Author |
Grampians Peak Trail Master Plan |
|
|
23-May-2014 12:31:00 PM
|
http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/explore/parks/grampians-national-park/plans-and-projects/grampians-peak-trail
Submissions must be received by close of business Wednesday 11 June 2014
Community briefings and drop-in sessions
Friday 23 May 2014 - 5.30pm to 7.30pm
Parks Victoria office Halls Gap, Mural Room
Grampians Tourist Road, Halls Gap
Monday 26 May - 2.00pm to 3.30pm
The Wander Inn
Northern Grampians Road, Wartook
Monday 26 May - 6.30pm to 8.00pm
Dunkeld Bowls Club
Willis Street, Dunkeld
|
23-May-2014 6:22:59 PM
|
Page 68
Average daily revenue from an independent walker - $50
That's a big spend to pitch your tent on wooden boards.
A great walk in New Zealand charges about that much for hut accomodation with mattresses and gas supplied.
|
23-May-2014 7:28:29 PM
|
144 km in 14 days. They really are catering for the geriatrics.
Ps I should say cashed up geriatrics.
|
24-May-2014 9:38:44 AM
|
Sounds like the perfect bushwalk for you Stugang.
|
24-May-2014 10:12:34 AM
|
Aaahhhh rosco. I see your inner smartarse that we all know and love in the flesh has finally succumbed to chockstone. Well done for being so professionally detached for so long. It must have been hard for someone like you.
Ps let me know if you want some natural hair for your new toupee. I've got plenty.
|
26-May-2014 11:45:45 AM
|
Since when do "hikers" exist in Australia?
|
26-May-2014 12:20:42 PM
|
On 26/05/2014 maxdacat wrote:
>Since when do "hikers" exist in Australia?
Since "biscuits" became "cookies" I expect.
edit : I'm going to one of the community meetings today to see what they have to say. Wondering how they are going to deal with having the tent platforms and huts burnt out every decade or so. All parts of the walk have been burnt by wildfire within the last decade with some of the walk having been burnt twice in that time.
|
26-May-2014 1:45:25 PM
|
On 26/05/2014 kieranl wrote:
>On 26/05/2014 maxdacat wrote:
>>Since when do "hikers" exist in Australia?
>Since "biscuits" became "cookies" I expect.
>
... and about the same time that 'track' became 'trail'.
|
27-May-2014 7:54:28 AM
|
and programme become program and organize etc etc . . . .
|
27-May-2014 9:11:34 AM
|
There are some unintentionally funny bits of the master plan.
There's a great aerial photo on Page 9 showing the smoke plume from the early stages of last year's Vic Range fire shooting south-west into Bass Strait past King Island.
Perhaps that one wasn't well thought through.
|
27-May-2014 9:20:55 AM
|
There were a couple of interesting things at the meeting yesterday.
It was pointed out that it was presumptive to include privately owned infrastructure within the park as, despite the current government supporting the idea, it wasn't yet permissible.
There was also a fair bit of scepticism about whether the walk would actually get built.
|
27-May-2014 12:15:14 PM
|
"Master plan" itself sounds rather funny. I have a master plan to take over the world ...
Like so many of these documents, it seems extremely optimistic. Sure, it would be a fantastic walk. I'm also sure it's basically been done before by off track walkers a lot. But really, is there enough demand to chuck a bunch of huts on it??? Are there ever going to be 24 people at every campsite along the walk in their carrying capacity earning estimates? Do most areas of the grampians need raised wooden platforms for tent sites? Where are the platforms at any of the existing tent sites??? Like the $50000 spent on pointless development reports on arapiles that resulted in absolutely nothing, someone will probably reaslise this one won't be economically viable either. Maybe if they toned it down a bit it might. Still, I think it's a bit over the top, but I'm not really seeing any major reason to object to it, especially as what private operator is likely to take on building and running all those hiker lodges anyway?
And whilst $50 a night seems like rather a lot to expect to earn from it, they are probably going to charge that a night just for the site under the new fees. Obviously they haven't heard about CPI though, as they have the same figures for 2015 and 2025.
|
27-May-2014 1:59:07 PM
|
On 27/05/2014 Wendy wrote:
> Still, I think
>it's a bit over the top, but I'm not really seeing any major reason to
>object to it, especially as what private operator is likely to take on
>building and running all those hiker lodges anyway?
>
Yes. I imagine it will be fairly hard to get insurance for them. The Mt Difficult Range has been burnt twice in the last 8 years, The Mt Zero Range twice in the last 15 years and the Mt William Range 8 years ago. These huts are unlikely to be defendable from wildfire. Parks is intending to evacuate walkers in case of fire or code red days so the huts aren't being seen as potential fire refuges.
Parks Idea is for all of the built infrastructure to be basically steel with wood superstructure to soften it. After a fire the steel should still be intact and the wood bits can be replaced. It would still be expensive to replace the superstructure of a building as opposed to a tent platform. The other issue for a private business owning the buildings is the potential lengthy times when sections of the track are shut down after fire. With the track closed buildings on that section are unusable.
|
27-May-2014 3:58:05 PM
|
From the Master Plan ...
POWER
Each hiker camp may provide unobtrusive, solar powered charge points for small electrical devices such as phones, GPS devices and digital cameras. To maintain a true camping experience, charge points will not run larger electrical devices or lights.
Ah, camping in the 21st century.
|
27-May-2014 4:32:40 PM
|
On 27/05/2014 earwig wrote:
>From the Master Plan ...
>
>POWER
>To maintain a true camping experience, charge points will not run larger
>electrical devices
>
>Ah, camping in the 21st century.
how are the boulderers going to charge there lectric pruning saws then?
mebe they will leave there own sola panels hidden in the bush? but would be a worry to them in a bushfire ay.
|
27-May-2014 7:34:27 PM
|
Another Funny bit is the suggestion of getting volunteers to do track maintenance.
Not if we have to pay $50 per night to camp!
|
27-May-2014 7:44:36 PM
|
What, i can't take my plasma tv? If i'm paying $50, i want to be able to power my plasma tv! Seriously, what is that nonsense? If you really have to charge your whatever device, can't you bring your own mini solar charger???? And a fluoro light uses fûck all power, how are they going to miraculously differentiate between a low wattage globe and whatever else they would like you to plug in?
|
27-May-2014 8:49:49 PM
|
Sarcasm aside (do you even own a plasma TV Wendy? Or any TV at all?) there is much in this proposal to digest and comment on.
I note the proposal to develop hiker "/climber" accommodation at Stapylton. I bet the hikers will have trouble getting in. Do they not understand this is a world-renowned destination for climbers?
I also note with wry amusement the justification of fees .. comparing the walk to Milford and the Overland track has been commented on earlier, but also note they compare the track to the Larapinta (fair comparison) which curiously does not appear in the list of tracks selected to justify a trail fee .. perhaps because there isn't one?
More time & effort justified on this one peeps .. just so you understand I'm in support of the proposal but guidance is warranted.
ST
|
27-May-2014 9:22:25 PM
|
On 27/05/2014 kieranl wrote:
>There were a couple of interesting things at the meeting yesterday.
>It was pointed out that it was presumptive to include privately owned
>infrastructure within the park as, despite the current government supporting
>the idea, it wasn't yet permissible.
>There was also a fair bit of scepticism about whether the walk would actually
>get built.
Maybe follow the Overland track model ... make the walk first, then let the infrastructure follow.
It was well established in 1975 when I first walked it, with public huts, no track fees and less duckboards.
Eventually the fame came and with it shuttle buses and catered accommodation.
Also now I think of it they are proposing year-round track fees .. last I checked the overland only required fees during the peak season.
|
27-May-2014 9:26:47 PM
|
On 27/05/2014 Wendy wrote:
>campsite along the walk in their carrying capacity earning estimates? Do
>most areas of the grampians need raised wooden platforms for tent sites?
>Where are the platforms at any of the existing tent sites??? Like the $50000
>spent on pointless development reports on arapiles that resulted in absolutely
>nothing, someone will probably reaslise this one won't be economically
>viable either. Maybe if they toned it down a bit it might.
The existing report looks very pretty, too - another $50,000 of public money spent on consultants instead of direct benefits perhaps?
Sorry I'll stop ranting now .. but the more I see this the more Kerry Packer's words ring in my ears ..
"Now of course I am minimizing my tax and if anybody in this country doesn't minimize their tax they want their heads read because as a government I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be donating extra."
|