Discrimination or not

[Scotty72]

Surely most parks are big enough to have easy access areas on the one hand and others that are accessible only to Rambo and his mates.

[peterb666]

But in the end, all of these problems only arise because we are trying to get more and more people into this country and the great Australian ability to go bush is fast disappearing.

I agree
Too many People. that just means more Clearing of our beautiful bushland to make way for them and our own growing population

Australia is one of the least populated countries on the earth but we don't use the space we have wisely with every idiot* demanding a 1/4 acre lot within minutes of the CDB and with ocean views on one side and spectacular views on the other, walking distance to everything and a car park on very corner as they won't walk the walking distance.

Intelligent use of urban areas and the right infrastructure would mean there is more farmland and bushland for everyone and the means to be able to see it in an orderly fashion.

You are right on one point. At times there seems to be too many people. Try going to somewhere like Mahon Pool. Even a couple of years ago I could go there at the wee small hours of the morning but the last couple of times it has been wall-to-wall togs.

* A generic term not directed at anyone in particular and especially not anyone on AP.

[mrDooba]

The thought of paving every track in the outback makes me cry. By the time I get my 4WD I won't bloody well need it

[macmich]

we used to camp at the base of ayres rock and explore the caves underneath
no entrance fee no rangers no problems
apart from the idiots that wreck it for everyone
you have open slather in national parks with easy access for everyone
you would have the scrub demolished with inconsiderate pigs
the breed and the way people are bought up these days is just so diffrent from years ago
we were taught to respect the bush
the kids just dont care anymore
evev back in those days at ayres rock an yank tourist had managed to drag a rubbish bin full of golf balls to the top of the rock byhimself
and stood there with a 3 iron belting one after the other off the top
you had other idiots camping at night having comps who could catch the mot jumpimg mice and kill them in a night
please do not make it easier for the idiots to wreck this country
cheers macca

[mikec]

Surely most parks are big enough to have easy access areas on the one hand and others that are accessible only to Rambo and his mates.

That's even less sustainable than what we do now Scotty. Do you even understand how wrong that statement is? That's the whole reason we have urban sprawl destroying so many native habitats etc... Just because we have "space" Doesn't mean we should build something in it for Joe Blow.

Our national parks are very finite resources, they may appear big but they surely aren't.

peterb666 and Duane Pipe, you are both pretty close of the money there in my eyes and is part of the problem with parks, we are a very resource hungry animal us humans and seem to place so much demand on our environment, too much.

[Scotty72]

That's even less sustainable than what we do now Scotty. Do you even understand how wrong that statement is? That's the whole reason we have urban sprawl destroying so many native habitats etc... Just because we have "space" Doesn't mean we should build something in it for Joe Blow.

Our national parks are very finite resources, they may appear big but they surely aren't.

I don't understand why we can build a road or accessable path to the edge of a park where there may be a vantage point. I certainly am not an advocate for a road to a Westfields in the Megalong Valley but, that road to the lookouts near the Three Sisters is not unreasonable. It is not acceptable to tell disabled, 'Go away, you are not capable of enjoying nature.'

I am with Geoff. I think too many excuses are used to justify not doing enough to give those with mobility problems a big of equity and dignity. Be it in parks or the urban environment. Too often, wheelchair users and the elderly etc are reduced to missing out or using a side entrance built as an after-though behind the loading dock. That is just unacceptable.

Scotty

[Kym]

I hiked through part of Tasmania in December 1973 from Lake St Clair to Cradle Mountain over 6 days.

Today it's all board-walked and you can only travel south due to the volume of traffic.

In 1973 very few did the trek - when we were there in March last year the seemed to be a trail of ants walking down the board walk from the helicopter view (we had a joy flight).

I'm glad I had the unadulterated experience in '73, but understand the need for protection now.

[Scotty72]

Australia is one of the least populated countries on the earth but we don't use the space we have wisely with every idiot* demanding a 1/4 acre lot within minutes of the CDB and with ocean views on one side and spectacular views on the other, walking distance to everything and a car park on very corner as they won't walk the walking distance.

Intelligent use of urban areas and the right infrastructure would mean there is more farmland and bushland for everyone and the means to be able to see it in an orderly fashion.

You are right on one point. At times there seems to be too many people. Try going to somewhere like Mahon Pool. Even a couple of years ago I could go there at the wee small hours of the morning but the last couple of times it has been wall-to-wall togs.

* A generic term not directed at anyone in particular and especially not anyone on AP.

This is very true.
Urban Australians, on average, would not use the subway if it stopped directly under their front door. We tend to demand roads are built everywhere, and built many lanes wide... At the same time, they shouldn't take up any space, they should be free and we should absolutely never be subjected to other people using it when I do and creating a jam.

I once heard a transport planner tell a uni lecture, 'In Australia, public transport is something everybody else should use so the roads are clear for ME, ME, ME.'

And, yes, too many of us want to live in our big house, have two cars, live near schools, public transport (that we don't use), the beach and/or the bush etc. The only problem is, who here will put up their hand to give up their right to have children (or if already past that - would have given up your kids) or aspire to the big house or the suburban lifestyle?

Anyone?

Scotty

[Scotty72]

I hiked through part of Tasmania in December 1973 from Lake St Clair to Cradle Mountain over 6 days.

Today it's all board-walked and you can only travel south due to the volume of traffic.

In 1973 very few did the trek - when we were there in March last year the seemed to be a trail of ants walking down the board walk from the helicopter view (we had a joy flight).

I'm glad I had the unadulterated experience in '73, but understand the need for protection now.

So, you were spraying the area with exhaust fumes?

[geoffsta]

How far did you have to travel only to be disappointed like that Geoff.

I traveled just under 600km's on that day. Went to Victoria River Falls on the Mount Hotham Road, and Little River Falls on the Mckillops Bridge Road as well. Both had lookouts, but could not get a good glimps or photo because of the undergrowth being well and truly overgrown. A sad day really. for all that time I got 5 images. One of a rock mountain, another couple of a high country stream, one more landscape, and two dead dingoes on a sign post. The Cobberas was the worst letdown though.

[mikec]

I don't understand why we can build a road or accessable path to the edge of a park where there may be a vantage point. I certainly am not an advocate for a road to a Westfields in the Megalong Valley but, that road to the lookouts near the Three Sisters is not unreasonable. It is not acceptable to tell disabled, 'Go away, you are not capable of enjoying nature.'

I am with Geoff. I think too many excuses are used to justify not doing enough to give those with mobility problems a big of equity and dignity. Be it in parks or the urban environment. Too often, wheelchair users and the elderly etc are reduced to missing out or using a side entrance built as an after-though behind the loading dock. That is just unacceptable.

Scotty, if you read my post above addressed to WhoDo you'd see I work in the building industry and I know far too well what is required these days for equitable access. I know how difficult it is to make new buildings have equitable access and I can tell you it's not just a tacked on after thought, if we don't do it, we get sued by the users. We can't make an ambulant users walk around the side of the building to use another entrance, it's an act of discrimination, again we'd get sued.

The discussion was starting to talk about making all areas / parks accessible, sometimes this isn't possible in my eyes because we shouldn't be destroying nature so a small portion of the population can see it too, I'd rather not have access to it myself if it meant there would have to be accessible infrastructure created, thus heavily impacting the park, so I could enjoy it along side ambulant users. I would hate to imagine, what it'd take to make some parks accessable, would you like to see a lift in a National Park? Because that's what some would require.

I agree, the Three Sisters lookout is well equipped, but not all parks can be that accessible.

The parks aren't here for us to enjoy, they are here to preserve them, they would be quite happy without us around.

FWIW I would happily give up my "right" to the big suburban house, because it simply isn't sustainable, I live less than 5km from my place of work and could happily continue to.

[Scotty72]

Scotty, if you read my post above addressed to WhoDo you'd see I work in the building industry and I know far too well what is required these days for equitable access. I know how difficult it is to make new buildings have equitable access and I can tell you it's not just a tacked on after thought, if we don't do it, we get sued by the users. We can't make an ambulant users walk around the side of the building to use another entrance, it's an act of discrimination, again we'd get sued.

The discussion was starting to talk about making all areas / parks accessible, sometimes this isn't possible in my eyes because we shouldn't be destroying nature so a small portion of the population can see it too, I'd rather not have access to it myself if it meant there would have to be accessible infrastructure created, thus heavily impacting the park, so I could enjoy it along side ambulant users. The parks aren't here for us to enjoy, they are here to help us live on this planet, they would be quite happy without us around.

Maybe the standards are tougher in Qld but, in NSW there are still plently of dumb designs that keep wheelchair users from fully accessing the building. The building where I work is a classic eg. Without word of exaggeration, we have:

a) one 'wheelchair ramp' that is terrifyingly steep: ought to have been installed at Luna Park instead.
b) another 'wheelchair ramp' that is gentle enough but, it leads straight to the bottom of about 2 or three more steps (what's the point?)
c) a three year old building with no ramps on one side (so a wheelchair does need to go around to the back entrance) whilst the other side has a ramp but, about 5 feet from the botton the path stops and turns to grass (muddy when wet).

Perhaps the OP did say all areas / parks should be accessable (I didn't read it that way) but, MY RESPONSE was that parks should have one area set aside (even at the edge).

Scotty

[Kym]

It's one thing for building codes to define equitable access (and should),
but pragmatically disabled people will miss out on many things due to their disabilities (and the severity)... that's life.
Eg. there is no wheel chair access to the top of Ayers Rock, nor should there be.
You have to meet some basic abilities to do the Harbour Bridge climb; similar situation.

National Parks have limited access, rough terrain etc., and to provide special access is often detrimental to the park and should not happen in those cases.

[mikec]

Scotty, it's an Australia wide standard. If you feel your work place isn't up to spec and it is a disadvantage to users, let it be known because it is important in the built environment.

Kym, you hit the nail on the head.

[geoffsta]

I hope this is not offensive.
I started this thread talking about important areas within our parks that have some significance, that are inaccessible to people with disabilities. I am not saying that all areas should be opened, and I do agree that some areas need to be closed to the public. But these areas should be properly maintained.

Many images in this forum are landscapes, and Mike your images of rock climbing are spectacular. But it would be a shame if you could not take them because all access to these areas were closed to the public. Or the distance to reach them is too far to bother with. It would be like not being able to go to the Sydney Opera House, but you are allowed to view if from the Harbour Bridge, or not allowed to into the graffitti alleys, but allowed to stand on the other side of the road. Or not allowed down to the Currumbin Rocks for fear of damage to the natural formation of the rocks.

[Tannin]

No offence taken, Geoff. What you say is exactly the point. the day of being able to go 'most anywhere are drawing to a close. That great Australian freedom is disappearing fast, and the driving force behind that loss of freedom is population growth. It's not just photographers, it's exactly the same whether you want to fish, or ride a trailbike, or anything else outdoors. Stick to fishing as a good, non-controversial example - the more people there are holding rods and taking fish out of the rivers, the smaller the catch you or I can get, and the greater the risk of damage through over-fishing - and all of that leads to stricter regulations on closed seasons, bag limits, type of bait, and whether you can fish a particular water at all. You can blame the *&%$%$ fisheries officers, but the real cause of your problems is population growth.

[colinbm]

We want to see the bush, ocean & open plains, we want it all
What about the little creatures & plants that can only live there & no where else
Col

[Kym]

Fishing in SA ...

[Dylan & Marianne]

If you could build access to all the wonders of nature in the world AND preserve the ecology, nature and character of the area, then yes, I don't think that unecessary barriers should be put up.
However, areas do become victims of their success and it becomes more and more difficult to maintain the balance of those three aspects.
Taking a local example : I've been walking/running/hiking up to Mount Lofty for the last 20 years. 20 years ago, the trail head was tiny, the middle section bogged over in winter, and the top of Mount Lofty had a tower and a small gift shop. I used to love doing the trail then because not very many people did it so I could zone out, and be in nature so close to home. Just last weekend, I had to fight to find a park at its base, dodge in and around literally hundreds of people on a path which is now bitumen from top to bottom. The environment itself is preserved ( I think ) but the character of it is just totally gone. I go there now as a time trial for fitness only.
Taking the overland track as another example from a different point of view. On my first walk in 2003, the middle section had no boardwalk and so you'd literally be walking in a mire and churning up the environment. Sure it was less crowded but every walker was essentially blazing new trails in a fragile environment. I did it agian in late 2008 when much of this section had been boardwalked. The improvements to the track have meant more visitors but people actually use the boardwalk and so instead of 50 trampled vague paths, there is now one used boardwalk. I don't think the character and nature have suffered in this case, and if anything, the ecology has probably been preserved more due to the accessibility - mind you, you still can't get to it if disabled.
Taking Everest base camp as an example: I actually felt guilty doing that trail because all along the way, I could see the effects of tourism and western influence. Trash lining the towns, loud mouthed tourists bullying locals into that last rupee in a bargain to save 5c (for what exactly?), and most of all , pollution of a culture that has been present there for likely many a century. It would be a sad sad day when a railway heads up to basecamp and further because of the even wider influence of external cultures to the area. Mind you , for me guilt was only a small emotion amongst the grandeur.

So is it discrimination? I think that's a question you need to ask mother nature and the local culture and ecology. My answer is : it depends - you can't make too many generalisations in this argument. Some natural wonders will always be more accessable than others , while some are always going to be more remote and its remoteness , is often the source of its beauty and mystique. If they all of a sudden banned access to Niagara falls which is surrounded by accessable areas, that would be .....odd....But if they build a road from Lake St Clair to Cradle Mountain along the overland track, many including me would find that.....odd....

by the way, because of the reasons you started this thread, that is why I love Iceland - no barriers but your common sense

[Duane Pipe]

I traveled just under 600km's on that day. Went to Victoria River Falls on the Mount Hotham Road, and Little River Falls on the Mckillops Bridge Road as well. Both had lookouts, but could not get a good glimps or photo because of the undergrowth being well and truly overgrown. A sad day really. for all that time I got 5 images. One of a rock mountain, another couple of a high country stream, one more landscape, and two dead dingoes on a sign post. The Cobberas was the worst letdown though.

It sounds like you had a really good day trip planed Geoff but what a bummer it turned out to be hay.
The fires have done wonders to the bush with all the new regrowth but it has made many of my favourite sits unrecognisable and inaccessible too