Author |
|
27-Aug-2007 2:06:28 PM
|
Peak climbing season is now! We need Rosea open!
What are the issues?
Is it simply road access? In which case it would be legal to walk in from the Rosea Track intersection on the Bundaleer road. An extra 20 minutes perhaps?
|
27-Aug-2007 3:52:29 PM
|
Spoke about this with a ranger (who was sniffing around cave cliff) a week ago and sounds like pre-summer might even be realistic for Rosea. His comment was that if trees haven't fallen over from the fires yet then they basically must be safe! which sounds promising for walking tracks to reopen pretty quickly. The Sundial area seems to be the sticking point - sounds like it is still completely trashed and non-tourist friendly, which is what is stopping reopening of silverband rd, which is what is stopping rosea access.
|
27-Aug-2007 7:27:44 PM
|
Dammit, I need it open by next week.
|
27-Aug-2007 8:05:20 PM
|
On 27/08/2007 gfdonc wrote:
>What are the issues?
>Is it simply road access? In which case it would be legal to walk in
>from the Rosea Track intersection on the Bundaleer road. An extra 20 minutes
>perhaps?
There are a number of issues that have to be dealt with/are being dealt with in the opening of Rosea. Some bigger than others.
Getting the tracks and other work done around Sundial has been a priority before the Silverband Rd is opened. There is a strong likelihood though, that the Silverband Road will be open relatively soon, but that access to Rosea won't be at the same time. The other separate issue for Rosea, as I mentioned in previous postings, is tree risk assessment work and the tree risk work itself. Good news is that the assessment has now been done and confirmed by an arborist. There are about 26 trees that need work or removing and about another 23 that need clearing from the track. Until this is done and officially declared open, Rosea is still classed as a FAA. So, not legal to access. It is moving,but, not as fast as you would like unfortunately. Each bit of news is getting us closer and I do hope to have the kind that makes you smile sooner, rather than later.
|
30-Aug-2007 10:07:37 PM
|
Might be interesting trying to locate the old track in since I assume they will only fix up the tourist track.
|
31-Aug-2007 8:44:44 AM
|
Good point. However, based on what I saw at Bundaleer the burnt undergrowth makes the path quite visible.
However, can we lobby for a "climbers access" sign at the track junction? This "closed" track is still important to us.
|
31-Aug-2007 9:14:26 AM
|
>However, can we lobby for a "climbers access" sign at the track junction?
there used to be one there on a very short little star picket (from which the sign seemed to disappear and re-appear every now and then) so presumably parks woudn't be averse to the idea.
|
31-Aug-2007 9:52:30 AM
|
yep, the old sign that used to be pinched regularly (who has one in their shed???) was PV-approved.
Tracey - how many of those 23 trees are on the climbers track?
|
31-Aug-2007 3:52:27 PM
|
All of the 23 trees are on the climbers track John. Including one enormous one that will require an advanced faller to remove it. Soon after the fires there were 16 with another 7 that have come down in the meantime due to the strong winds. As well as that, the arborist has confirmed that there are 26 trees that need work by either completely removing them due to high risk or have limbs that need to be removed for the same reason.
With regards to the signage, there are a 'climbers access' signs that have been removed from a number of areas . One of the main reasons for this, especially in areas that are shared by other users, is to deter non climbers from heading in there for a bit of a look,therein reducing the risk of accidents from falling rock. The understanding also of this, is that climbers in general should have a guide book so the signage isn't necessary.
|
20-Nov-2007 10:20:00 PM
|
After some success with funding, Parks Victoria have started on further fire recovery works. Work has begun on a number of campgrounds and the tree risk work for Rosea is scheduled in for after Christmas. Unfortunately it will still be a while before it is re-opened. Silverband Road opening has been pushed back with some work also needing to be done there. Realistically, and I can hear you groaning already, it could be Easter.
Better news for some of the less visited cliffs. Mt. William is now accessible for climbing. Mt. Frederick, Bovine Cliff and Redmans Bluff are very close to inspection and assessment and will let you know as soon as possible. Keep checking the VCC website www.vicclimb.org.au on the CliffCare page for updates.
|
21-Nov-2007 7:55:33 AM
|
Good news re funding. Let us know how & when we can assist with a working bee so the climbing community can contribute rather than bitch.
Are there any special skills you think you'll need for the working bee team?
|
21-Nov-2007 8:33:06 AM
|
On 20/11/2007 Access T wrote:
>Better news for some of the less visited cliffs. Mt. William is now accessible
>for climbing. Mt. Frederick, Bovine Cliff and Redmans Bluff are very close
>to inspection and assessment and will let you know as soon as possible.
Are these areas currently banned? The roads have been open right next to them for months. I know people (myself included) have been climbing there thinking it was ok.
|
21-Nov-2007 5:16:23 PM
|
On 27/08/2007 Access T wrote:
There are about 26 trees that need work
>or removing and about another 23 that need clearing from the track. Until
>this is done and officially declared open, Rosea is still classed as a
>FAA. So, not legal to access. It is moving,but, not as fast as you would
>like unfortunately. Each bit of news is getting us closer and I do hope
>to have the kind that makes you smile sooner, rather than later.
On 31/08/2007 Access T wrote:
>All of the 23 trees are on the climbers track John.
This is bloody rediculous and it's time somebody said so. 23 + 26 = 49 suspect trees along a track that's about a kilometre long. Let's assume they will all fall down within a year. It takes about ten seconds to walk past a tree.
There are 365 x 24 x 60 x 60 = 31,536,000 seconds in a year.
If I walk past each of the 23 suspect trees twice, I will be under them for:
49 x 2 x 10 = 460 seconds.
The chance of one of them falling when I'm there is:
980
---------------------- = 0.00003
31,536,000
That means there is an 0.003 % chance of a tree falling on me. That’s a one in 32,000 chance.
I'm at more risk from all the other trees I walk under in a year, just because there's so many of them.
It's nearly two years since the area was burnt, and we are still waiting to be allowed to go back to Mt Rosea.
This really isn't good enough.
JamesMc
|
21-Nov-2007 6:08:43 PM
|
I agree James!...and how about all the trees along all the 100kms of roads in the Grampians? The last
two trips to the Vic Ranges i've had to either tow or drive off-road to avoid large trees that had fallen over
the road. Trying to make trees in a natural forest 'safe' by choppign them down is about as sensible as
trying to cull kangaroos so they don't jump in front of my car everytime i'm in the Gramps.
|
21-Nov-2007 6:27:01 PM
|
The tree issue is pretty strange really. I did a rogaine a few weeks ago in a national park north of melbourne which was badly burnt by fires a couple of years ago. I witnessed two trees fall within 100m of me during the 24 hours. Being rogaining it didn't rate as a hazard worth mentioning to the competitors. Aren't NPs being a bit precious here?
|
21-Nov-2007 8:25:40 PM
|
>i'm pretty sure they can, i've heard of mountain bikers getting fines for riding on non-vehicular tracks.
its true, i almost got fined at warrandyte state park.
|
21-Nov-2007 8:59:10 PM
|
So how long before I can bushwalk in the Serra Range? Is walking south of Rosea banned? If so, what are the criteria for opening that area to walking again? Does every tree in the area have to be examined?
I do have to laugh about the the concept of Mt Frederick being "cleared" for climbing access. No-one wanted to go there before the fires so I can't see why scarce Park resources would be wasted on opening it up again.
|
22-Nov-2007 8:46:26 AM
|
Yeah surely a sign or two that says "this area hasn't been cleared of trees since the fires and so we don't warrant that one won't fall on you, but go in if you want to at your own risk" would solve the problem. Then if people want to run the gauntlet of crashing branches they can and no one will think parks is responsible for them.
J
|
22-Nov-2007 12:24:31 PM
|
On 21/11/2007 nmonteith wrote:
>about as sensible as
>trying to cull kangaroos so they don't jump in front of my car everytime
>i'm in the Gramps.
Sounds like a great suggestion!! What was your point again??
|
22-Nov-2007 12:30:06 PM
|
>What was your point again??
He uses his car to chop down roos maybe?
:)
Actually I'm with James Mc & nm on this.
The policy seems a bit obtuse. No wonder 'some' climbers are anarchists!
|