Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife are on the verge of releasing their draft WHA (World Heritage Area) management plan, and it seems the main thrust of it will be to banish the word ‘Wilderness’ from any identity or acknowledgment within the plan.
Preposterous, unimaginable, antagonistic? – When it comes to the Liberal party and their gross disassociation and resentment of the natural environment, then it comes as no surprise that they intend to polarise the community when it relates to wilderness development versus the preservation concept.
So desperate is the Liberals’ motive, that the government even proposes to change the WHA-listed name to remove the term wilderness from its title. This is far beyond another international embarrassment. It is an insult to conservationists and most Australians, which will have broad ramifications for Tasmanian tourism, considering that the region lures people from around the world who wish to experience pristine wilderness.
Without question the Liberal party ideology of uninhibited development is the driving factor as the proposed removal of the term ‘wilderness zone’ is to be replaced by a term ‘natural zone’. Cultural heritage values appear to be encouraged and marked with the concept that wilderness is non-existent, which maybe is intentional to provoke or divide conservationists and the Aboriginal community.
Within the Draft Management Plan – Many of the natural values are understated or ignored. Indeed, the very existence of natural values is frequently portrayed as a doubtful proposition. The more recently extended areas to the WHA have received barely any recognition to their outstanding universal values.
Removing any notion of wilderness through a concept or zone appears intentional as to pave the way for Float-planes, helicopters, commercial walking huts, tourist lodges and new tracks and access roads, through the revision of the current ‘recreational zones’.
The draft also signals the fragmentation of power and responsibilities of Parks and Wildlife by suggesting other management authorities be enlisted such as a Cultural Business Unit in favour of broad-scale burning across the WHA, and a Tourism Master Plan committee to implement the recent expressions of interests for development proposals.
With the Liberals in power both on a State and Federal level it looks like tough times ahead for conservationists and more international condemnation towards our visionless leaders.
• Craig Farrell: Labor Backs increasing tourism opportunities
• Will Hodgman: The Pumphouse Points to Tourism Success
• Charlie Sherwin, Vica Bayley, Rob Campbell, Jenny Weber, Peter McGlone: Government threatens brand integrity, outstanding values and Tasmania’s reputation with proposal to abandon wilderness protection … The TCT Director Peter McGlone questioned the economic benefit of the government push to open wilderness areas to development, stating that “There are record numbers of tourists coming to Tasmania and a massive increase in numbers visiting national parks and doing iconic walks such as the Overland and South Coast Track so there seems to be no good economic reason for making it easier to build new attractions in wilderness areas. Tourism is booming at the moment and the government’s proposal to open wilderness areas to previously prohibited developments only threatens rather than benefits the future of the industry.” …
• Nick McKim: Draft WHA management plan a disaster for wilderness
• George Harris, in Comments: I write this in support of the state and federal government in their initiatives to move forward with the Management Plan, and to criticise the on-going campaign of disruption being waged by the Greens and their supporters and the groups they have nurtured. I reckon they did this to get the jump on how the media reacts. I hate …
• Matthew Groom: Support continues to flow for sensible and appropriate tourism
• Luke Martin: Balanced approach to Tasmania’s special places
• Eric Hutchinson: Don’t be selfish
• Ted Mead in Satire: WHA Tourist Experience
• mr t, in Comments: A quick observation on some of the posters. We have a new Liberal policy for world heritage forests ostensibly about tourism and recreational activities yet those in support of this policy are directly linked to forestry. This demonstrates the real driver is forestry and the denigration of world heritage values. Pretty shallow. Special timbers? Pig’s arse. This support from proponents of woodchipping native timbers over the years. It is not about tourism and forestry co-existing but about tourism in the prime wilderness areas with forestry to clearfell its preferred zones out of sight, as per usual. Another quick observation about so many forestry supporters in politics and the community. Most are well and truly middle aged or older males. Most will be dead and buried within 30 years or less. What makes them so desirous of crapping in their own nest before they kick the bucket and deny future generations enjoyment and employment? Such a sad bunch.
• George Harris, in Comments: Well! There you go… (#15) I find I have commented on tasmaniantimes without actually intending to do so! I had actually given up on tt, realizing that Paul Lennon’s description of it is pretty right: “F*@*ing useless!” …
• Russell Langfield, in Comments: Well! There you go… (#44). Mr 17% Paul Lennon is gone and TT’s still alive and well, so who’s “F*@*ing useless!”?
