn with beer and pizza. So not sure of any species that grow to being large trees in a year or two... ;-)

One Day Hero

16-Feb-2012
1:29:36 PM

Exactly!

Bamboo?

Old_Man

16-Feb-2012
5:17:03 PM

Kieran, I was there on the day; on the scene in time to see them finish it off. The master was showing his apprentices how.
As for the experts knowing what they're on about, that's a tricky one. Gravity will have its way with all trees eventually, and on average, dead ones sooner than live (I'm guessing). As a statistician you'd know about false +ves (trees designated dangeroos that aren't) and false -ves (those not so designated that fall on your tent). My impression post-Grampians fires was that the ratio of false / all +ves was absurdly high; I couldn't actually sit under them long enough to get proof, before they were all sawn down. But it's what you'd expect, given that DSE hires the experts to say which are unsafe; they naturally tilt their judgement to minimise getting caught out.


mattwho

20-Nov-2014
11:34:22 AM

So I was camping in the Gums recently and thought it might be worthwile bumping this thread.

It's pretty dry and dusty at the moment, I know summer is approaching but I'm pretty sure its getting worse. There are a few new plantings down the Pines end of the Gums but nothing in the middle portion. The Gums would be great with a few big shady trees in the middle of it.

Are there any plans in the pipeline? Definetely be up for helping out to get something in here.

As contentious as it seems to be surely radiata pines would be the go, fast growing, shady, great for rigging to. Although it is of course called 'The Gums'.

maelgwn

20-Nov-2014
1:28:40 PM

I think it just worse this year because August and September were fairly dry - so all the grass died off earlier than usual and it is now dustier than usual.

But I agree it would be great to see more trees planted and more of an effort to encourage the existing trees to grow. (And an effort by campers to use existing fire rings and keep the grasses alive a bit longer by camper on the already dead grass/dirt instead of remaining grasses...)


ajfclark

20-Nov-2014
2:09:18 PM

It's been pretty light on for rainfall in Horsham this year. Here's each month against the average:

Jan 16/29
Feb 4/26
Mar 13/14
Apr 51/26
May 32/31
Jun 44/40
Jul 35/43
Aug 9.8/41 (lowest in 15 years)
Sep 15/39
Oct 5/35
Nov 9/32

Overall 237/359, 110 days/112 days

kieranl

20-Nov-2014
2:38:38 PM

I believe that these matters will be discussed at the next Arapiles Advisory Committee meeting which I understand is next Monday.
I think Keith Lockwood, Gordon Poultney, Meg Sleeman, Tracey Skinner and Louise Shepherd are people associated with climbing on the committee so if you want to say something get a quick comment to one of them - probably too late for a multi-page manifesto.
I think a planned planting in the camping areas is required. A mix of slow and fast-growing native trees/shrubs suitable for a camping area. Maybe plant something distinctive in the pines area to recognise its origins as a commemorative plantation. But please let's forget radiata pines - we can acknowledge history without being obliged to repeat its mistakes.


goshen

20-Nov-2014
3:21:58 PM

Here's a suggestion for a replacement species (among others), what about Casuarinas... they are also commonly called Sheoaks. They are exceptionally hardy, and plant well in 'groves', cast reasonable shade and grow fairly quickly too. They even whistle in the wind - I'd miss that sound if the campground was filled with dust bowl inducing gums. The only downside is possibly the small cones, which if in larger numbers, could get annoying to put a tent over.

gfdonc

20-Nov-2014
3:41:17 PM

On 20/11/2014 kieranl wrote:
>as a commemorative plantation. But please let's forget radiata pines -
>we can acknowledge history without being obliged to repeat its mistakes.

I think you're missing the intent of the comments. There's considerable support for replacing like-for-like at the Pines. Radiata make pretty good camping places. They grow quickly, offer good shade and create a nice feel. They can easily be pruned of limbs at head height. They tend to stop other things growing underneath them (again, desirable for camping).

Not so good for biodiversity and a host of other places and applications - but good for campgrounds.
Plus, it's "The Pines" after all ..

kieranl

20-Nov-2014
3:59:08 PM

On 20/11/2014 gfdonc wrote:
>On 20/11/2014 kieranl wrote:
>>as a commemorative plantation. But please let's forget radiata pines
>-
>>we can acknowledge history without being obliged to repeat its mistakes.
>
>I think you're missing the intent of the comments. There's considerable
>support for replacing like-for-like at the Pines. Radiata make pretty
>good camping places. They grow quickly, offer good shade and create a
>nice feel. They can easily be pruned of limbs at head height. They tend
>to stop other things growing underneath them (again, desirable for camping).
>
>Not so good for biodiversity and a host of other places and applications
>- but good for campgrounds.
>Plus, it's "The Pines" after all ..
>
I'm not missing the intent of the comments, I just totally disagree with planting radiata at Arapiles. We could plant native pines there intermingled with more fast-growing species.
It's "The Pines" after all, not "The Radiata Pines"

dan_b

20-Nov-2014
5:29:34 PM

On 20/11/2014 mattwho wrote:

>It's pretty dry and dusty at the moment, I know summer is approaching
>but I'm pretty sure its getting worse.

Another contributing factor maybe lack fallen/decaying limbs. In early October this I saw a lot of people collecting fallen limbs etc from around the gums to use as firewood. This must in turn prevent leaf matter accumulating and leaving the ground more exposed and thus susceptible to erosion. Correct me if I'm wrong but collecting this wood is not allowed? If this is the case, maybe re-enforcing this point is worthwhile and help to minimize some of this.

Also, is any percentage of the recent camp-fee increases allocated to a replanting budget?

uwhp510

20-Nov-2014
5:46:18 PM

On 20/11/2014 kieranl wrote:
>I just totally disagree with
>planting radiata at Arapiles.

Why? What is actually wrong with radiata pines in a campground? Not PC enough?

martym

20-Nov-2014
5:47:01 PM

What ever they choose - industrial strength super tree guards will be required; otherwise drunk/irresponsible/unaware campers will trample/tie tents to/otherwise damage new plans.

The leaf litter and other top-soil encouraging techniques can be created with fenced off beds - just a few - but it would basically help the flora stay fresh.

kieranl

20-Nov-2014
9:50:54 PM

On 20/11/2014 uwhp510 wrote:
>On 20/11/2014 kieranl wrote:
>>I just totally disagree with
>>planting radiata at Arapiles.
>
>Why? What is actually wrong with radiata pines in a campground? Not
>PC enough?

They are weeds. Pure and simple. That's your answer.
What is this "PC" rubbish? What does this have to do with anything? Falling back on abuse when you don't have an argument.

Vortex21

20-Nov-2014
10:00:23 PM

They should have been removed long ago, and replanted. I guess there is a historical value but hardly.

patto

20-Nov-2014
10:12:11 PM

On 20/11/2014 kieranl wrote:
>They are weeds. Pure and simple. That's your answer.

How are they weeds now? They seem to have been perfectly fine and suitable at the pines for 50 years. They weren't a weed when there were planted. They haven't been a weed to the hundreds of thousands of climbers who have camped under them.

When did they become a weed all of a sudden?

A weed is a plant considered undesirable in a particular situation. (which is the common definition and that of wikipedia)


E. Wells

20-Nov-2014
10:41:59 PM

Plant Kurrajongs , They do orright in the dry stuff and are shady as bro.

kieranl

21-Nov-2014
9:41:04 AM

On 20/11/2014 patto wrote:
>On 20/11/2014 kieranl wrote:
>>They are weeds. Pure and simple. That's your answer.
>
>How are they weeds now? They seem to have been perfectly fine and suitable
>at the pines for 50 years. They weren't a weed when there were planted.
> They haven't been a weed to the hundreds of thousands of climbers who
>have camped under them.
>
>When did they become a weed all of a sudden?
>
>A weed is a plant considered undesirable in a particular situation. (which
>is the common definition and that of wikipedia)

Here are a few reasonably reliable references.

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/biodiversity/invasive/weeds/weeddetails.pl?taxon_id=20780
http://keyserver.lucidcentral.org/weeds/data/03030800-0b07-490a-8d04-0605030c0f01/media/Html/Pinus_radiata.htm
http://www.weedsbluemountains.org.au/radiata_pine.php
http://lwa.gov.au/node/2586


ajfclark

21-Nov-2014
9:47:35 AM

On 20/11/2014 patto wrote:
>When did they become a weed all of a sudden?

When we figured out that they poison the ground under them and are a significant fire hazard?

There are 71 messages in this topic.